October 18, 2025 • 24 mins
Flirting can be fun but also confusing. In this episode, we break down the psychology of attraction and reveal how to tell if she’s genuinely interested or just being polite. From reading subtle body language cues to interpreting tone, eye contact, and conversation flow, you’ll learn how to confidently recognize when chemistry is in the air.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-infographics-show-podcast--6317257/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome everyone to the deep dive, and specifically welcome to
beyond infographics.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
We're here because well, anyone can glance at a chart, right,
But what we want to do is give you the
real tools, the sort of decoding keys, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
The context, the science behind it, all the surprising stuff exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And today we're diving deep into something pretty fundamental, the
silent language of human connection.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We really are. We're talking attraction, flirting, social boundaries, all
those unspoken rules. We want to get past just you know,
surface observations and look at the actual psychology.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And I think the place we have to start, the
absolute foundation, is just how much of our communication isn't words?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Oh? Absolutely, it's staggering when you see the numbers. Some
studies put it as high as what ninety three percent, ninety.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Three percent of the message is impact coming from something
other than the actual words you choose. It sounds almost unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
It does, but it breaks down logically. You've got your tonality,
the music of your voice, basically that's around thirty eight percent,
and then pure body language, the nonverbal cues, that's the
biggest chunk fifty five percent.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Which leaves what seven percent for the actual vocabulary.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Tes seven percent. It really puts things in.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Perspective, and it immediately shows where things can go wrong.
Right if your words say one thing, but your body
screams another.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The body wins every time. If you say, oh, I'm
so excited, but you sound flat and you're like shrinking back.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Yeah, nobody's buying the excited part. The nonlobal signals just
completely override the words. They get in the way.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
It's like this parallel operating system that's always running, and honestly,
it's often the more truthful one.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Why is it so dominant though, that ninety three percent.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, it's likely deep evolutionary wiring. Our brains are built
to process visual and auditory cues about safety, threat, and
tention really fast, much faster than we process complex language.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So as a survival thing pre dates fancy conversation exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
We instinctively trust what we see and hear in terms
of tone and body language, especially if there's a mismatch
with the words. The nonverbal is the primary signal.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Okay, that makes sense. So let's take that rule, that
massive nonverbal dominance, and apply it to maybe the most
confusing human interaction there is attraction.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Right where the signals get really subtle and often misinterpreted.
We've gathered some, well, some really fascinating insights into these cues.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Things people do intentionally and maybe things they don't even
realize they're doing precisely.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
We can think about it as the deliberate strategy someone
uses the sender's toolkit, if you will, and then the
more subconscious leakage that sort of reveals hidden feelings.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Let's start with the effort. You can actually see the
idea of dressing to impress. It sounds obvious, but there's
this strategic layer here, Isn't there?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
There really is. It's not just about looking generally presentable.
When someone's genuinely attracted. The insight is they put in
demonstrably more effort clothes, hair grooming.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, but how do we know it's strategic for that
person versus just you know, they decided to look nice
that day.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
It's often about the contrast you observe their behavior. Maybe
someone who's usually pretty conservative in their dress suddenly starts
wearing lower cut tops or tighter clothes specifically when the
person they're interested in is around.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Ah, So it's a noticeable shift. In style aimed at
enhancing certain.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Features, exactly flaunting their looks as the insight puts it.
And it's not just the clothes. It's tactical placement too,
sitting near the target, making sure they walk through their
line of sight, making sure the effort gets noticed.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Okay, visible effort. Then there's the sound that thirty eight
percent tonality piece. Yeah, the voice changed.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Yes, Women in park trailer often modulate their voice when flirting.
It tends to become lower, maybe softer, a bit more
soul free, a deliberate shift, very deliberate. The aim is
to capture attention, sound more intimate, and you can really
hear the difference compared to how they might speak to
just a friend. There's a warmth, the sort of pacing, right.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And what about laughter as another tricky one. We laugh
when we're nervous, We laugh to be polite. How do
we know if it's genuine interaction?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
That's a fair point. Laughter is complex, but the key
factors here seem to be enthusiasm and maybe duration. The
idea is if someone finds you appealing, they often find
your humor more appealing too, So.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Even if the joke is objectively terrible uh huh.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, if it's a real groaner, but they still laugh heartily,
like a full sustained laugh, it suggests the enjoyment is
coming more from the interaction with you than the joke itself.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's a low risk way to signal I like being.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Around you exactly signals receptivity. Okay, so let's flip it.
Let's look at the sender's toolkit. The more intentional nonverbal
strategies people use, and these often differ a bit based
on traditional gender roles.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Right, so for women, the insights suggest the strategies tend
to be more indirect, focusing on approachability.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Yeah, vulnerability seems key, and it starts with the eyes.
Eye contact is fundamental.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Creating that initial connection.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Precisely actually shows physiological arousal, and we mean like heighten attention,
neurological excitement, not necessarily immediate sexual desire. That arousal is
highest when you get clear eye contact that's both sent
and received. It's like an invitation, and then comes the smile,
obviously warmth friendliness.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
And building on that eye contact, there's the body language,
like the head tilt.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
M listening with the head tilted slightly. It's often seen
as quite feminine, sort of non confrontational. It exposes the neck,
which signals attentiveness, maybe even a little vulnerability.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
And there was a specific point about a downward tilt.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, one insight suggested a slight downward tilt is perceived
as more attractive. Maybe it conveys a hint of shyness,
something that makes the person seem more approachable.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
And then there's touch, subtle touch, hugely powerful. Touch signals safety, trust,
It actually triggers oxytocin release bonding hormone right reduces stress.
But the key here is subtlety and implied permission. We're
talking a brief touch on the hand, maybe during laughter,
nothing invasive, but it can create that sense of connection
(06:06):
really quickly.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Okay, so that's more indirect side, what about the signals
typically associated with men, often more active, more.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Direct, definitely more about displaying presence. Maybe the eyebrow flash
is a classic example, a quick lift, tiny movement but
really potent. It signals goodwill, friendliness, recognition, but in a
flirting context it takes on that extra layer of interest
of desire. It's almost universal.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And then the preening behaviors, adjusting clothes, hair.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah, those little adjustments, smoothing a tie, adjusting shirt sleeves,
maybe unbuttoning the top buttons slightly. It's partly about looking sharp,
well tailored.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Drawing attention to being put together.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
And partly boosting one's own confidence. Perhaps stroking the hair
does something similar, draws the eyes up towards the face,
which helps facilitate that crucial eye contact.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right, and what about the more stance related the power stance,
or even.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
The uh, the crotch display as it's sometimes bluntly called. Yeah,
it sounds a bit crude, but it's a subconscious display
of well presence and interest.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
How did that manifest?
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Facing the person directly feet pointing towards them, often standing
or sitting with legs slightly more apart, it's about occupying space,
signaling confidence and directing attention squarely at the target. It
sort of claims the interaction space.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
And finally moving towards the person.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
The lean in, Oh, that's a big one. Leaning in
clearly signals curiosity interest. Think about it. Our instinct is
usually to put distance between ourselves and anything unpleasant or threatening.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
So closing that distance is a strong positive signal.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Absolutely, it's a move towards intimacy, and it ties into
that old ninety ten rule for a first kiss, doesn't.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
It, right, The idea that one person goes ninety percent
of the way then.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Pauses exactly giving the other person the chance, the nonverbal
cue to close that final ten percent. It's the ultimate
test of whether the interest is mutual right in that moment.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Okay, So that's the dance of attraction in a social setting.
But what happens when these signals enter a professional space
like a negotiation, That ninety three percent must take on
a whole new meaning.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
It absolutely does. It becomes strategic, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
And this brings us straight into what researchers call the
impression management dilemma, particularly for women.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Okay, unpack that. What's the theory behind this dilemma.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
It's rooted in something called social role theory. Basically, the
idea is that historically and culturally, we have these expected.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Gender roles, right stereotypes Essentially kind of men are traditionally
associated with agency, being assertive, competitive competent, women with communion
being warm, friendly, caring, and in.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
A negotiation, those roles.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Clash massively for women. It creates this really tough trade off.
If she acts gentically, pushes hard, asserts her demands, she
might be seen as competent, but she often gets penalized socially,
she's seen as unlikable, violating that communal expectation, the bossy
label exactly. But if she leans into the communal role
is super friendly, collaborative, she might be liked, but then
(09:09):
she risks being seen as incompetent, not tough enough for
the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It sounds like a no win situation.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Historically it often has been in these kinds of high
stakes environments. But there's some fascinating insights suggesting a potential
workaround using nonverbal cue, strategically specifically feminine charm.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Okay, how was this studied?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
There was this really clever experimental study. They set up
video negotiations people selling a smartphone, cross gender pairs, and
they specifically coach some of the female negotiators to use
nonverbal flirtatiousness.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
What kind of things.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Sustained eye contact, more smiling, head tilting, maybe subtly touching
their own hair or arm, compared to a control group
who were just told to be neutral and professional, And.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
What happened to how they were perceived by the male negotiators.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
The results were pretty strike to The nonverbal flirtation significantly
boosted the women's likability.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Okay, so the charm offensive worked on that level.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
It did, but here's the crucial part. It didn't decrease
their perceived competence.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Ah, so they dodged the trade off exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
The flirtatious nonverbals acted like a social shield. They could
still be seen as effective negotiators while also fulfilling that
expectation of warmth and friendliness, avoiding the likability penalty.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
That's fascinating, And there was something even stranger about authenticity,
wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yes, this was really counterintuitive. The women using the nonverbal
flirtation were actually perceived as more authentic than the women
who were just being neutral and professional.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
How does that work? Strategic flirting feels well less authentic
on the surface.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
It seems paradoxical, right, But the thinking is maybe a
purely neutral, somewhat cold professional demeanor actually violates the expected
female gender role more than flirtation does. Flirtation in this
context involves warm, smiling, communal behaviors, so even if it's strategic,
it might feel more aligned with deep seated expectations than
(11:06):
neutrality does wow.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Okay, but this didn't work for men doing.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
The same thing complete opposite. The study found when men
used nonverbal flirtation in the negotiation, they were actually seen
as less likable than the men who acted neutrally. Why
the difference cultural norms. Most likely, for men in that
professional context, flirting might come across as unprofessional, maybe trying
too hard, even a bit sleazy. Perhaps it could undermine
(11:31):
their perceived agency and seriousness.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And this study, being done via video, really underscores that
ninety three percent rule. Again, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Absolutely? In these rich communication settings video face to face,
the nonverbals just carry so much weight. People default to
believing the body language, especially when they're trying to assess
someone under pressure, like in a negotiation. It was the
nonverbal charm that shifted perceptions of likability and competence, not
necessarily anything said about the phone price.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Okay, really interesting stuff, and just a quick pause here.
If you're finding this Deep Dive valuable, if you're enjoying
decoding these silent signals with us, please do take a
second to rate the Deep Dive five stars on whatever
platform you're using. It really helps us keep doing this.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yeah, we appreciate the support. Now back to that negotiation study,
there was a crucial limitation of paradox.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wasn't there. Right? The charm worked wonders for their image,
more likable, just as competent, more authentic, but it.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Didn't actually help them get a better deal on the smartphone.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
That's the kicker. All that improved perception didn't translate into
better tangible outcomes. No link between flirting and the final
agreed price.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
It really highlights the limits of charm, especially in a
very transactional, distributive negotiation like selling a phone. It solved
the impression problem, the social role conflict.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
But not the bottom line financial problem exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Maybe in more relationship focused negotiations it might play out differently,
but here rapport didn't override financial strategy when it came
down to brass tax fascinating.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Okay, let's shift years now from strategic flirting to something
maybe even more fundamental, the role of touch in social
bonding across cultures.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yes, this research reveals something quite profound, a kind of
universal map of trust based on touch. There's a fundamental
rule connecting how emotionally close you are to someone and
where on your body you're comfortable with them touching you.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
They call it the touchability index for TI.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
That's right. Researchers quantify that emotional bond, asking people to
rate their closeness to different people in their lives like partners, parents, friends, strangers,
relationship scales exactly. And then they literally have people color
in diagrams of the human body showing where touch is
permissible for each of those relationships.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
And they found a direct link.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
A remarkably strong linear association. As the emotional bond strength
goes up, the acceptable area for touch increases predictably.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Wow, and this holds up across different cultures.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
That's the really striking part. They compared Western culture the
UK with an East Asian culture Japan, two very different
places regarding physical contact.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Norms, and the basic rule was the same.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The core rule held. The map itself looked broadly similar.
Romantic partners pretty much anywhere is okay makes sense. Then
your closest family, best friends, typically the head, the upper
torso area becomes acceptable, and as you get more strangers
it shrinks right down, usually only the hands, if anything
at all. This strong link between the relationship type and
(14:29):
the body region allowed for touch seems to be a
human universal.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
The universals always have local flavor, right. There must have
been differences between the British and.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Japanese groups, Oh, absolutely, the overall texture was different. For instance,
the British participants generally found social touch more pleasant overall
than the Japanese participants.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Did, which probably reflects daily life maybe more casual hugs
or handshakes in the UK.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
That's the likely explanation, But there were also specific differences
in where touch was allowed, like what well. UK folks
allowed partners more access to torso, face, legs. They also
let female friends and family touch the face more, which
might tie into observations about Brits touching their own faces more,
and male strangers had slightly more hand access.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
In the UK, Okay and Japan.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Japanese participants allowed female relatives more access to the lower
legs and even.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The bottom interesting. Why might that be?
Speaker 2 (15:22):
The researchers hypothesized it might relate to child rearing practices,
where female relatives traditionally have more physical contact involving those
lower body areas with children. It shows how cultural roles
can shape the specifics. On top of the universal map.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Was there also a difference in how sensitive the map was, Like,
did it take more closeness to allow touch on certain
areas in one culture versus the other?
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Yes? That was a really subtle but important finding. For
the Japanese participants. Touchability on the arms and hands was
more sensitive to the emotional bond strength. The graft's slope
was steeper, meaning you needed a significantly closer relationship in
Japan to allow for the kind of touch on the
arms or hands, like a handshake or a casual hug
that might be more common and require less intimacy in
(16:06):
the UK, Those everyday Western gestures seem to carry more
emotional weight or require a higher trust threshold.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
In Japan, it makes sense. What about gender? Did it
matter if the toucher was male or female?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Yes, that was pretty consistent across both cultures too. Touch
from women in the social networks generally seen as more
acceptable than touch from men.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
A general preference for female touchers, right.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
But this was especially pronounced in the Japanese sample. Japanese
women showed a really strong preference. Their acceptable touch zones
for almost all males, even their fathers, were much smaller
compared to female relatives, like their mothers.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So cultural norms around gender interaction really layer onto that
universal touch map.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Definitely, the core bonding mechanisms seems universal, but the expression
is heavily shaped by culture and gender roles.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Okay, let's circle back to the start of a connection again,
that moment of deciding whether to even initiate flirtation, that
approach avoidance conflict.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Right, the risk of rejection is always there, and what
seems to determine our willingness to take that risk. A
lot of it comes down to how we see ourselves,
our own attractiveness exactly. Research strongly suggests that your self
perceived attractiveness is a major predictor of your willingness to
initiate flirting. It's tied to your assessment of your own
sort of mate value.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
If you think you're desirable, you're more confident, more willing
to shoot your shot.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Pretty much, high self perceived attractiveness equals greater willingness to flirt.
Makes intuitive sense.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
But here's where it got really interesting. In the research
we looked at, this held true regardless of sexual orientation.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
That was a surprising bit, wasn't it. Sexual orientation didn't
moderate this relationship. Straight women interested in men and lesbian
women interested in women. The link between feeling attractive and
being willing to flirt was just as strong for both groups.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
But hang on, wouldn't you expect based on cultural narratives
that maybe lesbian relations chips are less focused on traditional
beauty standards or regidgender roles, so maybe attractiveness wouldn't be
as critical for initiating.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
That was a totally reasonable hypothesis, but the data didn't
bear it out. It suggests that this link between self
perceived attractiveness and initiating contact is well, perhaps a more
fundamental psychological mechanism, like.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
An evolutionary driver related to mate value that sort of
overrides the specific cultural script.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Of the romance that seems to be the imvocation. Despite
potential differences in the cultural emphasis on looks, the internal
self assessment of one's own desirability plays a similarly powerful
role in deciding whether to risk initiating regardless of who
you're attracted to.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
So bottom line, feeling good about how you look makes
you more likely to make the first move, whether you're
straight or gay.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
That's what this particular research indicates. It's about that internal
confidence tied to perceived looks. Now, the study also touched
on how people flirted looking at traditional masculinity of femininity
or TMF within the lesbian sample.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Right, you might guess that more masculine identifying women would
use more direct approaches and more feminine women might use
more indirect signals.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Like the head tilts and smiles we talked about earlier.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, did the data support that?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Not conclusively. While TMF scores did generally relate to overall
flirtatious behavior, the study couldn't strongly link TMF to the
directness versus indirectness of the flirting style itself.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
So how someone flirts might be more about personality or
the specific situation than just their masculine or feminine traits.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
It seems more complex than just that TMF scale could
capture based on this data. But the core finding about
self perceived attractiveness predicting the willingness to flirt in the
first place, that seemed pretty robust across the board for
women in this research.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Okay, so we've spent all this time dissecting the subtle
signals the ninety three percent, the head tilts, the voice changes,
the strategic clothing. But let's be real Trying to decid
life for someone's interest based only on that stuff can
drive you crazy.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Oh absolutely, that's the crucial reality check. A hair touch
could mean interest, or it could mean an itchy scalp.
Enthusiastic laughter could mean attraction, or just that they're generally
cheerful or maybe nervous person.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
These micro cues are ambiguous in isolation, highly ambiguous.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
While they reveal a lot about comfort, bonding, or even
strategic intent and a negotiation for gauging actual romantic follow through,
they're unreliable on their own.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
So where does that leave us? How do we cut
through the noise.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
By looking at the signal that costs something, the signal
that requires actual investment effort, specifically the effort involved in
spending time together.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Actions speak louder than subtle nonverbals.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
In this case, definitely asking someone out or observing if
they make an effort to see you. That tells you
far more about their genuine interest level than trying to
interpret a fleeting smile. We can actually think about interest
in terms of tears based purely on demonstrated effort.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Hey, let's break that down. Tier one low interest.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Right, This is characterized by a huge gap between communication
ease and actual time investment. They might text you back instantly,
chat online easily.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Because that's low effort. You can do it while watching
TV exactly.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
But when you try to actually make plans to hang out,
suddenly it's impossible. You get vague excuses I'm busy, with
no follow up plans that constantly fall through.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
If someone has one hundred and sixty eight hours in
a week and can't find one or two.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
To see you, the message is clear, right, they aren't
willing to invest the action of spending time. And the
key insight here is you probably can't make them interested
by analyzing their texts harder or changing your own subtle signals.
Trying to manufacture interests from zero effort is usually wasted energy.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Okay, so low interest is basically no effort to actually
meet up. What's the next level? Moderate interest?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Yes, and this is really the baseline. It's the absolute
minimum required for something real to potentially develop. This person
might not be blowing up your phone two four seven
or an initiating every single plan, but and this is
the key, they will agree to hang out and crucially, they.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Will show up reliability.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yes, if they genuinely are busy one week, they'll say so,
suggest another time, and then follow through on that rescheduled plan.
They don't flake constantly. They don't leave you hanging indefinitely.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Because they don't want to mess up their chances. They
see potential and are willing to invest their time, which
is valuable to see where it.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Goes Exactly That willingness to commit time and show up
is the minimum viable signal of real interest.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
And finally, the top tier high interest.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
This one requires basically zero guesswork. It's completely unambiguous. How so,
their actions and words make their intent crystal clear. They
are actively finding ways to be around you. They initiate
plans frequently, They initiate conversations, they respond quickly. It feels easy,
it feels almost effortless because the investment is mutual and consistent.
You're not left wondering when you'll hear from them or
(22:56):
see them again, because they are clearly motivated to close
that distance and increase their presence in your life. That
sustained proactive effort is the loudest nonverbal signal of all.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
It trumps all the subtle stuff we analyzed earlier when
it comes to gauging romantic.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Intent in terms of predicting actual relationship development. Absolutely effort
is the clearest metric.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Wow. Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground today,
from the sheer dominance of nonverbal.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Cues that ninety three percent rule, especially in richer contexts
like video and those specific signals of attraction and confidence.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
To the really nuanced strategy of using feminine charm in
negotiations how it can boost likability and competence perception for
women solving that social role dilemma.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Even if it doesn't necessarily get them a better price
in a purely transactional setting.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
We'll also mapped out that universal connection between emotional bonds
and where touch is allowed that touchability.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Index, showing how deep that link is across cultures like
the UK and Japan, even with all the fascinating local variations.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And we saw how self pre reve attractiveness seems to
be a key driver for the willingness to initiate flirting,
surprisingly consistent across both straight and lesbian.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Women, suggesting some really fundamental psychological mechanisms at play there,
perhaps related to mate value assessment.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So as you go about your interactions, maybe observing a
negotiation or just navigating your social world. Here's something to
think about.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
How much of what we do is driven by these deep,
maybe biological, cross cultural patterns like the rules of touch.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
And how much is conscious strategy shaped by gender roles
and specific situations like that charm offensive in the negotiation,
and when do those systems.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Clash Ultimately, While the subtle signals are fascinating, maybe the
most practical takeaway is to pay attention to the effort
someone puts in. That willingness to invest time and energy
often tells the truest story.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
A fantastic point to end on. That's all for this
deep dive into the silent scripts of human connection.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Thanks for joining us, Thank you, see you next time.
Welcome everyone to the deep dive, and specifically welcome to
beyond infographics.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Glad to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
We're here because well, anyone can glance at a chart, right,
But what we want to do is give you the
real tools, the sort of decoding keys, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
The context, the science behind it, all the surprising stuff exactly.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And today we're diving deep into something pretty fundamental, the
silent language of human connection.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
We really are. We're talking attraction, flirting, social boundaries, all
those unspoken rules. We want to get past just you know,
surface observations and look at the actual psychology.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
And I think the place we have to start, the
absolute foundation, is just how much of our communication isn't words?
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Oh? Absolutely, it's staggering when you see the numbers. Some
studies put it as high as what ninety three percent, ninety.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Three percent of the message is impact coming from something
other than the actual words you choose. It sounds almost unbelievable.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
It does, but it breaks down logically. You've got your tonality,
the music of your voice, basically that's around thirty eight percent,
and then pure body language, the nonverbal cues, that's the
biggest chunk fifty five percent.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Which leaves what seven percent for the actual vocabulary.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Tes seven percent. It really puts things in.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Perspective, and it immediately shows where things can go wrong.
Right if your words say one thing, but your body
screams another.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
The body wins every time. If you say, oh, I'm
so excited, but you sound flat and you're like shrinking back.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Yeah, nobody's buying the excited part. The nonlobal signals just
completely override the words. They get in the way.
Speaker 2 (01:29):
It's like this parallel operating system that's always running, and honestly,
it's often the more truthful one.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Why is it so dominant though, that ninety three percent.
Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well, it's likely deep evolutionary wiring. Our brains are built
to process visual and auditory cues about safety, threat, and
tention really fast, much faster than we process complex language.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So as a survival thing pre dates fancy conversation exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
We instinctively trust what we see and hear in terms
of tone and body language, especially if there's a mismatch
with the words. The nonverbal is the primary signal.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Okay, that makes sense. So let's take that rule, that
massive nonverbal dominance, and apply it to maybe the most
confusing human interaction there is attraction.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Right where the signals get really subtle and often misinterpreted.
We've gathered some, well, some really fascinating insights into these cues.
Speaker 1 (02:23):
Things people do intentionally and maybe things they don't even
realize they're doing precisely.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
We can think about it as the deliberate strategy someone
uses the sender's toolkit, if you will, and then the
more subconscious leakage that sort of reveals hidden feelings.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Let's start with the effort. You can actually see the
idea of dressing to impress. It sounds obvious, but there's
this strategic layer here, Isn't there?
Speaker 2 (02:47):
There really is. It's not just about looking generally presentable.
When someone's genuinely attracted. The insight is they put in
demonstrably more effort clothes, hair grooming.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, but how do we know it's strategic for that
person versus just you know, they decided to look nice
that day.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
It's often about the contrast you observe their behavior. Maybe
someone who's usually pretty conservative in their dress suddenly starts
wearing lower cut tops or tighter clothes specifically when the
person they're interested in is around.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Ah, So it's a noticeable shift. In style aimed at
enhancing certain.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
Features, exactly flaunting their looks as the insight puts it.
And it's not just the clothes. It's tactical placement too,
sitting near the target, making sure they walk through their
line of sight, making sure the effort gets noticed.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
Okay, visible effort. Then there's the sound that thirty eight
percent tonality piece. Yeah, the voice changed.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Yes, Women in park trailer often modulate their voice when flirting.
It tends to become lower, maybe softer, a bit more
soul free, a deliberate shift, very deliberate. The aim is
to capture attention, sound more intimate, and you can really
hear the difference compared to how they might speak to
just a friend. There's a warmth, the sort of pacing, right.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
And what about laughter as another tricky one. We laugh
when we're nervous, We laugh to be polite. How do
we know if it's genuine interaction?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
That's a fair point. Laughter is complex, but the key
factors here seem to be enthusiasm and maybe duration. The
idea is if someone finds you appealing, they often find
your humor more appealing too, So.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
Even if the joke is objectively terrible uh huh.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, if it's a real groaner, but they still laugh heartily,
like a full sustained laugh, it suggests the enjoyment is
coming more from the interaction with you than the joke itself.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
It's a low risk way to signal I like being.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Around you exactly signals receptivity. Okay, so let's flip it.
Let's look at the sender's toolkit. The more intentional nonverbal
strategies people use, and these often differ a bit based
on traditional gender roles.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Right, so for women, the insights suggest the strategies tend
to be more indirect, focusing on approachability.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Yeah, vulnerability seems key, and it starts with the eyes.
Eye contact is fundamental.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Creating that initial connection.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Precisely actually shows physiological arousal, and we mean like heighten attention,
neurological excitement, not necessarily immediate sexual desire. That arousal is
highest when you get clear eye contact that's both sent
and received. It's like an invitation, and then comes the smile,
obviously warmth friendliness.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
And building on that eye contact, there's the body language,
like the head tilt.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
M listening with the head tilted slightly. It's often seen
as quite feminine, sort of non confrontational. It exposes the neck,
which signals attentiveness, maybe even a little vulnerability.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
And there was a specific point about a downward tilt.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, one insight suggested a slight downward tilt is perceived
as more attractive. Maybe it conveys a hint of shyness,
something that makes the person seem more approachable.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
And then there's touch, subtle touch, hugely powerful. Touch signals safety, trust,
It actually triggers oxytocin release bonding hormone right reduces stress.
But the key here is subtlety and implied permission. We're
talking a brief touch on the hand, maybe during laughter,
nothing invasive, but it can create that sense of connection
(06:06):
really quickly.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Okay, so that's more indirect side, what about the signals
typically associated with men, often more active, more.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Direct, definitely more about displaying presence. Maybe the eyebrow flash
is a classic example, a quick lift, tiny movement but
really potent. It signals goodwill, friendliness, recognition, but in a
flirting context it takes on that extra layer of interest
of desire. It's almost universal.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
And then the preening behaviors, adjusting clothes, hair.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
Yeah, those little adjustments, smoothing a tie, adjusting shirt sleeves,
maybe unbuttoning the top buttons slightly. It's partly about looking sharp,
well tailored.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
Drawing attention to being put together.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
And partly boosting one's own confidence. Perhaps stroking the hair
does something similar, draws the eyes up towards the face,
which helps facilitate that crucial eye contact.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Right, and what about the more stance related the power stance,
or even.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
The uh, the crotch display as it's sometimes bluntly called. Yeah,
it sounds a bit crude, but it's a subconscious display
of well presence and interest.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
How did that manifest?
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Facing the person directly feet pointing towards them, often standing
or sitting with legs slightly more apart, it's about occupying space,
signaling confidence and directing attention squarely at the target. It
sort of claims the interaction space.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
And finally moving towards the person.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
The lean in, Oh, that's a big one. Leaning in
clearly signals curiosity interest. Think about it. Our instinct is
usually to put distance between ourselves and anything unpleasant or threatening.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
So closing that distance is a strong positive signal.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Absolutely, it's a move towards intimacy, and it ties into
that old ninety ten rule for a first kiss, doesn't.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
It, right, The idea that one person goes ninety percent
of the way then.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
Pauses exactly giving the other person the chance, the nonverbal
cue to close that final ten percent. It's the ultimate
test of whether the interest is mutual right in that moment.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Okay, So that's the dance of attraction in a social setting.
But what happens when these signals enter a professional space
like a negotiation, That ninety three percent must take on
a whole new meaning.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
It absolutely does. It becomes strategic, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.
And this brings us straight into what researchers call the
impression management dilemma, particularly for women.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Okay, unpack that. What's the theory behind this dilemma.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
It's rooted in something called social role theory. Basically, the
idea is that historically and culturally, we have these expected.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
Gender roles, right stereotypes Essentially kind of men are traditionally
associated with agency, being assertive, competitive competent, women with communion
being warm, friendly, caring, and in.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
A negotiation, those roles.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Clash massively for women. It creates this really tough trade off.
If she acts gentically, pushes hard, asserts her demands, she
might be seen as competent, but she often gets penalized socially,
she's seen as unlikable, violating that communal expectation, the bossy
label exactly. But if she leans into the communal role
is super friendly, collaborative, she might be liked, but then
(09:09):
she risks being seen as incompetent, not tough enough for
the negotiation.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
It sounds like a no win situation.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Historically it often has been in these kinds of high
stakes environments. But there's some fascinating insights suggesting a potential
workaround using nonverbal cue, strategically specifically feminine charm.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
Okay, how was this studied?
Speaker 2 (09:30):
There was this really clever experimental study. They set up
video negotiations people selling a smartphone, cross gender pairs, and
they specifically coach some of the female negotiators to use
nonverbal flirtatiousness.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
What kind of things.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Sustained eye contact, more smiling, head tilting, maybe subtly touching
their own hair or arm, compared to a control group
who were just told to be neutral and professional, And.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
What happened to how they were perceived by the male negotiators.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
The results were pretty strike to The nonverbal flirtation significantly
boosted the women's likability.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Okay, so the charm offensive worked on that level.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
It did, but here's the crucial part. It didn't decrease
their perceived competence.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Ah, so they dodged the trade off exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
The flirtatious nonverbals acted like a social shield. They could
still be seen as effective negotiators while also fulfilling that
expectation of warmth and friendliness, avoiding the likability penalty.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
That's fascinating, And there was something even stranger about authenticity,
wasn't there?
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yes, this was really counterintuitive. The women using the nonverbal
flirtation were actually perceived as more authentic than the women
who were just being neutral and professional.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
How does that work? Strategic flirting feels well less authentic
on the surface.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
It seems paradoxical, right, But the thinking is maybe a
purely neutral, somewhat cold professional demeanor actually violates the expected
female gender role more than flirtation does. Flirtation in this
context involves warm, smiling, communal behaviors, so even if it's strategic,
it might feel more aligned with deep seated expectations than
(11:06):
neutrality does wow.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Okay, but this didn't work for men doing.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
The same thing complete opposite. The study found when men
used nonverbal flirtation in the negotiation, they were actually seen
as less likable than the men who acted neutrally. Why
the difference cultural norms. Most likely, for men in that
professional context, flirting might come across as unprofessional, maybe trying
too hard, even a bit sleazy. Perhaps it could undermine
(11:31):
their perceived agency and seriousness.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
And this study, being done via video, really underscores that
ninety three percent rule. Again, doesn't it?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Absolutely? In these rich communication settings video face to face,
the nonverbals just carry so much weight. People default to
believing the body language, especially when they're trying to assess
someone under pressure, like in a negotiation. It was the
nonverbal charm that shifted perceptions of likability and competence, not
necessarily anything said about the phone price.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
Okay, really interesting stuff, and just a quick pause here.
If you're finding this Deep Dive valuable, if you're enjoying
decoding these silent signals with us, please do take a
second to rate the Deep Dive five stars on whatever
platform you're using. It really helps us keep doing this.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yeah, we appreciate the support. Now back to that negotiation study,
there was a crucial limitation of paradox.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
Wasn't there. Right? The charm worked wonders for their image,
more likable, just as competent, more authentic, but it.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Didn't actually help them get a better deal on the smartphone.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
That's the kicker. All that improved perception didn't translate into
better tangible outcomes. No link between flirting and the final
agreed price.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
It really highlights the limits of charm, especially in a
very transactional, distributive negotiation like selling a phone. It solved
the impression problem, the social role conflict.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
But not the bottom line financial problem exactly.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Maybe in more relationship focused negotiations it might play out differently,
but here rapport didn't override financial strategy when it came
down to brass tax fascinating.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Okay, let's shift years now from strategic flirting to something
maybe even more fundamental, the role of touch in social
bonding across cultures.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Yes, this research reveals something quite profound, a kind of
universal map of trust based on touch. There's a fundamental
rule connecting how emotionally close you are to someone and
where on your body you're comfortable with them touching you.
Speaker 1 (13:19):
They call it the touchability index for TI.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
That's right. Researchers quantify that emotional bond, asking people to
rate their closeness to different people in their lives like partners, parents, friends, strangers,
relationship scales exactly. And then they literally have people color
in diagrams of the human body showing where touch is
permissible for each of those relationships.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
And they found a direct link.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
A remarkably strong linear association. As the emotional bond strength
goes up, the acceptable area for touch increases predictably.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
Wow, and this holds up across different cultures.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
That's the really striking part. They compared Western culture the
UK with an East Asian culture Japan, two very different
places regarding physical contact.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Norms, and the basic rule was the same.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
The core rule held. The map itself looked broadly similar.
Romantic partners pretty much anywhere is okay makes sense. Then
your closest family, best friends, typically the head, the upper
torso area becomes acceptable, and as you get more strangers
it shrinks right down, usually only the hands, if anything
at all. This strong link between the relationship type and
(14:29):
the body region allowed for touch seems to be a
human universal.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
The universals always have local flavor, right. There must have
been differences between the British and.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Japanese groups, Oh, absolutely, the overall texture was different. For instance,
the British participants generally found social touch more pleasant overall
than the Japanese participants.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Did, which probably reflects daily life maybe more casual hugs
or handshakes in the UK.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
That's the likely explanation, But there were also specific differences
in where touch was allowed, like what well. UK folks
allowed partners more access to torso, face, legs. They also
let female friends and family touch the face more, which
might tie into observations about Brits touching their own faces more,
and male strangers had slightly more hand access.
Speaker 1 (15:13):
In the UK, Okay and Japan.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Japanese participants allowed female relatives more access to the lower
legs and even.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
The bottom interesting. Why might that be?
Speaker 2 (15:22):
The researchers hypothesized it might relate to child rearing practices,
where female relatives traditionally have more physical contact involving those
lower body areas with children. It shows how cultural roles
can shape the specifics. On top of the universal map.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Was there also a difference in how sensitive the map was, Like,
did it take more closeness to allow touch on certain
areas in one culture versus the other?
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Yes? That was a really subtle but important finding. For
the Japanese participants. Touchability on the arms and hands was
more sensitive to the emotional bond strength. The graft's slope
was steeper, meaning you needed a significantly closer relationship in
Japan to allow for the kind of touch on the
arms or hands, like a handshake or a casual hug
that might be more common and require less intimacy in
(16:06):
the UK, Those everyday Western gestures seem to carry more
emotional weight or require a higher trust threshold.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
In Japan, it makes sense. What about gender? Did it
matter if the toucher was male or female?
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Yes, that was pretty consistent across both cultures too. Touch
from women in the social networks generally seen as more
acceptable than touch from men.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
A general preference for female touchers, right.
Speaker 2 (16:28):
But this was especially pronounced in the Japanese sample. Japanese
women showed a really strong preference. Their acceptable touch zones
for almost all males, even their fathers, were much smaller
compared to female relatives, like their mothers.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
So cultural norms around gender interaction really layer onto that
universal touch map.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Definitely, the core bonding mechanisms seems universal, but the expression
is heavily shaped by culture and gender roles.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
Okay, let's circle back to the start of a connection again,
that moment of deciding whether to even initiate flirtation, that
approach avoidance conflict.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
Right, the risk of rejection is always there, and what
seems to determine our willingness to take that risk. A
lot of it comes down to how we see ourselves,
our own attractiveness exactly. Research strongly suggests that your self
perceived attractiveness is a major predictor of your willingness to
initiate flirting. It's tied to your assessment of your own
sort of mate value.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
If you think you're desirable, you're more confident, more willing
to shoot your shot.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Pretty much, high self perceived attractiveness equals greater willingness to flirt.
Makes intuitive sense.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
But here's where it got really interesting. In the research
we looked at, this held true regardless of sexual orientation.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
That was a surprising bit, wasn't it. Sexual orientation didn't
moderate this relationship. Straight women interested in men and lesbian
women interested in women. The link between feeling attractive and
being willing to flirt was just as strong for both groups.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
But hang on, wouldn't you expect based on cultural narratives
that maybe lesbian relations chips are less focused on traditional
beauty standards or regidgender roles, so maybe attractiveness wouldn't be
as critical for initiating.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
That was a totally reasonable hypothesis, but the data didn't
bear it out. It suggests that this link between self
perceived attractiveness and initiating contact is well, perhaps a more
fundamental psychological mechanism, like.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
An evolutionary driver related to mate value that sort of
overrides the specific cultural script.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
Of the romance that seems to be the imvocation. Despite
potential differences in the cultural emphasis on looks, the internal
self assessment of one's own desirability plays a similarly powerful
role in deciding whether to risk initiating regardless of who
you're attracted to.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
So bottom line, feeling good about how you look makes
you more likely to make the first move, whether you're
straight or gay.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
That's what this particular research indicates. It's about that internal
confidence tied to perceived looks. Now, the study also touched
on how people flirted looking at traditional masculinity of femininity
or TMF within the lesbian sample.
Speaker 1 (19:03):
Right, you might guess that more masculine identifying women would
use more direct approaches and more feminine women might use
more indirect signals.
Speaker 2 (19:12):
Like the head tilts and smiles we talked about earlier.
Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, did the data support that?
Speaker 2 (19:16):
Not conclusively. While TMF scores did generally relate to overall
flirtatious behavior, the study couldn't strongly link TMF to the
directness versus indirectness of the flirting style itself.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
So how someone flirts might be more about personality or
the specific situation than just their masculine or feminine traits.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
It seems more complex than just that TMF scale could
capture based on this data. But the core finding about
self perceived attractiveness predicting the willingness to flirt in the
first place, that seemed pretty robust across the board for
women in this research.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Okay, so we've spent all this time dissecting the subtle
signals the ninety three percent, the head tilts, the voice changes,
the strategic clothing. But let's be real Trying to decid
life for someone's interest based only on that stuff can
drive you crazy.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Oh absolutely, that's the crucial reality check. A hair touch
could mean interest, or it could mean an itchy scalp.
Enthusiastic laughter could mean attraction, or just that they're generally
cheerful or maybe nervous person.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
These micro cues are ambiguous in isolation, highly ambiguous.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
While they reveal a lot about comfort, bonding, or even
strategic intent and a negotiation for gauging actual romantic follow through,
they're unreliable on their own.
Speaker 1 (20:29):
So where does that leave us? How do we cut
through the noise.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
By looking at the signal that costs something, the signal
that requires actual investment effort, specifically the effort involved in
spending time together.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Actions speak louder than subtle nonverbals.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
In this case, definitely asking someone out or observing if
they make an effort to see you. That tells you
far more about their genuine interest level than trying to
interpret a fleeting smile. We can actually think about interest
in terms of tears based purely on demonstrated effort.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Hey, let's break that down. Tier one low interest.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Right, This is characterized by a huge gap between communication
ease and actual time investment. They might text you back instantly,
chat online easily.
Speaker 1 (21:12):
Because that's low effort. You can do it while watching
TV exactly.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
But when you try to actually make plans to hang out,
suddenly it's impossible. You get vague excuses I'm busy, with
no follow up plans that constantly fall through.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
If someone has one hundred and sixty eight hours in
a week and can't find one or two.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
To see you, the message is clear, right, they aren't
willing to invest the action of spending time. And the
key insight here is you probably can't make them interested
by analyzing their texts harder or changing your own subtle signals.
Trying to manufacture interests from zero effort is usually wasted energy.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Okay, so low interest is basically no effort to actually
meet up. What's the next level? Moderate interest?
Speaker 2 (21:50):
Yes, and this is really the baseline. It's the absolute
minimum required for something real to potentially develop. This person
might not be blowing up your phone two four seven
or an initiating every single plan, but and this is
the key, they will agree to hang out and crucially, they.
Speaker 1 (22:07):
Will show up reliability.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yes, if they genuinely are busy one week, they'll say so,
suggest another time, and then follow through on that rescheduled plan.
They don't flake constantly. They don't leave you hanging indefinitely.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
Because they don't want to mess up their chances. They
see potential and are willing to invest their time, which
is valuable to see where it.
Speaker 2 (22:25):
Goes Exactly That willingness to commit time and show up
is the minimum viable signal of real interest.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
And finally, the top tier high interest.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
This one requires basically zero guesswork. It's completely unambiguous. How so,
their actions and words make their intent crystal clear. They
are actively finding ways to be around you. They initiate
plans frequently, They initiate conversations, they respond quickly. It feels easy,
it feels almost effortless because the investment is mutual and consistent.
You're not left wondering when you'll hear from them or
(22:56):
see them again, because they are clearly motivated to close
that distance and increase their presence in your life. That
sustained proactive effort is the loudest nonverbal signal of all.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
It trumps all the subtle stuff we analyzed earlier when
it comes to gauging romantic.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Intent in terms of predicting actual relationship development. Absolutely effort
is the clearest metric.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Wow. Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground today,
from the sheer dominance of nonverbal.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Cues that ninety three percent rule, especially in richer contexts
like video and those specific signals of attraction and confidence.
Speaker 1 (23:30):
To the really nuanced strategy of using feminine charm in
negotiations how it can boost likability and competence perception for
women solving that social role dilemma.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
Even if it doesn't necessarily get them a better price
in a purely transactional setting.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
We'll also mapped out that universal connection between emotional bonds
and where touch is allowed that touchability.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Index, showing how deep that link is across cultures like
the UK and Japan, even with all the fascinating local variations.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
And we saw how self pre reve attractiveness seems to
be a key driver for the willingness to initiate flirting,
surprisingly consistent across both straight and lesbian.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Women, suggesting some really fundamental psychological mechanisms at play there,
perhaps related to mate value assessment.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
So as you go about your interactions, maybe observing a
negotiation or just navigating your social world. Here's something to
think about.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
How much of what we do is driven by these deep,
maybe biological, cross cultural patterns like the rules of touch.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
And how much is conscious strategy shaped by gender roles
and specific situations like that charm offensive in the negotiation,
and when do those systems.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
Clash Ultimately, While the subtle signals are fascinating, maybe the
most practical takeaway is to pay attention to the effort
someone puts in. That willingness to invest time and energy
often tells the truest story.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
A fantastic point to end on. That's all for this
deep dive into the silent scripts of human connection.
Speaker 2 (24:56):
Thanks for joining us, Thank you, see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!