![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( Some episodes from my life )
So, yeah. I have plenty of evidence to persuade me that if there is a "BBC Standard" for non-verbal communication, it's not the version I speak, and I have a history of being misread (sometimes with very distressing results) by people who attempt to interpret those cues. The incident with the polygraph has confirmed my deep-seated suspicion of them; I don't deny that they measure SOMETHING, but interpreting that 'something' is a tricky business.
(I'm not maligning all psychologists, BTW - I have met some really lovely ones who were good at their job. What they have in common is that they pay attention to what people were actually saying with their words, and don't over-interpret non-verbal cues.)
So I get uncomfortable when I see 'profilers' on TV who are able to interpret people's motivation from tiny behavioural cues. I suspect that if I ever ran into one of these people, I'd be at risk of being misinterpreted by an 'expert' with enough clout to convince others of their interpretation.
And then, after reading Malcolm Gladwell's article on criminal profilers, I realise that it's not just me: these people are quacks, about as credible as palm-readers and water-dowsers.
So, yeah. I have plenty of evidence to persuade me that if there is a "BBC Standard" for non-verbal communication, it's not the version I speak, and I have a history of being misread (sometimes with very distressing results) by people who attempt to interpret those cues. The incident with the polygraph has confirmed my deep-seated suspicion of them; I don't deny that they measure SOMETHING, but interpreting that 'something' is a tricky business.
(I'm not maligning all psychologists, BTW - I have met some really lovely ones who were good at their job. What they have in common is that they pay attention to what people were actually saying with their words, and don't over-interpret non-verbal cues.)
So I get uncomfortable when I see 'profilers' on TV who are able to interpret people's motivation from tiny behavioural cues. I suspect that if I ever ran into one of these people, I'd be at risk of being misinterpreted by an 'expert' with enough clout to convince others of their interpretation.
And then, after reading Malcolm Gladwell's article on criminal profilers, I realise that it's not just me: these people are quacks, about as credible as palm-readers and water-dowsers.
