Why Dr Travis Bradberry is wrong

On 28 Feb 2016, Dr Travis Bradberry published an article How Body Language Trumps IQ and within 24 hours it's had well over 300,000 views. I guess that's what happens when you're a successful author and an LinkedIn influencer. However page views does not make you correct.

Popularity is not a proof

A survey of people 500 years ago asking if the earth was the centre of the universe or that the earth was created in 7 days would produce the answer that both were true. A survey of people 200 years ago about evolution or whether women should get the vote would produce different answers to today. Similarly try asking people in the American South about civil rights 100 years ago or people in South Africa about equal rights in the 1980s. History is littered with examples of people propping up positions for cultural reasons and being unwilling to embrace a future where human beings are considered equals and truth prevails.

His article will get more page views than mine, that doesn't make it correct. At its core his and other similar articles I have commented on espouse the value of body language and that it is more important than intelligence. This may well back up his book sales but I disagree on a number of levels.

1. It takes us back to primate values. It subsumes the clearest communication of all - articulate speech and the thing which makes us most human - spoken language.  Primates show different parts of their anatomy to be attractive. Do you really want to be considering a person for a job based on primate values?

2. It assesses people on their ability to perform in an interview, not their ability to perform in a job. Too much focus on optimising the interview process and dealing with body language, handshakes, appearance, etc ends up optimising people who are good at stage presenting themselves for a 1 hour interview and not people who are good at actually doing the job. The interview process should optimise for the candidate and recruiter making a decision about getting the best candidate for the job rather than the best person who is good at interviews and dealing with a suboptimal recruitment process.

3. It disadvantages people unfairly. The pseudo crap about a strong handshake means a strong personality. Do you believe that? Really? Better not employ Dr Stephen Hawking then. A strong handshake implies a strong handshake - nothing more, nothing less. A 30 year old rugby player man interviews a 28 year man who plays rugby in his spare time and a 21 year old woman who likes painting as a hobby. Do you think the woman is probably at a disadvantage in the strong handshake stakes? If so, why do you do it? You might as well determine candidates via an arm wrestle, it makes as much sense. This is a good place to start learning about disability in the workplace:  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/disability-confident-campaign. In the comments section a Senior trial and appeal Counsel  agreed that "I squirm and shift about as I am disabled, what does that do for your body language assessment? People use a variety of connections to assess for different characteristics. My clients find me approachable because I talk to them in their language". I agree with the legal expert.

4. Promoting a singular body language interpretation promotes one cultural value set and does not respect cultural, ethnic or religious variation. Different cultures have different values. Deal with it.

5. Body language such as the "lean forward" being interpreted as a positive thing. Try that in a wheelchair. Bit hard doing that and shaking someone's hand when they are standing and you are not and still giving them that oh so important eye contact at the same time. However, not all disabilities are so obvious. That weak handshake, maybe you have MS? Whether you cross your legs or not, maybe you're not putting up a barrier, perhaps you just have a tired foot. We have the depth and preciseness of language to draw on yet so many people fall back on the easily misconstrued, ambiguous and discriminatory primate tribe selection criteria. 

6. The science does not prove Dr Bradberry's assertion. Business is littered with successful people with unusual dress codes, body language and appearance. Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. Howard Hughes, Angela Merkel, Sir Richard Branson, Larry Page, Steve Jobs. Instead, if you prefer people with confident voices and great body language, you'd instead give a job to Hitler, Josef Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, Mussolini or Jimmy Saville. Do you not agree that despite the oft-quoted facts that body language makes up most of communication that the content of our words is the most important part and that our primate past shouldn't form a part of the decision making process?  If you say it confidently enough you could end up with confident liars, take a look. What does assessing someone on their dress sense say? It says the interviewer has superficial values. 

7. The article contradicts itself at the most basic level. In an article about body language, the article uses none. In an article about posture, the article uses none other than a stock image. I would have personally preferred a picture of the high achieving lady the article is about as this could have helped to convey the point. Instead we got a Getty stock image of a lady in a blazer under "grab some success" Here it is: http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/go-out-and-grab-some-success-royalty-free-image/504242015 ". Was Amy Cuddy's body language not good enough? Not even a video? You do know that her research has been questioned and mathematically debunked?http://datacolada.org/2015/05/08/37-power-posing-reassessing-the-evidence-behind-the-most-popular-ted-talk/ Being famous does not make you right, especially when the facts are scientifically scrutinised. 

8. When I'm "hiring" ie choosing to use, a doctor, dentist or other professional I look at their qualifications, experience, reputation and understanding of my needs. How they sit, the strength of their handshake, the way they cross their legs, other arbitrary body functions are of NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER and it makes me astonished that someone of Dr. Travis Bradberry's reputation promulgates the ideology that because this is how a number of people behave it is acceptable to continue in this fashion. It used to be acceptable to keep slaves, deny women the vote and have segregated areas for ethnic minorities and thank goodness those practices are now illegal and socially unacceptable. If you followed the "body language" hypothesis that most communication is non verbal, then noone would value Dr Hawking. Body language is riddled with opportunities for misinterpretation. An experienced communicator will put into clear and unambiguous speech what they want to say rather than rely on the ambiguities of non verbal communication. Crossed legs? Is that a barrier you're putting up there or maybe your foot is sore? Weak handshake? Is that a sign of a weak person or maybe you have a disability? Clear speech is what matters. The rest is noise.

9. In an era when we should be promoting Digital working to help reduce congestion, help the environment, give people more flexible work options and help the disabled into work, why are we placing so much emphasis on handshakes and face to face contact and face to face meetings. Are they really necessary? I've had 5 offers in succession that have gone from phone interview straight to offer. I don't turn down face to face interviews, but at the end of the face to face interview I wonder why it was really necessary to travel 800 miles just to shake someone's hand and the rest could have been done with Skype. Placing too high an emphasis on physical contact is a tradition that is fading out. 

10. If such respectable hiring managers rigorously applied these great criteria to themselves, they should fire themselves straight away! The candidate is hiring you to supply a job, just as much as you are hiring the candidate to fulfil it. 

Thanks, Craig

I leave you with comments made by others, many successful in their chosen fields. Oh and the picture at the top? It serves to remind us that words are more important than how the person was standing, and all men (people) are indeed created equal.

Let's not forget that among the most convincing people out there are con artists and psychopaths. They have gotten all this "why you should trust me" stuff down to a fine art. As business manager or recruiter, you have to ask yourself what your hiring priorities are. If you only want someone who can look and sound the part, then the above advice is all you need.

This assertion is not supported by the research. I refer you once again to Hunter & Schmidt's 1998 meta-analysis of the factors behind workplace success. When organizations are persistently recruiting for this kind of fluff instead of what the literature actually shows, no wonder hiring is such a hit-and-miss affair!

"Working to improve your body language has a profound effect on your emotional intelligence." Really now! Look at Stephen Hawking, who by the way has a disability, and we all know he is very emotional in his talks, down to earth and very intelligent. Maybe you should listen to one of his lectures. What about Helen Keller? Ludwig van Beethoven? Ray Charles? Stevie Wonder? And on and on I could go. YOU CAN BET THEIR BODY LANGUAGE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR INTELLIGENCE. "Studies show that people who use positive body language are more likable, competent, persuasive, and emotionally intelligent." I take this statement as one who does not use, nor have positive body language skills, are less than all others, how unfair. Think about all those who are disabled! "Learning to use positive body language will make people like you and trust you more." HOW CRUEL. Wow! Again I say think of all those who are disabled.

For the sake of balance, I'd like to point out that there was a (much larger and more powerful) failed replication of the power pose: http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/5110-Ranehill-Dreber-Johannesson-Leiberg-Sul-Weber-PS-2015-Assessing-the-robustness-of-power-posing-no-effect-on-hormones-and-risk-rolerance-in-a-large-sample-of-men-and-women.pdf There was also an analysis of the original study and they suggest that the first result was likely a false-positive (they found a result by chance, rather than because of their manipulation):http://datacolada.org/2015/05/08/37-power-posing-reassessing-the-evidence-behind-the-most-popular-ted-talk/ IQ is a very robust and well established concept whereas the evidence for power-posing is very weak. I'm therefore sceptical about the ability of body language to "trump" IQ. Also EQ is a contentious concept at best.

Time to change the social business model

As part of the Scottish Government Digital Scotland rollout, I would like the government to require companies over a certain size to offer a proportion of jobs on their books as distance working. This technology has been available for decades and for even longer companies have effectively outsourced work to different continents and had company subsidiaries that "remote work", so why not individuals?

Having more people work from home would relieve pressure on city housing markets, encourage the rural economy, help disabled people who have transport difficulties, encourage a development of digital technologies, make Scotland a leader in a social revolution away from the 19th century mentality of going to a factory for everyone to work in one place, encourage employment in rural areas, promote Scotland as a place of work in the global marketplace, reduce over congestion in cities, promote rural economies, assist parents and carers to balance childcare and work, decrease the need for transport (and hence be green), reduce the need for children to move when their parents change job and above all increase social stability.

All those advantages and more.

Yes we need a digital infrastructure although large parts of what we need have been in place for years, but we also need social change to go along with it. Can the government take a lead on enabling the social change to take advantage of the new digital infrastructure being created?

Craig.
West Lothian

Update 19/05/2014
I contributed to the Scottish Parliament Fathers and Parenting Inquiry, the report is now available. I am pleased to say my comments, ignored by The Scotsman, have been taken on board. Relevant extract below:


95. She highlighted the role of the parenting strategy in ensuring flexible working and other family-friendly policies were available to parents. That is a powerful tool that the Government has. We have the power to influence change in the national, top-level sense. Legislation is another powerful tool that the Government has to make further cultural change. We are also working with employers to support them in creating workplaces that encourage a better work-life balance for everyone. So that we can help dads to thrive at home and at work, we have formed a new partnership with Fathers Network Scotland, the parenting across Scotland group and Working Families to try to change the way that Scotland‘s parents live and work.

96. The Minister also brought attention to other approaches the Scottish Government was taking to encourage employers to offer flexible working. At the Institute of Directors awards tonight, we are sponsoring an award for companies that have shown excellence in providing family-friendly flexible working practices. This is the second year that we have sponsored the award, in order to work with a group of people who would not normally engage with this subject and to showcase the way in which businesses are doing their bit to allow families to have a better work-life balance.

Conclusion
97. We were not surprised to find that much of the evidence we heard on childcare and flexible working echoed what we heard during our Women and Work inquiry, but are concerned to find that not only do these issues keep women from actively participating in work, they keep fathers from actively participating in parenting. The imbalance in parental leave entitlements and access to flexible working arrangements are clearly a cause for concern. The Scottish Government has shown a drive towards improving the situation, and, as in our Women and Work inquiry we commend the Scottish Government on its approach and ask that such issues remain a priority in implementing the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and the national parenting strategy. In responding, we ask that the Minister include an update on progress made against the recommendations made in our Women and Work inquiry report.

US Gun Control

I've written about gun issues before including the day of the Dunblane Primary school shooting. A tragic event which resulted in the UK changing gun law.

This tweet, covered by Piers Morgan and this one have been retweeted many times. Please view the tweets, favourite them and retweet. They, and others like them, need to once and for all put the NRA in its place as an organisation clinging to the remnants of a 1689 English law, the Wild West and the 18th century when the 2nd amendment was passed.

Compare the figures, read this article and decide - it's time to reduce gun ownership and head towards a ban in the general population.

If you don't think someone not from the US, like Piers Morgan or myself should have an opinion on this, please read my post and sign the petition to deport Piers (he wants you to do this to force a debate)

The US is a great country. I have visited it many times and even went to school there for a short time. It would be greater without guns.

many thanks

Anti-Gaelic comments in The Scotsman publications

For many years, The Scotsman publications has seen fit to publish letters and correspondence which put down Gaelic, usually citing "it's a waste of money" or "noone speaks it anymore". Despite the support of The Scotsman via its Gaelic column, the derogatory remarks in the letters columns have been going on for decades. Enough is enough. I'm all for freedom of speech and can completely accept that Gaelic isn't everyone's cup of tea, but the comments go well beyond mere criticism and are at a level that if it was Irish, Urdu or pretty much any other ethic group it would be an offence under race law and the Equalities act and the Scotsman would be censured by the Press Complaints Commission.

This post isn't about being pro or anti Gaelic. It's about freedom of speech and the associated responsibilities that go with it. I want a mature debate at a civilised level, not an ongoing drip drip of Gaelic hate remarks to stir things up and I want the National papers to accept that sometimes they get it wrong.

Please judge for yourselves


In the run up to this year's Mod, the following  letter was published

http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/opinion/john-gibson-happy-to-leave-it-all-to-the-dogs-1-2558639

Please see the correspondence which follows

Correspondence to 29th October
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/5730322/EEN291012.pdf

To follow this further, please follow Arthur Cormack on Twitter or on Facebook.

Many have said so already, but let me add to the praise which Art has received for doggedly pursuing The Scotsman group for reasonable answers to reasonable questions in such a magnificent and exemplary way.

If you feel similarly, the contact details for The Scotsman are in the letters.

Craig

Scotland and the Olympics

I am a bit fed up with the highly successful London 2012 Olympics being used as a political football to justify that Scotland should not be independent.

Let me put the Olympics into context. The Olympians and Paralympians, no matter what part of the UK they were from did an outstanding job. As a nationalist I was supporting Team GB. I would have preferred to support Team Scotland but I accepted the rules. I was particularly pleased to see Scottish athletes do so well and as a lad from Dunblane myself I particularly supported Andy Murray.

Turning now to the analogy which is often made between TeamGB in Sport and TeamUK in politics, let us remind ourselves of a few facts. During the period 1928 to 1996 TeamGB competed at the summer Olympics and yes we had The Union of 1707 backing us. During that period in which London hosted the games in 1948 the best gold total we managed was 6 in any of them. Better together? 16 Olympic games and as recently as 1996 we got ONE yes ONE gold medal. All this under The Union and "Better Together". We had stunning athletes - Sally Gunnell, Denise Lewis, Tessa Sanderson, Liz McColgan, Chris Boardman but just one Gold from 300 competitors and we had the Union and Better Together. None of it made any difference. One Gold. This year, 29 Golds. Same Union. Tories in power in 1996, Tories in power in 2012. The Union clearly made no difference. Where was it for our athletes between 1928 and 1996?

What made a difference was the National Lottery as a vehicle for raising money for sport and a ruthless focus on sports we were good at and likely to win medals at. You could say the union gave us the national lottery but I would argue this was not a prerequisite for raising money for sport - euromillions could do the same or shock horror the government could decide to fund sport adequately so that not only do we produce world class athletes but we encourage children to be interested in sport as part of an active healthy lifestyle rather than a diet of fish and chips and watching overpaid footballers on TV. What made a difference wasn't the union, it was there all during 1928 to 1996, it was putting an appropriate amount of money towards sport. Just as we had great athletes during those fallow years but poor facilities and funding holding them back, we have the same situation in Scotland now. Oil money wasted in England. Scotland's wealth wasted on Trident. Scotland's energy wealth having to fund illegal wars rather than investing in the Scottish economy, Scotland's future and Scotland's sport.

Scotland is predominately a left of centre political country, we have a different ethic than the predominantly right of centre England. This causes conflicts of priorities and holds us back, like the Team GB athletes were held back for 60+ years under the so called Better Together Union. It wasn't better for them then , it isn't better for us now. Scotland has its own priorities - an oil fund like Norway, renewable energy, a health service and educational system that is free. England has different priorities. Sure we have things in common, but together we are pulling in different directions and pulling us both down. That is why better together is a myth. Just as team GB turned itself around from one gold medal, Scotland and England will politically grow after separation and become more apart than they will achieve together. If there is one lesson from the Olympics it is not that the union made us stronger, it is that a proper sense of priorities and vision to bring them about made us achieve more. I believe Scotland has the right priorities - social justice, equality, opportunity, culture, economic growth and democracy. Only with independence can we take full advantage of these priorities and achieve our full potential and our vision. There is no vision coming from "Better Together" other than more of the same. More of the same isn't good enough, we can do more if we believe in better.

Support Yes Scotland. Play your part in taking Scotland forward as a confident nation and achieve something worthwhile to be proud of and tell your children and grandchildren about.

Craig

Music for the London Olympics

The list of music for the opening ceremony for the London Olympics has been released. It is a list which misses an opportunity in front of an audience of about a billion.

This is the London Olympics, the UK is the host nation and the national team is team GB. The concept of England does not exist in the Olympics yet looking at the list of music there is not much more diversity in musical taste than you would find in a home counties pub juke box or the iPod of someone who didn't get out much.

The UK is home to 7 indigenous languages, (English, Scots, Welsh, Irish, Scots Gaelic, Cornish, British Sign Language) yet I can see only one of these represented in the list, to the complete exclusion of all the others.

The UK is also home to a wide variety of musical styles, and you might have thought even Mull of Kintyre or Amazing Grace on the Bagpipes would get a look in, something on the Northumbrian pipes or a brass band from England. It's mostly pop music from the last 50 years. So much for over a 1000 years of musical and linguistic diversity being showcased. I like pop music too, but not to the complete exclusion of everything else.

The torch did a really great job of including the whole UK, it's a pity the opening ceremony, seen by many more did not have such a wide cultural remit. The Cambridge folk festival does a better job of showcasing a wide variety of music from across the UK.

I expect though that the Irish won't be complaining. London does not speak for Ireland and hopefully soon after Yes Scotland, then Scotland won't have to complain either.

I leave you with this music from the Disney/Pixar film Brave. They sought fit to showcase Scottish music to an international audience. Somehow it's good enough to have music particular to Scotland in an international film but not in a London based Olympics. I was offered a job running the IT for the Olympics opening ceremony. It's too bad I got a better offer, perhaps I could have bent a few ears.

The music for the opening ceremony only serves to portray the UK as a narrow, mono-cultural land, something that of course isn't true at all, unless you favour the BNP view of the world.

Craig