The Student Room Group

non verbal communication and eye contact

Can anyone give an opinion on this theory below. It works!
https://staringeye.com

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
TLDR. What's the takeaway?
Reply 2
Original post by Surnia
TLDR. What's the takeaway?


What theory proposes is true. I have experienced it for myself. Relationships improve!
Original post by Anna Pratt
What theory proposes is true. I have experienced it for myself. Relationships improve!


Yes, but what is a summary of the theory?
Reply 4
Did you know that dominance is transmitted by eye contact?
Did you know that looking at the non-dominant eye avoids the struggle for dominance through stare?
I think you could read "BEYOND THE THEORY", near the end.
Reply 5
Original post by Anna Pratt
Did you know that dominance is transmitted by eye contact?
Did you know that looking at the non-dominant eye avoids the struggle for dominance through stare?
I think you could read "BEYOND THE THEORY", near the end.

What's dominance got to do with being in a relationship?
Is it me or does the 'empirical evidence' section of the link above have no evidence at all, empirical or otherwise? The whole thing is just a one page hypothesis.
Reply 7
Original post by Surnia
What's dominance got to do with being in a relationship?


The dominant person intends to impose his criterion, although the most transcendent thing happens when he does not succeed. From that moment on, the denier's argumentative and
Reply 8
Original post by Surnia
What's dominance got to do with being in a relationship?


The dominant person intends to impose his criterion, although the most transcendent thing happens when he does not succeed. From that moment on, the denier's argumentative and "gestural" policy plays a fundamental role. He must handle the subject's frustration with great tact.
Reply 9
Original post by Admit-One
Is it me or does the 'empirical evidence' section of the link above have no evidence at all, empirical or otherwise? The whole thing is just a one page hypothesis.


The theory is from 2004. I guess many people will know it. The empirical evidence perhaps refers to the experience of applying in real life what it proposes. That is my case, I have empirically proven that what it says is true, I can look people in the eyes in a relaxed way (before I could not), I receive from my friends and family a more "friendly" response.
Reply 10
Original post by Anna Pratt
I have empirically proven that what it says is true, I can look people in the eyes in a relaxed way, I receive from my friends and family a more "friendly" response.

Well...yes. That's nothing new and well-known by plenty of people. Similar to why they say see how someone you're dating treats service staff.

Your point is?
Reply 11
Original post by Surnia
Well...yes. That's nothing new and well-known by plenty of people. Similar to why they say see how someone you're dating treats service staff.

Your point is?


Surnia, are we talking about the same thing? My point is: I believe that my social relationships have improved substantially because a hypothesis has provided me with a "technique" (so the author refers to it) to improve my interpersonal relationships. Of course, as it is a hypothesis it has to be proven, but I guess doing a bunch of PET scans would be a bit expensive. So what do we do, do we put it into practice by ourselves?. Is it a possibility?
Reply 12
Original post by Anna Pratt
Surnia, are we talking about the same thing? My point is: I believe that my social relationships have improved substantially because a hypothesis has provided me with a "technique" (so the author refers to it) to improve my interpersonal relationships. Of course, as it is a hypothesis it has to be proven, but I guess doing a bunch of PET scans would be a bit expensive. So what do we do, do we put it into practice by ourselves?. Is it a possibility?

Making eye contact is nothing new. Neither is the fact that making eye contact is seen positively; you're engaging rather than being considered uninterested, uninteresting, introvert, sulky etc.

I've known this for years. Maybe I should have written a paper on it.
Reply 13
Original post by Surnia
Making eye contact is nothing new. Neither is the fact that making eye contact is seen positively; you're engaging rather than being considered uninterested, uninteresting, introvert, sulky etc.

I've known this for years. Maybe I should have written a paper on it.


Sornia, I don't think you have read the theory, although perhaps what you want is to make me talk, which is fine for me. Let's see if I can explain myself a little better...
Reply 14
The transcendence of dominance as a personality trait is important. Dominant subjects, seeking to impose their criteria and wishing to prevail hierarchically in their social relationships develop complex relationships worthy of study. However, this is not the interest that motivates this thread but non-verbal communication, especially eye contact. I believe what theory of non-verbal communication proposes is a good opportunity to deepen in this form of "communication" and at the same time to verify in one's flesh if what it hypothesizes is true. In my case it is absolutely true.
So, what I propose is experimentation on oneself prior to the debate., although people are free to change priorities.
That does seem like rather a lot of waffle to explain that looking into one eye rather than the other might have a different effect.

Notable that the original hypothesis is nearly 20 years old and has attracted no interest or further studies.
Reply 16
Original post by Admit-One
That does seem like rather a lot of waffle to explain that looking into one eye rather than the other might have a different effect.

Notable that the original hypothesis is nearly 20 years old and has attracted no interest or further studies.


It may sound like a lot of waffle, it is a respectable opinion. That's what I'm here for, to get confirmation if what I experience is real or mere suggestion. I appreciate the feedback.
The age of the theory is true, although I don't know what you say about further studies and so on. For me this information is anecdotal.
On the other hand, what is puzzling is that a "helper" like you does not appreciate the scientific significance it may have, if true.
Original post by Anna Pratt
It may sound like a lot of waffle, it is a respectable opinion. That's what I'm here for, to get confirmation if what I experience is real or mere suggestion. I appreciate the feedback.
The age of the theory is true, although I don't know what you say about further studies and so on. For me this information is anecdotal.
On the other hand, what is puzzling is that a "helper" like you does not appreciate the scientific significance it may have, if true.

I’d appreciate its significance if there was any evidence over a period of 20 years beyond the anecdotal experience of a single person.

Don’t need to be a helper to see the lack of substance.
Oh, and please don’t put helper in speech marks.
Reply 19
Original post by Admit-One
I’d appreciate its significance if there was any evidence over a period of 20 years beyond the anecdotal experience of a single person.

Don’t need to be a helper to see the lack of substance.


You know, I think you're one of those people who would get a lot of benefit from the theory. Give it a try

Quick Reply

Latest