Facial Expressions, Posture, Gestures, Tone of Voice and... Words.
Ideally I'd have found a windowed portrait of expressions, gestures and postures bar tone of voice for a fuller comparison. This is of course assuming that all these external indications are only a small fraction of the full reaction of feelings and thoughts of the listener to communication when we talk to each other about various ideas.
I wonder if people at school would all benefit from taking acting classes so that they can convey their emotions more successfully via non-verbal language as well as possibly taking Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (Trivium) to be able to talk and use words more clearly and more effectively, too? I know I struggle with all these and I'm sure many if not most people do too?
Is the above a good representation of how most people communicate? Or is another example more representative?
Alicia Silverstone in the comedy-movie: "Clueless" perhaps the comedy is in the accuracy of "clueless reacting and seemlessly re-acting" she manages to perfectly convey in her charming but borderline delinquent character in the movie's story?
Recently there's been another example of how people end up communicating with each other:-
Great use of "Colourful Prose", Tay! Yay! Well done Yuo! *smiley-face*
An interesting observation from this:-
chatbot" created by Microsoft fulfill the function of "communication exchange" with no required thinking.
So when a serious subject with plenty of scope for rigorous and defined communication is available but not made productive use of; the above must be considered as a significant barrier to effective communication. How prevalent is this? How can it be circumvented effectively? If the above forms of the Trivium in general education are of a lower standard, how does that influence:-
"What We Talk About... When We Talk About Politics?"
But they will see him as Prime Minister:-
Interestingly most of the news presented by the likes of the BBC is characterized and dramatized and personalized and so on. The interrogative Interview, the investigative Report; the former is the simulation of the judge and jury on guilty or innocent judgements and the latter is the "smart" investigator or detective looking for clues of guilt or innocence. I've not done it, but if there were a language/linguistic analysis it might be interesting to see the results? Secondly I wonder how much of the chatter in the news is anything more than a glorified "human interface chatbot" devoid of actual thinking?
BBC: Explaining Away mere trifles in the Establishment's use of propaganda
Leave: Does it sometimes feel as if you're talking to a chatbot?
This is an interesting outcome: Popularity is not a good foundation for arguments; I think the quality of arguments is a good foundation for popularity.