So instead of rereading the Harry Potter series I've been picking up biographies, history based, and scientific books.
I recently finished Honest Signals: How They Shape Our World
by Alex (Sandy) Pentland.
The text was basically a summary of the experimental results of hours upon hours of data generated from gadgets the experimenters developed called sociometers. The text was also, I should add, surprisingly dry, repetitive, and a bit stuffy. However I suppose I should not have expected Pentland, a "leading figure at the MIT Media Lab and... a pioneer in the fields of organizational engineering, mobile information systems, and computational social science" to have as engaging of a writing style as Chuck Palahnuik. I should also add now that despite the formality of its presentation, the information relayed was anything but boring, and I was in no way struggling to keep awake with the book in hand. But before I get to the details of the study, I should first explain exactly what is meant by honest signals as defined by this group of studies.
Humans communicate through language and through signals. You are probably familiar with many signals such as facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, and then there are signals you are most likely not familiar with because they occur beneath our level of consciousness. These signals have been termed honest for that reason. We are not consciously sending these signals nor are we aware that the choices we make are often decided upon our reading of other people's signals that we are unaware of comprehending. It all happens naturally and we are surprisingly oblivious most of the time. Pentland focuses on four main honest signals throughout the book and his experiments; influence, mimicry, activity, and consistency.
According to Pentland, "each of these signals has its roots in our brain structure and biology... [which] may be why they are such reliable signals for our behavioral tendencies" (4). Without bothering with language or any other form of communication, and only measuring the fluctuations of these signals they were able to predict human behavior accurately a statistically significant amount of the time.
Watch two people conversing "on mute" and you would probably be aware of what kind of interaction was taking place, whether they were both interested in the subject matter, who had dominance, and so on but you probably wouldn't be able to put to words why you knew what was going on.
Simply put, influence is the effect one person has on the other. A person with more influence is often seen as dominant, perhaps speaking more often and effecting the tonality of the other person.
Mimicry is the copying of one another's posture, tonality, head nods, reflexive smiles, interjections and so on. It is also a type of influence. Mimicry is automatic, unconscious and a sign of being empathetic. Amusingly, if you watch two people deep in conversation and one leans back and crosses his arms, about four seconds later, most likely the other will do the same. One nods his head emphatically and usually about four seconds later the other will follow suit. It is not usually just one person following the other however, the effect of one person mimicking you will make you more likely to mimic him which will have the same effect to him to mimic you again. The overall effect makes you feel closer to each other increasing trust and likability. *
Activity measures a person's interest level. Pentland used the analogy of a child excited about something. Children have not yet been taught to suppress the urges of increased interest and therefore are obvious to read. An excited child cannot sit still and will talk faster and louder than usual. The same happens to adults but in a less transparent manner. Interestingly, Pentland uses data obtained through a professional poker tournament to see if reading players' honest signals were a good prediction of the type of hand they held. Those who were bluffing or had a lot at stake should have a higher activity level in anticipation of the cards to be flipped over or the others' response to his bet. Instead, in an effort to appear normal and relaxed they become unnaturally still and quiet, unaware of their normal activity level. Poker players, it seems, need to be conscious of the signals they are giving off.
Consistency deals with the speaker's motivation. Consistent emphasis and volume level tells the listener that you are focused on one thing and do not have a conflict of interest. Inconsistent emphasis and variability seems to mean that you are thinking about many different things.
(*Honest signals are difficult to fake. You might think that if you understood what signals sent positive messages to your conversational partner you might be able to manipulate people's thoughts or actions. However, conversing takes a lot of concentration. The reason our conscious mind does not take in these signals is because it is too busy processing information from the conversation, forming opinions, thoughts, and words to be said out loud at appropriate intervals. Pentland mentions that the best time for a predator to attack is mid-conversation. We rarely pay attention to our surroundings while we are talking and engaged in thought.)
By defining these subtle signals and looking for them the researchers were able to understand our motives, how social networks work, and recognize what makes a good human organization. The researchers looked at how combining certain signals defined certain social roles that connected social networks and made them function properly. It was a bit unnerving to read scientists analyzing simple situations such as business conventions, speed dating, salary negotiations, and poker tournaments. Because they were able to predict, for the most part, human behavior based on the honest signals and social roles that their subjects took on, there was a dehumanizing effect that showed how animalistic we are. Even though we have the ability to communicate through language, Pentland's summary concluded that we hardly ever make rational decisions. We may think we are doing something that is well thought out but usually we are just acting out of response to other people's signals.
Something that came to my mind while reading about social networks was my realization growing up that I acted differently around different people. I had several groups of friends in elementary and middle school and I tended to almost be a different person in each. The reason is that in each social network I took on a different social role. This still happens to me now, and speaks about my personality. My openness to influence often means I usually take on the roles of exploring and active listening.
The researchers looked at network intelligence compared to individual intelligence and unconscious intelligence. Shockingly, they had little good things to say about expert advice. When it comes to experience, broad experience is better. An expert in a field often cannot predict outcomes any better than an amateur.
The book was focused on translating the signals to better the communication and decision making in human organizations with the use of the sociometers that track the frequency of communication and the types of signals passed in order to define varying social roles and networks of information.
Logistically, it will probably be a while before companies begin utilizing this kind of information, if it does catch on. It seems to have a "big brother" effect as Pentland mentions off-handedly. Sociometers in the form of "smart phones" would record your movements, conversations, and proximity to other members in your social network. There would be no privacy when it came to business. Also, the individual gets lost in the overall network. There are connectors that provide information from other networks, idiots that provide bad information, and gossip, which provides redundant information. It has nothing to do with a person generating a new idea and everything about how the network reacts to ideas and makes decisions as a network. Philosophically, I had trouble convincing myself that this is most likely true. I just want to believe that humans are constantly and separately making decisions but the truth is that as social beings we are more connected than we are consciously aware of.
What irked me still, was how causation was not addressed in the text. Understandably, the cause cannot be determined through this type of study. Even without listening to the language the researchers were looking at signals during conversations. Our words are not just fluff, our words must effect our level of interest and determine what social role we take on thereby determining what signals we begin sending. However, the research also implies that these signals can be disconnected to the conversation, they can be applied no matter what is being said. But if we are unconscious of them, we are not deliberately trying to manipulate people but simply relay information. Pentland used this as evidence that these signals were probably used as a form of communication before the development of language which makes sense. It is just scary to think about how little we understand the reason for the things that we do. I would love to believe that I react logically, but I know that that is unfortunately just not how it happens.
I have only briefly touched the depth of the research done by Pentland's team. It goes on to pick apart human tendencies more specifically than I am comfortable summarizing. If you have any interest in subconscious decision making I would recommend picking up the book, if just to skim through some of the sections. Will sociometers be seen in the near future? Companies would probably run smoother but I'm not sure our society is ready for that type of super intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment