Everyone keeps telline me that '80% of communication is nonverbal'.
Or maybe they're saying it wrong or maybe I'm hearing it wrong.
Do they really mean that '80% of noncommunication is verbal'?
Now, THAT I would believe!
Or maybe they're saying it wrong or maybe I'm hearing it wrong.
Do they really mean that '80% of noncommunication is verbal'?
Now, THAT I would believe!
posted by:
|
Boston
|
-
Re: 80%
02/17no, i hear that too. it's big in the intercultural communications area. it's all the proxemics, chronemics, and how you relate in space and time that set the context. -
-
Re: 80%
02/17I dont see how you could possibly break it down clearly enough to get an 80/20 rule, but much is nonverbal... It depends on one's def of communication, of course. Tranmission of information, binding, performance, etc. -
-
Re: 80%
02/17I was actually more interested in the noncommunication aspect.
How much of noncommunication is verbal?
80% sounds right to me. -
-
Re: 80%
02/18The conclusion is tautological... Depending on one's definition of communication (content vs form, essentially), you'll come up w/ 80 or 20 or anything in between. There's no agreement on this. Linguists, Drama Therapists, Cyberneticians and Network analysts all have competing models of communication that define in terms of interpersonal binding and verbal exchange to varying degrees. Even if the most suitable definition for us is "reaching understanding", and we base it thus on "meaning," we have to account for the kinds of meaning conveyed w/ paralinguistic expression (gesture, tone, body language), social coding and context (ritual, ceremony, other contextual info), and actual statements (which contain an assertion that alter ego can either accept or reject, as well as an appeal that the alter ego do so...)... Some view communication as action, some not... it can get soooooo complicated! What was i trying to say again?
adrian
-
-
-
