On Monday, in article
<slrnd8gtep.sdb.chris@ccserver.keris.net> chris@keristor.net
"Chris Croughton" wrote:
> Similar to that is the eye contact protocol. To some people, it is
> expected that eye contact is made continuously to indicate agreement (or
> at least agreement to continue) and lack of eye contact indicates
> disagreement or disinterest. To others eye contact from a listener
> means "I wish to say something" and from a talker means "I'm ready to
> hand over to you is you wish". Again, two almost inverse
> interpretations of the same signals and no way to tell in advance which
> one a person uses without explicit negotiation.
Yes, just where did that ridiculous protocol originate? I don't recall
anyone expecting any sort of eye-contact from interlocutors back in the
1950s/60s; I tend to associate the concept with the happy-clappy hippy-
dippy culture of the late 60s, where suddenly "body language" had become
significant.
The most dangerous manifestation can be seen each and every day on our
roads: drivers turning towards their passenger to demonstrate that, yes,
they really are taking an interest in their conversation. I'm quite
happy to conduct a conversation whilst driving: however, I would NEVER
look anywhere other than the road in front of me, and my three rear-view
mirrors (on a motorway, I'm constantly cycling through these and the view
ahead, and am usually conscious of other traffic for at least a mile
ahead and behind).
Furthermore, TV dramas (both home-grown and Leftpondian) show just about
every driver conducting conversations in this manner.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu
le loisir de la faire plus courte."
Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657
|
|