[lassie]

I was reading recently that 93% of communication is non-verbal.

This value came about due to the result of an experiment by Albert Mehrabian. He revealed that humans understand face to face communication in the following ratios 7% = spoken word, 55% = body language, 38% = tone of voice.

I know that there is some dubiety on these ratios, but regardless of that I began to wonder if it would it be possible to communicate solely on body language and tone. Animals use these two elements very effectively, and people with different languages usually default to trying to communicate in this way.

In terms of human evolution, the spoken word must have come much later yet it still seems to add little to overall communication. so is the spoken word overrated?

[taymaxi]

I think the literal spoken word is rated about as highly as it should be: not very. Just think about it, when you're talking with someone and their words don't match their body language and/or tone, which one do you believe? I think most people unconsciously understand that the spoken word is just a vehicle for non-verbal communication in its delivery.

I think we need verbal language for written communication much more than spoken, because obviously written communication depends solely on the words we choose rather than how we deliver them.

[lassie]

Good point about the written aspect of communication taymaxi, I agree with you there.

I was wondering more about if it would be possible to discard the spoken word and still communicate effectively. I suppose that the deaf community use gesture and words (albeit unspoken) without needing vocal tone so that is another approach.

[thod]

This is an easy experiment. Just talk to someone that speaks no English. See how much you understand based on his body language and tone of voice.

[lassie]

I have tried that to a certain extent with some Lithuanian friends as I don't speak their language but I only had limited success.

Perhaps a better scenario to use is when we communicate with communication disabled people, or babies/young children. In these interactions, gesture and tone become even more important.

[CreepyCrawly]

You need language to convey abstract concepts and extended ideas. You can survive just fine without language in a small tribal society where all you need to do is eat and fuck, but try doing (and reporting) a scientific experiment without involving language somehow.

[lassie]

	Originally Posted by CreepyCrawly To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You need language to convey abstract concepts and extended ideas. You can survive just fine without language in a small tribal society where all you need to do is eat and fuck, but try doing (and reporting) a scientific experiment without involving language somehow.

Sooo right Creepy Crawly, words are the best way to allow us to do these tasks, but I am interested in how far we could get without using words. One simple example is how army specialists (or tribal people) use gestures to allow them to communicate in covert operations, their lives depend on getting it right. Joe public wouldn't be so good at it because we just don't have the skills.

[thod]

So do you, so do we all. You probably use gestures without knowing you are doing it. A smile means the same in any language. However many (most) arm gestures do not translate. Pointing, to indicate something, is one I should think is universal.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This value came about due to the result of an experiment by Albert Mehrabian. He revealed that humans understand face to face communication in the following ratios 7% = spoken word, 55% = body language, 38% = tone of voice.

Ah, so that's where the person who wrote the article in this
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
got those statistics. I was wondering how the author arrived at those numbers.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sooo right Creepy Crawly, words are the best way to allow us to do these tasks, but I am interested in how far we could get without using words. One simple example is how army specialists (or tribal people) use gestures to allow them to communicate in covert operations, their lives depend on getting it right. Joe public wouldn't be so good at it because we just don't have the skills.

So...you think that the use of specialized gestures as tactical commands used in the military to execute highly specialized maneuvers are a good example of how to communicate without words?

Well, good luck formulating any such plans, tactical maneuvers, strategies, and performing intelligence operations necessary to get there without words.

[Zsych]

You can't do complex communication without words. Average human interaction however is a separate issue. I've certainly had conversations of sorts where I couldn't hear the other person but just responded based on what their body language implied they expected.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Hah yeah.

It doesn't really take that much for "average human communication".

[Warrior]

Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was reading recently that 93% of communication is non-verbal. This value came about due to the result of an experiment by Albert Mehrabian. He revealed that humans understand face to face communication in the following ratios 7% = spoken word, 55% = body language, 38% = tone of voice. I know that there is some dubiety on these ratios, but regardless of that I began to wonder if it would it be possible to communicate solely on body language and tone. Animals use these two elements very effectively, and people with different languages usually default to trying to communicate in this way. In terms of human evolution, the spoken word must have come much later yet it still seems to add little to overall communication. so is the spoken word overrated?

If your question is strictly about spoken communication, it's possible to convey very complicated concepts without speaking. Sign language is the most obvious example.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If your question is strictly about spoken communication, it's possible to convey very complicated concepts without speaking. Sign language is the most obvious example.

No, it's about VERBAL communication. Meaning communication with WORDS.

Sign language is pretty obviously verbal as it involves words......it being a, you know, LANGUAGE, and all.......


I can't be the only one that knows that.......can I?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[lassie]

AlfredSchnittke said "good luck formulating any such plans, tactical maneuvers, strategies, and performing intelligence operations necessary to get there without words".

Good joke Alfred. It was just a simple example, not a definitive approach.

Zsych said: "You can't do complex communication without words. Average human interaction however is a separate issue. I've certainly had conversations of sorts where I couldn't hear the other person but just responded based on what their body language implied they expected"

You are correct of course, Zsych, words are necessary in the modern world, and it goes without saying that we understand the body language/gestural and tonal elements used in daily life. Babies have this as an inbuilt natural skill (pre-verbal).

Taymaxi put it quite well I think. Taymaxi said "the spoken word is just a vehicle for non-verbal communication in its delivery"

We will never be able to turn the clock back to know for certain, and I am no history expert, but I am still curious to know how we communicated before we had spoken words.

[Warrior]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, it's about VERBAL communication. Meaning communication with WORDS. Sign language is pretty obviously verbal as it involves words......it being a, you know, LANGUAGE, and all....... I can't be the only one that knows that.......can I? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, which is why I put some emphasis on spoken in my comment because both the statistics in the original post and the question by the OP specified the spoken word.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	AlfredSchnittke said "good luck formulating any such plans, tactical maneuvers, strategies, and performing intelligence operations necessary to get there without words". Good joke Alfred. It was just a simple example, not a definitive approach.

Yes, the joke was meant to illustrate how utterly horrific the example was.

---------- Post added 06-25-2012 at 07:16 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by Warrior To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, which is why I put some emphasis on spoken in my comment because both the statistics in the original post and the question by the OP specified the spoken word.

It must have been a semantic slip...people are often lazy and interchange linguistic with spoken.

Just like people often say verbal when they mean oral.

[lassie]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It must have been a semantic slip...people are often lazy and interchange linguistic with spoken. Just like people often say verbal when they mean oral.

Aaw Alfred. Have you been munching on that Dictionary again? Seriously though, I don't want to get into semantic arguments, so can we please not go down that route : -). The author of the original experiment used the word verbal so I just re-quoted it. I am not disputing or analysing the 7/38/55 rule, it just got me thinking about the topic.

[Oros Ull]

I think it would be difficult if not impossible to convey abstract principles without language. Immediate intercommunication however would probably be much easier if it was limited only to body language.

---------- Post added 06-25-2012 at 12:04 PM ----------

NVM you guys beat me to it…

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously though, I don't want to get into semantic arguments, so can we please not go down that route : -).

So...you don't believe that different words have different meanings? o.O

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So...you think that the use of specialized gestures as tactical commands used in the military to execute highly specialized maneuvers are a good example of how to communicate without words? Well, good luck formulating any such plans, tactical maneuvers, strategies, and performing intelligence operations necessary to get there without words.

Such signals are words. Speech and language comprise what's explicitly being communicated. In a scenario as you've described, abrupt or hasty hand movements would take the place of "tone of voice" in regular verbal communication.

I disagree with the ratios presented in the OP, since any literal definition requires explicit communication (and therefore must comprise more than 7% of information exchanged), but that still doesn't mean that signed communication constitutes "body language" as such

[lassie]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So...you don't believe that different words have different meanings? o.O

Of course I do, Alfred {*..*}

You said earlier that "people are often lazy and interchange linguistic with spoken". I could be wrong but I think that linguistics is probably a subset within speech itself, which can then be broken down further into discrete areas such as semantics, pragmatics etc. This is what a speech and language therapist has to do when dealing with someone who has a communication disorder. My youngest son has autism so I have learned one or two things about speech and language development over the years.


JTG: You make a valid point in disputing the ratios in the OP as many others are questioning them too. The ratios were quoted from Albert Mehrabian's experimental findings. Thanks, you have made a good point that sign language effectively contains all the main elements (words, tone and gestures) but without the need for sound. I have worked with people from the deaf community and it is certainly a most expressive form of communication.


So, it seems that all three areas are needed for effective modern communication. I knew that of course, but I am still puzzled why the verbal aspect, the spoken word, accounts for such a low percentage overall. Contributors to this post have rightly stressed how important this is in modern life, so if this is the case, why has evolution not increased it even more?

[Ender]

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is an easy experiment. Just talk to someone that speaks no English. See how much you understand based on his body language and tone of voice.

Considering cultural variance in body language and tone of voice, I'm not sure how accurate this would be unless you could find someone from your own culture that doesn't speak the related language.

[Vagrant]

I'll tell you one thing: Communicating with animals and communicating with humans are two entirely different things.

When I "talk" with my cat, it's all about the tone of my speech and my body positioning. If I make loud noises and yell, my cat believes me to be angry. If I make soft cooing sounds, my cat believes me to be happy. If I'm talking in a neutral tone, my cat just stares at me blankly. My cat happily comes around and rubs me when I'm on the floor, but walks around me when I'm upright.

When I talk with a human, most of it (I feel) is what they say and how they say it. Intonations (like noises with my cat) will change how I view the words they said. Unlike my cat, however, the words allow me to discuss things that are not immediately present (aka abstract).

The body language and tone of speech are modifiers to the spoken word in my opinion. Without spoken word, they are only very simple vessels of immediate, concrete concepts. With gestures, I can communicate simple ideas (I'm hungry, I need to pee, I want to fuck), but beyond that, you're extremely limited.

	I knew that of course, but I am still puzzled why the verbal aspect, the spoken word, accounts for such a low percentage overall.

The verbal aspect/spoken word makes sense, because think about the scenario of texting, or if you want to get really... "meta", think about forums.

A lot is lost in translation. If I post something sarcastic on this forum without making it damn well obvious I'm being sarcastic, many people will believe I was serious. If I were to post two things next to each other, people might assume there is an association (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
), but in real life it would be clear I viewed the two as separate based on my tone and body language.

In this sense, tone and body language are modifiers -- the spoken word is the raw, unedited information, and the tone and body language make it more concrete. The spoken word can be taken all on its own, but then people can have multiple interpretations of the same exact words.

An example is that English Language Learners (ELL's) sometimes go in the reverse direction than expected. Instead of learning English, they simply mirror the behaviors of their peers in an attempt to appear normal. These ELL's can pass through the educational system almost completely undetected until somebody notices that the kid doesn't do so well in one-on-one interactions and suffer considerably when given more complex questions. They're able to get through without being noticed precisely because they mirror our body language and tones, even if they don't always get the words right.

[scorpiomover]

	Originally Posted by lassie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In terms of human evolution, the spoken word must have come much later yet it still seems to add little to overall communication. so is the spoken word overrated?

The spoken word is content, what you are saying. Body language and tone of voice are form, the structure of how you say things. Put simply, that 93% is form and only 7% is verbal, means that:

1) If you were to tell 100 people to go to hell, with a nice-sounding voice, and a smile, 93 people would say "Thank you", and only 7 people would complain.

2) If you were to tell 100 people a really useful idea that would help them a lot, but with an unpleasant-sounding voice and a frown, 93 people would say your idea is rubbish, and only 7 people would say "thank you".

I know that means that people mostly don't care are far more impressed with a smile, than a really intelligent idea, and INTJs really hate that. But humans are built for efficiency. Rather than spend a lot of time figuring out if the other person's idea is useful, we simply use the person's smile, to tell if it's worth trying out their idea.