CHAPTER 9

The Man in
the Street

Up to now, most examples I have given you have been passive. Or have they? Unless you observed strangers with absolutely no interaction in the review stage, you affected your subjects in ways you may or may not have realized. Simply because you share a microculture or culture with those people, your approval or disapproval impacts their behavior and body language. Though you may not think of it as such, conversation is a form of approval or disapproval. If you didn’t hide behind plants similar to some distant anthropologist during your reviews—if you behaved normally and entered into some level of discourse with those you studied—then you affected them.

Gifted conversationalists such as Bill Clinton keep the flow of discussion going naturally by picking up tidbits that the other person leaks. In the world of interrogation, we call this information “source leads.” We all leak these facts, opinions, and reactions; they help people bond to us in conversation. If you don’t do that, then you’re the one at parties who no one wants to talk to. Artful conversationalists use that information to direct and manipulate the chit-chat with questions, hints, sighs, and body language.

Exercise

Stand alone at a party, but make eye contact with someone you know. Give him 30 seconds and glance again. Does the person come over to talk to you?

As the conversation starts, stay focused on the person’s topic, all the while nodding your head to affirm that it’s riveting. When you have gotten most of his information, start to look at your watch somewhat secretively. What happens to the conversation? Quickly explain away why you looked at the watch without divulging the real reason.

Start the conversation back up. You have effectively used regulators to control the conversation. Nodding of the head makes the person think you are identifying with him and he feels validated. He will continue.

A second quick glance at your watch makes the person uncertain why, but certain that you have had enough.

While both nodding and checking your watch are regulators, the use is different. One helps you to connect and the other to repel. With practice, you can send a message with body language that you have used only passively to this point. You can set out to make your own strategies. Unlike most of the world, you will be cognizant of every move you make as part of your strategy—without the need to have someone like me analyze it for you.

Most people connect through the use of positive body language, but you can just as easily use negative behaviors to force the person to feel as though he needs your validation. You must first review his body language, evaluate what is important and different, and analyze what it means before D (deciding how to use body language). Will you use positive body language to connect with him by making him feel like a kindred spirit? Or do you notice he is an approval seeker and determine that the negative approach through repelling motions will get him to struggle to win your approval, moving closer to you all the time?

Every interaction between humans changes the behaviors of both parties. When you are talking to someone, look for his strategies—for conflict and influence. Is it one of those discussed in Chapter 8, or something different? Mentally catalog these behaviors, because you will see that person use them again.

You are now moving into the sophisticated skill area of using your body language as a weapon. Be conscious of factors that will either support or degrade your efforts: filters, prejudice, lack of context, and wrong facts are a few. Just because you now know that crossing your arms does not necessarily mean you are shutting someone out, you can’t presume your insight has rubbed off on other people. Most of the world does not get it; most people will make naïve assumptions and act accordingly. So use the more subtle techniques that I suggest here.

Mirroring

Mirroring to gain approval or to connect with someone is not the monkey-like mimicking of the person’s behavior. In fact, if you are a man trying to mirror a woman, the mannerisms may differ quite a bit. Mirroring means getting the gist of the other person’s mannerism. So if she places a hand on her hip, you may rub your thigh slightly to get your hand in a similar position. If she puts a finger to her lips, you may brace your chin with your hand. Both are thinking gestures.

Regulators

I often use regulators to start my source down the road to compliance. Something as simple as a finger across the lips to quiet the person is a powerful request. You then read the body language to determine if it is working. Conditioned response works to your advantage and compliance with your regulator early on is a reliable sign of it. Can you always use it to arouse a subliminal sense of “I should be quiet”? Definitely not. In some cases, use it only if you are in repel mode. Use it too obviously, and many people will see the gesture as the international symbol for “Shut the f*** up!” so honor the context. Be careful how you use it.

Adaptors

Some adaptors are best used when your subject understands a bit of body language. Tapping fingers and wringing hands send a clear message to even the least astute. I have used the tapping noise to draw a person’s attention to down right, the field of vision associated with extreme emotion, to try to agitate him. My experience, while anecdotal, tells me this intentional move to evoke emotion often works. Other adaptors that can send a clear message are rubbing the eyes, cracking knuckles, and self-grooming as a ritual of boredom. The more subtle of adaptors, such as a slight finger rub, are wasted as a tool for telegraphing because so few people recognize them for what they are.

Barriers

Most people know a little about barriers. Remember the common—and probably your first—assumption about crossed arms? Typically, you use barriers as a tool for repelling. Most people instinctively feel shut out, and/or they feel inferior, when you use a strong barrier. Revisit the moment when you walked into your boss’s office and faced a large desk. You sit exposed in a chair while the big guy builds his alpha status by sitting behind a hunk of mahogany. Real barriers are the trappings of authority.

You can use your extremities or objects that you carry to barrier and, conversely, to take down the barrier to make someone feel more welcome. Contrast this experience with the first: Walk into your boss’s office when she invites you to step around the barrier and review her slide presentation. Suddenly, you are on the same side. As an interrogator, when I walk from behind the desk and close the space with a source, he never feels relaxed and thankful. The barrier provides a layer of protection for him. Context counts for so much in both understanding and manipulating body language—especially with barriers.

Illustrators

No one enjoys being brow-beaten during a conversation. Those Bill O’Reilly eyebrows or the wagging finger of Sister Mary Obedience cause a range of negative responses from “Go away” to “I’d like to have you hauled off to the landfill.”

Careful use of illustrators can repel or attract. When Hillary Clinton is “on cause” and uses her hands in an uplifting manner, brows raised and passionately talking about entitlement, she brings the crowd toward her. Open, positive use of illustrators get the job done. When she is on target against Donald Rumsfeld, her illustrators become whipping motions with her hand, brow-beating with hands instead of her eyebrows. These are repelling instruments. The key becomes a question of, what are you trying to do? Connect or repel? Sometimes, you have to repel to get someone to bring himself closer to you.

Distance

Culture—from microculture through super-culture—dictates proximity in your interaction. In American culture, if you are intimately involved, standing far away can send a strong message of conflict. On the other hand, a casual acquaintance may be quite distressed if you move within 18 inches. Your intent again is either to repel or connect.

How do you choose to use distance? I know people who have told me that they have developed anti-hugger strategies to avert unwanted intrusion. The strategy may be as simple as a handshake or as complex as hand-talking that conveys, “Good to see you! We haven’t seen each other in so long, we have almost become strangers.” The combination of body language and words sends the message, “I like you, but feel uncomfortable with you that close.” You can use your body language in this way to repel the person who is making the unwanted advance without causing hard feelings.

Timing

How quickly or slowly you respond is an indicator most people will recognize. A rushed answer can indicate urgency, especially when the answer is no. A slow answer can also be a negative when you use it intelligently. I can telegraph that I am unsure when asked for or about something by answering in a halting fashion. Women use this all the time, probably because many of you are trained to be agreeable, so giving an outright no is uncomfortable.

“Would you like to have dinner with me?” he asks.

Pause. “Well (pause), I actually have (pause) other plans,” you respond. An astute man realizes you are saying, “No way in hell am I having dinner with you.”

Managing stress

On more than one occasion in the interrogation room, I have used artificial stress or violation of cultural space norms to destroy a barrier between me and my source. The oddest part of this equation is that when I relieve the stress, the person feels thankful to me for relieving the stress I created in the first place.

Here’s how it works in daily life. Maryann and I were walking from the grocery store one afternoon and talking, of course, about body language. I saw a slightly overweight lady a few years older than I am coming toward us. She was wearing a shirt that was too short for her body type, and a T-shirt underneath that exposed her midriff. By simply looking at the tail of the T-shirt and widening my eyes a little bit, I sent a message. Immediately, she began grooming, tugging the front of the shirt down. I turned away.

Let’s take this situation to an end in which I really do want to manipulate her. I move in closer so she feels stressed. I say, map in hand, “You look like a local. Could you please help me with directions to the post office?” All the while, I’m looking her over. I then move in very close to her as I hold the map in a lateral posture with her. She now feels relieved because she thinks I was simply trying to decide whether or not she is a local. She has no idea why she quickly feels better.

This scenario shows how you can manage stress that you created in another person. Be very careful with this kind of interaction. Either you do it with finesse, or you may be headed for conflict.

Confrontational practices

In Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures (Random House, 1977), anthropologist Marvin Harris proffers four possible explanations for war. Even though he points out the reasons why each theory has holes in the anthropological big picture, the four views are salient in terms of categorizing confrontational body language, some of which is handed down generation after generation, and some of which just comes naturally. His ideas translate as well into the daily interactions of families and other microcultures. Unless we are talking about gang war or some such ritualistic conflict, we can assume that humans group into their armed camps in places such as office apartment buildings and even children’s athletic events. The kind of warfare is simple conflict and it can range from catlike grunts and snarls to physical violence. Consider the reasons behind it and the body language of each.

War as solidarity

In this scenario, war results from a sense of group identity. The tribe that fights together stays together. In the modern vernacular, it’s a street gang mentality. It can also be the third shift at the call center. Once you bond with other people who share your views and circumstances, you don’t want to hurt your own. Aggression toward another group, even if those people share your circumstances, functions as a safety valve.

The chosen spokesperson may be super-typical, or perhaps a puppet moved to the forefront by the super-typical to confront. The purpose is to let you know that you have violated the tribe’s territory. Maybe your crime is that you haven’t refilled the toner in the copy machine when it was low. Regardless of cause, the body language is confrontational. If the issue is small, so is the body language, but if the issue is perceived as dire, the person’s behavior may approach fight or flight. The gravity of the issue is dictated by the tribe’s frame of reference. One common thread is the spokesperson’s need for support from the group. If others are present, you may see darting eyes of uncertainty in the spokesperson as she looks for approval and reenforcement from the group—raised brows, wide open eyes as she looks at the rest of the tribe.

On October 24, 2005, Oprah Winfrey’s interview with 9/11 widow Kathy Trant first aired. Her story of a “shopping addiction” to ease the pain of her loss had brought her infamously to the attention of the world. In asking her questions, Oprah’s lilt at the end of her voice and raised eyebrows served as subconscious cues indicating, “Come with me into this train of thought, even though it might prove incriminating to you.” It was Oprah’s figurative way of holding Kathy Trant’s hand and leading her into uncomfortable territory. Trant, whose spending spree included gifts of plastic surgery for friends—and obviously for herself—seemed Botoxed out of the ability to render normal facial responses. Even when she shed tears in response to Oprah’s painful questions, nothing on her face moved.

The contrast seemed particularly sharp in view of Oprah’s demonstrative eyebrows, eyes, and body. During a couple of exchanges, Oprah turned to the camera (the audience), widened her eyes and raised her brows, as if to say, “Do you believe her?” It was a request-for-approval look—and it’s highly unlikely that Oprah made it in a calculating way. Nevertheless, it had the effect of drawing the audience intimately into the exchange. If Kathy Trant lied to Oprah, then she would be lying to every person in the audience.

In a meeting, I do what Oprah did, but deliberately. If someone puts forth an idea that I disagree with, I know I need to take specific actions to have the group adopt my plan as their consensus position. After the other presenter speaks, I might look around the table and say, in polite terms, “You’re kidding me, right?” I’ll raise my hands so that everyone is focused on me, with me. He sees that, and has to back down.

War as play

Is war just a competitive, team sport? All I have to do here is mention the word football, but I could add the pop-culture phenomenon called reality TV. The pleasure that some people get out of taking risks simply for the adrenaline rush of putting their lives, or at least their safety, in danger is the premise behind “war as play.” The additional, cultural reinforcement to repeat the performance is the reward of accolades—hero worship. The same behavior plays out every day in offices and on children’s soccer fields across the United States. Confrontation as play means we have less at stake even if it falls apart and we fail, we still get the rush and the conviction, “Maybe I will win next time.” The children’s soccer coach gets in the face of the referee, similar to incidents occurring at the Super Bowl. Most of the time, she knows she will not win. She confronts to confront. If this were her day job, would she get in the face of her boss with her paycheck at stake? Unlike a professional athlete being ejected from the field for insolence, her rude behavior will likely not affect her income.

Who has not participated in an argument for its own sake? Why are we willing to risk losing? Because in the process we gain as well. Whether we gain status, such as the small-town lawyer who successfully confronts a big-city litigator, or simply add another layer to our personality by honing our debate skills, the allure of “war as play” is there. The danger is that we may lack assurance that the other person takes it as play as well.

In this circumstance, body language is clear. At the outset, you feel you are right and justified. People do not typically enter conflict as a game when they feel terrified of losing—unless they have self-destructive tendencies. They enter chin-up, talking aggressively, energetic, and focused.

War as human nature

Do human beings have a killer instinct? Does each of us have the capacity for killer behavior—or at least confrontational behavior? I’ll let the anthropologists slug it out over this one. What I know from experience is that human beings operate on a stimulus-response basis, and if the stimulus triggers an automatic aggressive reaction, even a pacifist (unless he’s on par with Mahatma Ghandi) can’t hold back. An interrogator will do this deliberately by synchronizing aggressive gestures and verbal attacks in an effort to bypass the source’s cognitive functions, provoke his emotions, and keep going straight to his mammalian brain to get the basest response possible.

When humans enter into “war as human nature,” only the most adept person can casually walk away from the outcome without long-term damage to the relationship. We use this one as a tool in interrogation because people will defend themselves when they feel threatened. Whether you think you have killer instinct or not, if I get in your face, scream, and call you a maggot, your animal self will rise up. When you go into a limbic mode (that is, emotional), you will simply respond instead of thinking. The results are clear from body language. Fight-or-flight body language surfaces: flaring nostrils, dilated pupils, elevated respiration, white sweaty skin, tensed muscles, and grinding jaw.

In this scenario, a great deal of the body language of confrontation will be involuntary, although not necessarily universal. You might use flailing arms or clenched fists without thinking about them, but these are gestures culture has ingrained in you as signals to arouse fear in the enemy.

War as politics

When one group attacks another to preserve or enhance its social, economic, or political interests, then war as politics comes into play. This makes particular sense if you believe that the unifying element of a culture is a shared view of quality of life, that is, what makes life good.

In some cases, what makes life good is status. Hillary Clinton and Donald Rumsfeld, as well as dozens of other people in the political arena, share a quality of life, and it is played out in countless interactions in the world every day. This is the politics of jockeying for position. People go at each other until one loses. Each enters the ring with an end score in mind, and has delineated what he is willing to sacrifice to get the concession. Often, the “winner” has the least invested in the argument; he can afford to take risks because he has less to lose in the long run. He can be magnanimous in letting the other have the ostensible victory. A powerful behind-the-scenes player is less likely to engage in this kind of open warfare. Men and women will also approach this differently.

Exercise

Watch a movie in which a mix of cultures and genders engage in confrontational behavior. A number of the James Bond movies qualify. Sort the body language by culture and gender. One way to tell if something is distinctly cultural is to envision someone with a different background using the same gesture. Would it either not have the desired effect or be funny instead of threatening? A good example is the pre-attack stance of a martial arts expert and the accompanying “Hi-ya!” You wouldn’t run away if Chris Rock does it in his comic, mocking style.

Open your eyes to the conversations that go on around you—verbal and non-verbal. How much interaction occurs? How much of it is intentional? In the words of Carl Jung: “The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.”

Tread carefully on your acquaintances.