Jul 4, 2022 07:27 PM
(This post was last modified: Jul 4, 2022 07:27 PM by C C.)
Debunking body language myths
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...uage-myths
KEY POINTS: Despite the undeniable importance of nonverbal communication, many myths and false beliefs undermine its importance, relevance, or utility. People erroneously believe that where we look determines whether or not we are telling the truth. There is no single behavior indicative of deception. (MORE - details)
People vary a lot in how well they recognize, match or categorize the things they see – researchers attribute this skill to an ability they call ‘o’
https://theconversation.com/people-vary-...l-o-182100
INTRO: Like snowflakes, no two people are exactly the same. You’re probably used to the idea that people differ substantially in personality and in cognitive abilities – skills like problem-solving or remembering information.
In contrast, there’s a widely held intuition that people vary far less in their ability to recognize, match or categorize objects. Many everyday tasks, hobbies and even critical jobs – like interpreting satellite imagery, matching fingerprints or diagnosing medical conditions – rely on these perceptual skills. The common expectation is that smart and motivated people who receive the appropriate training should eventually be able to excel at occupations that require hundreds of perceptual decisions every day.
We are psychologists who measure how people compare on challenging perceptual tasks. Our research has found that this intuition that everyone has the same capacity for perceptual skills is not supported by the evidence.
It’s not a problem if you choose to spend every weekend bird-watching without ever getting very good at it – you may still get some fresh air and have fun. But when perceptual decisions influence safety, health or legal outcomes, there’s a case for seeking people who can achieve the best possible performance. Our research suggests some people are just better than others at learning to discriminate things perceptually, whatever the objects may be... (MORE - details)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...uage-myths
KEY POINTS: Despite the undeniable importance of nonverbal communication, many myths and false beliefs undermine its importance, relevance, or utility. People erroneously believe that where we look determines whether or not we are telling the truth. There is no single behavior indicative of deception. (MORE - details)
People vary a lot in how well they recognize, match or categorize the things they see – researchers attribute this skill to an ability they call ‘o’
https://theconversation.com/people-vary-...l-o-182100
INTRO: Like snowflakes, no two people are exactly the same. You’re probably used to the idea that people differ substantially in personality and in cognitive abilities – skills like problem-solving or remembering information.
In contrast, there’s a widely held intuition that people vary far less in their ability to recognize, match or categorize objects. Many everyday tasks, hobbies and even critical jobs – like interpreting satellite imagery, matching fingerprints or diagnosing medical conditions – rely on these perceptual skills. The common expectation is that smart and motivated people who receive the appropriate training should eventually be able to excel at occupations that require hundreds of perceptual decisions every day.
We are psychologists who measure how people compare on challenging perceptual tasks. Our research has found that this intuition that everyone has the same capacity for perceptual skills is not supported by the evidence.
It’s not a problem if you choose to spend every weekend bird-watching without ever getting very good at it – you may still get some fresh air and have fun. But when perceptual decisions influence safety, health or legal outcomes, there’s a case for seeking people who can achieve the best possible performance. Our research suggests some people are just better than others at learning to discriminate things perceptually, whatever the objects may be... (MORE - details)