More mind-reading body language dating "advice"

(ETA: Also take a look at a completely hilarious takedown of another, different, recent Yahoo article about how women can learn to read men's minds by Beth @ Wordsole)

This time via Yahoo, in a piece called 5 Signs He's Into You. They are, apparently, based on advice by "Greg Hartley, former Army Special Forces interrogator and author of I Can Read You Like a Book: How to Spot the Messages and Emotions People Are Really Sending With Their Body Language." Call me a sceptic, but I'm not sure how army interrogation is necessarily a good background for learning how to understand people in a casual setting. Being questioned by armed men may just possibly produce different cues from talking to your mates at a bar? A quick glance at the author's Amazon page shows a total of seven books with more-or-less the same theme of pop psychology and manipulation (such as "Get People to Do What You Want" and "How to Spot a Liar").

These things are crap whether they're written about women or about men (although they come with extra risk when written about women, because of the whole "I could tell she wanted it really" defence in rape cases). They are crap because people are not all the same. Not all men are the same, not all women are the same.

Alternatively, of course, I am not a man by some definitions!

So, what are these "5 signs"?

1. He closes the distance
2. He speaks softly
3. He rounds his posture (from a "Hypermasculine body language ... [that] serves to attract women from a distance" to "he will soften, or “round” his body language")
4. He talks slowwwly
5. He can't take his eyes off you (in a good way)

Well, now.

One of the key things that some men commonly note about when they feel attracted to a woman: they feel nervous. What's one of the big things you do when you feel nervous? You want to hide. "Closing the distance" is antithetical to "I feel nervous".

As it happens, I tend to talk softly whatever I'm doing, unless there's a clear need to raise my voice (e.g. addressing several people at once) or I am getting animated about a topic that excites me. But if, as the explanation offered at the Yahoo page suggests, the lowered tone of voice is because "He’s indicating that what he’s saying is for your ears only" then you shouldn't need to guess from the lowered volume of his voice about his interest - his words should be giving you all the hints you need to figure it out! If nothing else, he'll likely be making it clear in verbal ways that his remarks are only intended for you and not someone else.

On posture, I have a real problem because I don't do "Hypermasculine body language (think: swaggering walk, standing tall with shoulders back and chin up, etc.)" ever. I don't swagger (unless I'm doing it consciously, for a joke); I do try to avoid slouching when I walk, but again, unless I am consciously challenging something or someone, I don't really go with the "shoulders back, chin up" routine (I'll also try to project that when I go into job interviews to look confident). Anyway, point being - I have a softer, rounded posture most of the time, and all of the time when I feel comfortable around people.

Similarly, talking slowly is just the way I do things mostly. This is usually because I'm figuring out what words I want to use next to say what I want to say. Sometimes it's because I'm thinking about what someone else said. Sometimes it's because I'm watching the reactions I'm getting as I speak. In fact, I can think of three situations where I might speed up: 1. I'm nervous (oh, where have we talked about being nervous so far!?); 2. I'm excited by something; 3. I've just thought of a great one-liner pun or other joke taking off from whatever was last said, and I want to get it out quickly to see the reaction it gets.

When we come to "can't take his eyes off you (in a good way)" - well, what exactly defines "a good way" and distinguishes it from "a bad way"? I can't help but feel that if a woman is not interested in a guy but he's looking at her all the time, then whatever the manner of it, that comes across as creepy and therefore not a "good way". As the assumption is that this is on a date, and that the reason the women to whom this piece is addressed are interested to know if he's interested, because they are interested in him (that feels like quite a convoluted clause - I hope you're following this!) then perhaps we can dispense with that part (although again - if his looking is not "in a good way", that might be how she decides she isn't interested?) Even so, the distinction isn't clear (and is it not possible that what one woman finds "a good way", another woman finds "creepy" and vice versa?) A couple more hints are given in the second half of the Yahoo article, which is "5 signs your date isn’t into you".

5 signs he's not into you are, according to Mr Hartley:

1. He's 4ft away
2. He stands at an oblique angle facing you
3. He sounds like "that guy in accounting"
4. He stares at your mouth
5. He's out of sync with your body language

Well, 4ft away is quite a lot of personal space to be needing. It's given that this is "on a date". I think it's probably fair to say that this is a first or second date (otherwise there's bigger problems here if you're still relying on body language and not verbal language to figure out if there's an interest!) but even so: that amount of space precludes person-to-person conversation in a public space (and if you're in a private space before you know he's interested, then that was very incautious). So I would be willing to accept this statement. But only because it's so bleedin' obvious if you're actually there that that's a "I'm not talking to you" distance. One caveat, of course, is that it may be a symptom of nervousness. On the other hand, in order to be nervous, he has to be at least trying to communicate (or summoning up the courage to do so). That requires at some point closing the distance and stuttering a few garbled words. (God knows, I speak from experience here!) So, like I say - Mr Hartley appears to have a point here, but only because it's so obvious that anyone could spot it who actually lived the experience of trying to communicate with someone standing 4ft away! (Just to clarify: the implication in the article is that he stays 4ft away all the time).

"Oblique angle". Says Mr Hartley: "Most men do not realize that when talking to another man, we stand at oblique angles, with one shoulder facing the other’s face, yet when we talk to women — especially ones we’re interested in romantically — we stand face-to-face with them." Well, there's a number of socially-coded signals involved here. Standing foursquare opposite one another is typically coded as a confrontational stance: in simplest terms it says "we are going to fight". In the counselling skills course, it was explained that for this reason, it is normal for a counsellor's and client's seats to be positioned at an angle to one another rather than directly facing each other. In the classes we discussed what the angle signifies, which is "togetherness". Specifically, it says "we are conversing, but we are partially facing the same way, addressing the same issue". Similarly, when men talk socially, it is typically "about" something, addressing some shared interest. Hence, oblique angle.

Now, I have a little language problem with Mr Hartley's description: when he says "one shoulder facing the other's face", I imagine a picture where the line from one shoulder to the other points to the other person's face. But for that to happen, I would have to look along my shoulder in order to talk to the other man, and I think men would notice if they were doing that! Of course, in some situations, the faces are not directed towards one another but towards a third point of interest - the topic of conversation. In that case, then arguably this description could hold true without the absurd image it conjured for me. But in terms of describing observed behaviour and my own experience of talking to other men, it doesn't fit. So I have to draw back and re-imagine the meaning. Maybe it isn't the point of the shoulder, but the front of the shoulder, where it meets the top of the chest. Combine that with the idea of being at a slight angle to one another, and the image in my mind comes a lot closer to what I recognise from real life.

But if that's right, then it's assumed that a man does not share interests with a woman but sees her in some way as an opponent or obstacle. I'm left thinking that dates such as museums, art galleries, walking (e.g. in a park, publicly open garden or visiting the countryside) are all outside of Mr Hartley's experience. All of these would have an external "shared-interest" focus that would encourage side-by-side conversation (and obliquely angled stances) rather than face-to-face confrontation. Perhaps Mr Hartley would claim that a man who takes a woman on such a date is necessarily less interested in her than in the flowers, paintings or history?

I am very confident that in all cases, I have adopted the same standing position relative to a woman I'm interested in, as to a man with whom I'm sharing a conversation. This is because in my mind, sharing a conversation with a woman is the same thing as sharing a conversation with a man. Being friendly is, in my mind, often a way to get to know someone and maybe find out if there's a "spark" (when we're talking about dating).

"That guy from accounting" apparently talks in a style that is: "the pace is quick and the level of his voice is rather strong". As already discussed, I am most likely to talk more firmly (strongly) and quickly if I am excited by a topic. It's probably a flaw in my vocal communication in fact: I start to declaim and expound on a favourite topic, and that can be a barrier to romantic connection. But then I calm down and focus on the other person again (instead of making her/him focus on me) and it all balances out. On the plus side, though, if I'm on a date with someone who gets me animated and shows an interest, then the fact that I got excited will probably count as a sign that she interests me, too (or he does, as the case may be - not been on a gay date as yet, but open to the possibility). So, um - the opposite of what Mr Hartley claims.

According to Mr Hartley, "When a guy focuses on your lips, what he’s really trying to do is avoid eye contact ... If your date fixes his gaze below your face, he’s probably interested in you, but perhaps not for a long-term relationship, if you know what we mean..."

Well, maybe I'm just weird, but I have heard it said that the reason women wear lipstick is that it's designed to arouse the passions by making the mouth send out "I'm sexually available" signals in primordial evo-psych code. Certainly, I think mouths are sexy things. And I've noticed that when a person is speaking, very often their lips are moving. And that that's where the sound comes out. So if I want to follow what she's saying, I focus on the source of the sound, and because the lips are moving, they form a natural focus for attention. Add in some background noise on a date at a restaurant or bar, and the usefulness of watching her lips becomes even more apparent. (Besides which, if a guy has hearing impairment, y'know, lipreading might be his main means of communication reception! Or maybe D/deaf people are automatically not interested in romance, according to Mr Hartley?)

Of course, when I'm speaking, I want to see a date's eyes, so I can follow her (or his) reactions, and also because eyes are often very pretty to look at too. But then, this "lips/listening, eyes/speaking" focus is something I do for everyone in a social situation (particularly one with background noise). But a particular focus on a date's lips? For me, that could be just the same meaning as "fixes his gaze below your face" (although again, verbal and vocal cues will probably let her/him know that that's what my mind is doing anyway).

Finally, Mr Hartley mentions mirroring body language, and to a certain extent this is valid (although I do kind of wonder what happens if two people who are into each other start mirroring each other's body language - does that end up in a perpetual loop as they imitate the same gestures over and over again!?) However, the suggestions and advice, i find a little bit more questionable:

To test the waters, try leaning in closer to your date, using your hands to emphasize what you’re saying. If your guy does the same, it’s a great sign. But if he keeps his hands still, pulls away or takes a step backwards, he may be unavailable or just plain not interested.

Leaning in, and gesturing with the hands, can both be quite intense signals, and they can be open to misinterpretation. I learned recently that my tendency to lean in when I want to give someone advice or assistance has this effect of actually seeming intense, even aggressive, at times. Likewise, an unexpected gesture like that on a date can send some pretty dodgy signals and a guy leaning away isn't "not into you", he's just a bit alarmed at the unexpected intensity or aggression! Likewise, hand gestures. My hands are most active when I'm talking if the topic is something I feel strongly about; so using hands to "emphasise what you're saying" could end up saying "I feel strongly about this!" This, again, is off-putting! Now, personally, I like it when a person gets animated about a topic, as long as it's something where I can at least follow the argument and ask pertinent questions. But that's because it mirrors what I'm like anyway (see notes above, and also "perpetual loop" remark earlier!) and implies someone interesting to talk to. But at the same time, I am not every man.

This leads me to my conclusion, which is this: so many of these "read X's mind through hir body language" type advice books etc depend on unstated assumptions. Here we're told, "The level of a guy's interest in you may be hidden in his body language." To which my immediate question is, "Which types of guys?" Or, in more mathematical/scientific terms, "What's the selection bias here?" Like so many others, Mr Hartley is assuming men who are strongly adept (even naturals) at performing masculinity (this selection bias is revealed in the part about hyper-masculine performance mentioned earlier). The follow-up assumption is either "un-masculine men aren't interested in women", or "women aren't interested in men who cannot/do not perform masculinity well" - or both (and apply that to the ableism mentioned already re: hearing impairment, also probably applies just as much to other PWD too). I'm inclined to suggest that Mr Hartley's background in the US military is one that carries with it a certain amount of masculinity training and heavily-enforced performative masculinity that he then uses to define "real man" from "not man enough".