speaking and the body
In reading a lecture concerning preaching, the lecturer - Jana L. Childers, a homiletics professor - sites a study conducted in 1985 by Albert Mehrabian of Stanford University. He found when people come to a lecture or hear someone speak, 55 percent of the message they receive comes from the speaker's body and face. They receive 38 percent of the message from the tone of voice, and they receive a mere 7 percent of the message from the words.
How do you interpret these findings?
-
How do you interpret these findings?
-
posted by jch at
10:52 AM
4 Comments:
I'm always suspicious of quantifications of things like this that are IMO unquantifiable, but in general, I think the fact that we are human bodies is definitive for identity--and so I am unsurprised that bodies would play a large role in communication even when we tend to think of communication solely as a mind/rationality/symbolic discourse that floats free of the body.
It does make me wonder if email and blog communication is therefore in some way qualitatively different communication, and what it might mean if it is. I don't know--anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
The psychology student in me wants to know how they measured those findings...but overall it makes sense. Everyone receives and processes info differently...and in my opinion, the more ways a preacher can communicate the better to reach more people in a stronger way. What's important is that people (any person who is trying to communicate - not just preachers) continually reevaluate their body language, tone, and words to make sure they work together to actually communicate what is meant.
This also explains how preachers with clearly twisted theologies are able to suck in so many...they're personable, they're likeable...who's listening to what they're actually saying?!
I think it's right on. Speaking in very broad terms it seems to me that there are really two kinds of preachers. Those who are great writers, and those who are great speakers. Considering the setting in which a sermon or message is delivered I think it's the good writers who have a harder time connecting than the great speakers. No matter how amazing the material a preachers whose gifts really shine in their writing, they will fall short. Even if the substance isn't that deep or profound, a good "live" communicator will more effectively connect with an audience.
It's not unlike the scenario you find with music groups. Some artists are amazing in the studio where sounds can be meticulously created and refined until a perfect vision is realized. Then there are other artists who really only shine when they are seen live. Typically it's because they are able to feed off the energy of the crowd and that causes them to make their music feel more alive. I bet the same dynamic is true of a good speaker.
nice beard
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home