The Elephant in the Brain_Hidden Motives in Everyday Life

by Robin Hanson

  It’s possible they’ll exchange a small handful of explicit messages on the topic: “I think you’re cute,” “Do you have a boyfriend?” “Want to come back to my place?” But just as often these messages go unstated, and the entire pas de deux is choreographed nonverbally—a carefully negotiated escalation of intimacy.22

  To begin with, eye contact. Few behaviors convey the message “I’m attracted to you” as convincingly as a lingering come-hither stare. The more intense and prolonged the eye contact, the more it signals that both partners are interested in each other—and comfortable enough to advertise their interest, at least to each other. (Note that eye behaviors are especially hard for third parties to notice, making them ideal for use as discreet signals.) Eye contact will be complemented by body language that says, “I’m open to further interaction.” Alison, for example, may uncross her arms, smile invitingly, and turn her body toward Ben.23

  Even in conversation, what Alison and Ben say to each other may be less significant than how they interact physically. As they develop a rapport, they’ll begin to mirror each other’s posture. They’ll lean in and broach the bubble of personal space that mere strangers are reluctant to violate.24 They’ll even begin to touch each other, perhaps starting with light contact on the back, shoulder, or elbow, then moving to areas reserved for greater intimacy: hands, legs, neck. At some point they may head out to the dance floor, to further escalate physical contact and to see if their bodies (via their brains) can synchronize to a rhythm.25 If they dance well together, it bodes well for their activities later in the evening.

  Now, if this were a romantic comedy—emphasis on comedy—Ben might remain oblivious to Alison’s come-ons, until finally she’s forced to blurt it out: “Take me home already!” But this strikes us as funny only because most people don’t need words to get the message.

  All of this assumes that both partners do, in fact, want to go home with each other. More commonly, one or both participants don’t actually know their own full intentions. And much of the thrill and drama of courtship lies in struggling to decipher the other’s mixed signals. Women, for example, sometimes instinctively “play coy,” attempting to hide or downplay their interest, thereby requiring men to put more effort into courtship.26

  Sexual jealousy is another cross-cultural human universal,27 giving rise to the phenomenon of mate-guarding.28 A couple out on a date, for example, will often use “tie-signs”—handholding, arm-on-shoulder, and so forth—to signal their romantic connection to their partner. These signals are intended not just for each other, but also for third parties, that is, potential rivals. One research team approached and interviewed couples waiting in line to buy movie tickets and found that men performed more tie-signs with their dates when the interviewer posed a greater romantic threat—when the interviewer was male instead of female, for example, or when he asked personal instead of impersonal questions.29

  Box 9: Love in the Air?

  Pheromones are chemical signals secreted by one animal that influence the behavior of other animals, often via the nose. They’re an important communication mechanism for many species, from ants and bees to pigs and dogs, and frequently play a role in sexual attraction. Farmers, for example, can buy a pheromone that causes female pigs to assume a mating stance. But what role do pheromones play in human attraction?30

  The research here is tantalizing. Women asked to smell T-shirts worn by different men were more attracted to men who had complementary immune systems (which would benefit their potential children).31 Meanwhile, gay men preferred the sweat of other gay men to the sweat of straight men.32 Scientists debate whether these effects are caused by specific pheromones, but it’s clear there’s at least some chemical basis to human attraction, and that the effects are largely unconscious.33

  POLITICS

  Another domain in which body language plays a surprisingly central role is politics. By conveying trust, loyalty, leadership, and followership (as well as distrust, betrayal, and defiance), nonverbals provide richly expressive tools to help us coordinate our coalitions—though we’re often unaware of exactly how we use these tools.

  Like the nonverbals of sex, the nonverbals of politics run deep in our ancestry. As we saw in Chapter 1, social grooming among primates isn’t just a hygienic activity; it also serves a political function. By picking dirt and parasites from each other’s fur, primates forge alliances that pay off in other scenarios as well, such as confrontations with other members of the group.

  Humans, of course, are a relatively hairless species, so we don’t need to spend as much time monitoring each other for dirt and parasites.34 But we still use proximity and touch to develop friendship and other social bonds.35 Perhaps the human behaviors most analogous to social grooming are back massages along with brushing, braiding, and other haircare activities. “In traditional cultures,” writes Robin Dunbar, “such as the !Kung San hunter-gatherers of southern Africa, women form very distinct haircare cliques who exclusively plait each other’s hair.”36 But we also pat, pet, cuddle, hug, shake hands, clasp shoulders, and kiss each other affectionately on the cheek. Boys may wrestle playfully, while girls play “patty cake.” The logic here is the same that underlies social grooming in other primates. When we feel comfortable around others, we touch them and allow ourselves to be touched. When we sense hostility, however, we’re much more skittish about these violations of personal space.

  Of course, our politically charged body language extends far beyond proximity and touch—just as one might expect from the most intensely political species on the planet. When we feel threatened, for example, we naturally adopt an alert and defensive posture. We hunch our shoulders or cross our arms. We sit forward with feet planted firmly on the floor, the better to stand up quickly if tensions escalate. Conversely, when we’re in the presence of trusted friends, we let our guards down—by maintaining an open, vulnerable posture, by showing our palms, or by relaxing our shoulders and leaving our necks exposed. “It has always been my impression,” says Joe Navarro, a Federal Bureau of Investigation interrogator and body-language expert, “that presidents often go to Camp David to accomplish in polo shirts what they can’t seem to accomplish in business suits forty miles away at the White House. By unveiling themselves ventrally (with the removal of coats) they are saying, ‘I am open to you.’ ”37

  We also coordinate politically with our eyes. We narrow our eyelids when we perceive a threat, for example, or give a quick nod and “eyebrow flash” when we recognize friends or friendly strangers.38 When situations get tense, we often look to our leaders—literally—for guidance, to gauge their reactions and to potentially follow their lead.

  More generally, any act of following or copying another person’s behavior—from mimicry on the dance floor to the call-and-response routines common in religious ceremonies—demonstrates a leader’s ability to inspire others to follow. In modern workplaces, for example, it’s almost always the boss who initiates the end of a meeting, perhaps by being the first to stand up from the table. It would be a faux pas for a subordinate to get up and leave before the boss signaled that everyone was free to go.

  Our metaphorical use of language also encodes many of these nonverbal political signals.39 When we betray someone, we “turn our backs” on them, figuratively if not literally. When we confide, we “open up.” We’re “warm” and “close” with our friends and family, but give the “cold shoulder” to people we dislike. We “stand firm” or “give ground” in confrontations. Body language even shows up in the etymologies of many words that are now entirely abstract. “Confrontation,” for example, derives from Latin words meaning “foreheads together.”40

  It’s instructive to compare and contrast two greeting rituals: the handshake, currently the predominant greeting ritual in Western countries, and the hand-kiss, which was popular among European aristocrats in the 18th and 19th centuries (but which has since fallen out of fashion).41 Both are gestures of trust and amity, but they differ in
their political implications. Shaking hands is symmetric and fundamentally egalitarian; it’s a ritual between supposed equals. Hand-kissing, however, is inherently asymmetric, setting the kisser apart from, and subordinate to, the recipient of the kiss. The kisser must press his lips on another person’s (potentially germ-ridden) hands, while simultaneously lowering his head and possibly kneeling. This gesture is submissive, and when it’s performed freely, it’s an implicit pledge of loyalty. Even when the ritual is somewhat coerced, it can send a powerful political message. Kings and popes, for example, would often “invite” their subjects to line up for public kiss-the-ring ceremonies, putting everyone’s loyalty and submission on conspicuous display and thereby creating common knowledge of the leader’s dominance.

  We offer one final example of nonverbal political behavior. Imagine yourself out to dinner with a close friend. At some point, the conversation may turn to gossip—discussing and judging the behavior of those who aren’t present. But before your friend makes a negative remark about someone, he’s liable to glance over his shoulder, lean in, and lower his voice. These are nonverbal cues that what he’s about to say requires discretion. He’s letting you know that he trusts you with information that could, if word got out, come back to bite him.

  SOCIAL STATUS

  “Suddenly we understood that every inflection and movement implies a status, and that no action is due to chance, or really ‘motiveless.’ It was hysterically funny, but at the same time very alarming. All our secret manoeuvrings were exposed.”—Keith Johnstone42

  Of all the signals sent and received by our bodies, the ones we seem least aware of are those related to social status. And yet, we’re all downright obsessed with our status, taking great pains to earn it, gauge it, guard it, and flaunt it. This is a source of great dramatic irony in human life.

  Because of their privileged position, high-status individuals have less to worry about in social situations.43 They’re less likely to be attacked, for example, and if they are attacked, others are likely to come to their aid. This allows them to maintain more relaxed body language. They speak clearly, move smoothly, and are willing to adopt a more open posture. Lower-status individuals, however, must constantly monitor the environment for threats and be prepared to defer to higher-status individuals. As a result, they glance around, speak hesitantly, move warily, and maintain a more defensive posture.

  High-status individuals are also willing to call more attention to themselves. When you’re feeling meek, you generally want to be a wallflower. But when you’re feeling confident, you want the whole world to notice. In the animal kingdom, this “Look at me!” strategy is known as aposematism.44 It’s a quintessentially honest signal. Those who call attention to themselves are more likely to get attacked—unless they’re strong enough to defend themselves. If you’re the biggest male lion on the savanna, go ahead, roar your heart out. The same principle explains why poisonous animals, like coral reef snakes and poison dart frogs, wear bright warning colors. They may not look too tough, but they’re packing heat.

  In the human realm, aposematism underlies a wide variety of behaviors, such as wearing bright clothes, sparkling jewelry, or shoes that clack loudly on the pavement. Wearing prominent collars, headdresses, and elaborate up-dos and swaggering down the street with a blaring boom box all imply the same thing: “I’m not afraid of calling attention to myself, because I’m powerful.”

  But status is more than just an individual attribute or attitude—it’s fundamentally an act of coordination. When two people differ in status, both have to modify their behavior.45 Typically the higher-status person will take up more space, hold eye contact for longer periods of time (more on this in just a moment), speak with fewer pauses, interrupt more frequently, and generally set the pace and tenor of interaction.46 The lower-status person, meanwhile, will typically defer to the higher-status person in each of these areas, granting him or her more leeway, both physically and socially. In order to walk together, for example, the lower-status person must accommodate to match the gait of the higher-status person.

  Most of the time, these unconscious status negotiations proceed smoothly. But when people disagree about their relative status, nonverbal coordination breaks down—a result we perceive as social awkwardness (and sometimes physical awkwardness as well). Most of us have had these uncomfortable experiences, as, for example, when sitting across from a rival colleague, not quite knowing how to position your limbs, whether it’s your turn to talk, or how and when to end the interaction.

  An especially unconscious behavior is how we change our tone of voice in response to the status of our conversation partners. One study used a signal-processing technique to analyze 25 interviews on the Larry King Live show. The study found that Larry King adjusted his vocal patterns to match those of his higher-status guests, while lower-status guests adjusted their patterns to match his.47 A similar analysis was able to predict U.S. presidential election results. During debates, the relative social status of the two candidates—as measured by tone-of-voice accommodation—accurately predicted who would win the popular vote (if not the electoral college vote).48

  In humans, just as with the Arabian babbler we encountered in Chapter 1, status comes in two distinct varieties: dominance and prestige. Dominance is the kind of status we get from being able to intimidate others—think Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong-un. Dominance is won by force, through aggression and punishment. In the presence of a dominant person, our behavior is governed by avoidance instincts: fear, submission, and appeasement.49

  Prestige, however, is the kind of status we get from doing impressive things or having impressive traits—think Meryl Streep or Albert Einstein. Our behavior around prestigious people is governed by approach instincts. We’re attracted to them and want to spend time around them.50

  Depending on the type of status at play in a given interaction—dominance or prestige—the participants will adopt different patterns of body language. This becomes especially clear when we consider eye contact.

  In contexts governed by dominance, eye contact is considered an act of aggression. It’s therefore the prerogative of the dominant to stare at whomever he or she pleases, while submissives must refrain from staring directly at the dominant. When a dominant and a submissive make eye contact, the submissive must look away first. To continue staring would be a direct challenge. Now, submissives can’t avoid looking at dominants entirely. They need to monitor them to see what they’re up to (e.g., in order to move out of their space). So instead, submissives resort to “stealing” quick, furtive glances.51 You can think of personal information as the key resource that dominant individuals try to monopolize for themselves. They use their eyes to soak up personal info about the other members of the group, but try to prevent others from learning about them.

  In contexts governed by prestige, however, eye contact is considered a gift: to look at someone is to elevate that person. In prestige situations, lower-status individuals are ignored, while higher-status individuals bask in the limelight.52 In this case, attention (rather than information) is the key resource, which lower-status admirers freely grant to higher-status celebrities.

  Many interactions, of course, involve both dominance and prestige, making status one of the trickier domains for humans to navigate. When Joan the CEO holds a meeting, for example, she’s often both the most dominant and the most prestigious person in the room, and her employees must rely on context to decide which kinds of eye contact are appropriate. Whenever Joan is talking, she’s implicitly asking for attention (prestige), and her employees oblige by looking directly at her. When she stops talking, however, her employees may revert to treating her as dominant, issuing the kind of furtive glances characteristic of submissives who hesitate to intrude on her privacy, and yet still wish to gauge her reactions to what’s happening in the meeting.

  Social status influences how we make eye contact, not just while we listen, but also when we speak. In fact, one of the best predic
tors of dominance is the ratio of “eye contact while speaking” to “eye contact while listening.” Psychologists call this the visual dominance ratio. Imagine yourself out to lunch with a coworker. When it’s your turn to talk, you spend some fraction of the time looking into your coworker’s eyes (and the rest of the time looking away). Similarly, when it’s your turn to listen, you spend some fraction of the time making eye contact. If you make eye contact for the same fraction of time while speaking and listening, your visual dominance ratio will be 1.0, indicative of high dominance. If you make less eye contact while speaking, however, your ratio will be less than 1.0 (typically hovering around 0.6), indicative of low dominance.53

  In Subliminal, Mlodinow summarizes some of these findings:54

  What is so striking about the data is not just that we subliminally adjust our gazing behavior to match our place on the hierarchy but that we do it so consistently, and with numerical precision. Here is a sample of the data: when speaking to each other, ROTC officers exhibited ratios of 1.06, while ROTC cadets speaking to officers had ratios of 0.61;55 undergraduates in an introductory psychology course scored 0.92 when talking to a person they believed to be a high school senior who did not plan to go to college but 0.59 when talking to a person they believed to be a college chemistry honor student accepted into a prestigious medical school;56 expert men speaking to women about a subject in their own field scored 0.98, while men talking to expert women about the women’s field, 0.61; expert women speaking to nonexpert men scored 1.04, and nonexpert women speaking to expert men scored 0.54.57 These studies were all performed on Americans. The numbers probably vary among cultures, but the phenomenon probably doesn’t.

  Our brains manage all these behaviors almost effortlessly. Rarely do we have to ask ourselves, consciously, “How should I hold my arms? Should I make or break eye contact? What tone of voice should I use?” It all comes to us quite naturally, because our ancestors who were adept at it fared better than those of our (non-)ancestors who were less naturally skilled.