nana johari

December 11, 2017

Random: 2

1. Short note on body language.

The other day I skimmed through a book on body language. They talked about signs of lying. But 'lying', in my opinion, is not necessarily (shouldn't be) the next conclusion for these signs they mentioned. The book did explain that, but the way it's being worded is like they are trying to propose that yes these are most likely the signs of lying

I don't remember the given examples. But it's like this: They say that 'wetting/licking lips' is a sign of lying. Then they proceed to explain that it can signify anxiety

It's... as if they are trying to justify their point. I think it should be the opposite. 'Wetting lips' can be a sign of anxiety, nerves, or hesitation. From how I understand it; it means the person isn't comfortable or is reluctant talking about something, not necessarily lying about that thing. Though, they might be feeling nervous because they are lying or hiding something.

There are... other different kinds of wetting lips (sexual & tic etc), just to be clear. And there are other reasons why people wet their lips (sometimes it's because their lips are dry), so consider this too.

From my experience and opinion, body language is a bit intuitive. It's not cut and dry. One action can mean a lot of things, so you need to narrow it down. You get the signs, you guess its basic indicators (anxiety, hesitation, frustration, etc), then you have to look at the situation you are dealing with and piece it all up yourself. Sometimes you have to wait for days to be sure of the pattern and narrow down the meanings.

And talking about wetting lips I saw a video of someone briefly the other day, he was giving a speech or something. He kept wetting his lips, his voice was a bit slow/unclear, he kept looking at the paper, didn't hold eye contact with audience for too long. So I came to a conclusion that either that (lips thing) was a tic of his, OR combining all the signs I saw; he was nervous/unsure. 

I should buy some books and observe more. 

2. Thoughts on defensiveness.

Observation and speculation:

Generally, people get defensive when they feel attacked. It has something to do with survival instinct.

Feeling attacked can stem from a breach of rights (which is justified), some deep-held values or sense of self, but sometimes it stems from guilt or shame. The latter can be a perceived attack, the defensiveness is a reaction signifying avoidance and denial.

It's like, they are feeling attacked because they feel like you are trying to call them out, and they feel this way because they internally feel guilt or responsible for something, or generally they feel negative about themselves and what they did or didn't do. But at the same time they consciously or subconsciously reject that emotion. So they blame you, they point out your mistakes, this will shift the focus off themselves and their internal war.  

3. Children's privacy. 

Why do people have no respect for children's privacy?  

No matter how silly you think it is, their secrets, their diaries are their private matters, it should be respected as so, not being spread out for the world to see and know. Unless being quiet about it brings harm. 

4. Perspective shift.

I was looking at this one baby bat (I don't know what they are called) learning to fly, and thought to myself that bats are meant to fly but this baby, probably all the babies have to learn to fly. It tried again and again.  

They are provided wings, but they still have to learn how to use it. 

I don't know man, it's something. Maybe being meant to do something doesn't mean you have to or will be good at it immediately in the first tries.

5. Balancing things out.

It's a challenge to think and have positive attitude while at the same time being aware of the dark side and negativity in life. You don't want and cannot deny the less favorable side of the world, because this will lead to blindness and ignorance.

And blindness and ignorance aren't good. 

The good side of this all, I guess, although painful, we can learn and improve. 

6. Power.

Power doesn't only exist in physical form.

You can be the smallest person in a room and have the most power over everyone else in the room. Some people don't even have to be the richest person there to pull this off. People can be controlled emotionally and psychologically. And as we all know, financially (money etc). 

Those two above (emotional and psychological) are much subtler and not everyone realizes it when it happens.

Someone whom people always refer to for everything, has a form of power called influence. An abuser doesn't have to lift a hand to control their victim emotionally. A worker might be reluctant to file a report against their boss for their boss' toxic behavior, due to fear of losing their job. A student might be reluctant to stand up for themselves when their group mates violated their rights, for fearing the group would isolate them. A wife might be afraid to stand up against her husband's toxic behavior because he is the only person who's working (generates income) in the household, the wife thinks she has to put up with his behavior because she is dependent on him, if she says something about it she might lose her home and means of survival. A man might be under control of a woman without being physically forced into it, because the woman knows how to control him psychologically.

So people making claims that 'someone agrees to something bad because they don't physically fight against it', or that 'someone doesn't do anything bad because they don't physically force somebody into it', indicates that there's no understanding of other forms of power.  

We want to see physical proof of coercion, but the reality remains that control can happen subtly.  

7. On a related note...

We expect abuse victims and survivors to have done something, because we think they had a full control and will to do it. It's like not seeing the cobweb behind them or the strings attached to their limbs. When we question why someone believed or 'put' themselves in a vulnerable position, we perhaps don't consider how cunning and manipulative human beings can be and how mentally and emotionally exhausting it can be to remain vigilance all the time. 

When we question why someone didn't act sooner, we perhaps don't consider the psychological response a human can have toward trauma or shocking experience, and how it can affect our behaviors and decisions. People expect rational response from people who are under extreme stress and irrational thinking as the result of their immediate situation, and blame them for not being able to do as expected. When the expectation itself is unrealistic as it stems from ignorance. 

Some people can act accordingly in the face of emergency, some people can't. We deal with trauma differently. It's good to tell people what to do or what they can do in those situations, but it won't help anything or anyone if we question them (implying blame) for not being able to act accordingly.