Eye Contact

Jake LeMotta

Eye Contact - communicating intuitively/consciously



When your speaking with someone, do you find that your much in tune with the feeling/intuitive side of the conversation, or are conveyances taken more at face value?
i.e. are you paying attention to the person themselves and the feelings being conveyed or more the words that are being spoken?


Intuition/instinct, it makes sense, is more a subconscious thing that can be disrupted by conscious thought – that conscious thought being stimulated by visual awareness.
So, to maintain more focus on the intuitive/feeling side of the interaction, it would make sense that keeping someone out of your conscious range of vision/conscious awareness, and more in your instinctual awareness area, obviously lends itself to being more in tune with the feelings of the conversation (interpreting and communicating them), as oppose to simply the words themselves that are being exchanged.


As regards the conscious/instinctual ranges of vision, I think light diffraction demonstrates this:



Double slit - two eyes


Single slit - one eye isolated

Notice in the actual picture, where the light is more intense, the area which is denoted by M=0 in the diagram, this would be our conscious range of vision.
The areas marked m=1, m=2 – these would be our subconscious/intuitive/instinctual area's, or the ranges of our vision where instinct and the communication of feelings is more predominant.
Obviously were more focused on the person when we hold them in the area m=1 as oppose to m=2, but just outside of the conscious beam.


When your speaking with someone, what ranges of vision would you tend to keep them in?
i.e. do you look at them directly, a little/alot to the left, or right.
A mix of both? Predominantly one?


P.S. I know the diagrams actually denote wave diffraction but as far as I'm aware, this applies to light diffraction also.

Jake LeMotta

Pardon me, what I mean to say is - the type of eye contact lends itself either to communication through instinct (outside our conscious scope) or through conscious interpretation (inside our conscious scope).

Which method do you find you use when communicating?

Zombrex

Jake LeMotta wrote: »

Eye Contact - communicating intuitively/consciously



When your speaking with someone, do you find that your much in tune with the feeling/intuitive side of the conversation, or are conveyances taken more at face value?
i.e. are you paying attention to the person themselves and the feelings being conveyed or more the words that are being spoken?


Intuition/instinct, it makes sense, is more a subconscious thing that can be disrupted by conscious thought – that conscious thought being stimulated by visual awareness.
So, to maintain more focus on the intuitive/feeling side of the interaction, it would make sense that keeping someone out of your conscious range of vision/conscious awareness, and more in your instinctual awareness area, obviously lends itself to being more in tune with the feelings of the conversation (interpreting and communicating them), as oppose to simply the words themselves that are being exchanged.


As regards the conscious/instinctual ranges of vision, I think light diffraction demonstrates this:



Double slit - two eyes


Single slit - one eye isolated

Notice in the actual picture, where the light is more intense, the area which is denoted by M=0 in the diagram, this would be our conscious range of vision.
The areas marked m=1, m=2 – these would be our subconscious/intuitive/instinctual area's, or the ranges of our vision where instinct and the communication of feelings is more predominant.
Obviously were more focused on the person when we hold them in the area m=1 as oppose to m=2, but just outside of the conscious beam.


When your speaking with someone, what ranges of vision would you tend to keep them in?
i.e. do you look at them directly, a little/alot to the left, or right.
A mix of both? Predominantly one?


P.S. I know the diagrams actually denote wave diffraction but as far as I'm aware, this applies to light diffraction also.

A bit of a side, light defraction doesn't take place in your eye because of your lense. If it did your vision would be all blurry.

So the pictures you posted are a bit irrelevant to all this (they are to do with the quantum mechanics of light)

To your actual question, I tend to look people in the eye. As the old saying goes the eyes are the window to the soul, we can see a lot more about the actual state of the person through their eyes than from the mouth.

I tend to stand a little to the side, as I think direct face to face communication makes people uncomfortable. It means if I'm looking at them they don't have to look at me unless they want to, in which case they can turn to me directly.

Jake LeMotta

Wicknight wrote: »

A bit of a side, light defraction doesn't take place in your eye because of your lense. If it did your vision would be all blurry.

So the pictures you posted are a bit irrelevant to all this (they are to do with the quantum mechanics of light)

To your actual question, I tend to look people in the eye. As the old saying goes the eyes are the window to the soul, we can see a lot more about the actual state of the person through their eyes than from the mouth.

I tend to stand a little to the side, as I think direct face to face communication makes people uncomfortable. It means if I'm looking at them they don't have to look at me unless they want to, in which case they can turn to me directly.

Yes, it's good you clarify that actually.

This sounds a bit far fetched, but it's more the diffraction of your projection - not actual light - the way your regarding someone, and their interpretation of that; is the point I mean to highlight - thanks again.

To look at it another way - the intensity with which your regarding someone - with the m=0 line, the intensity is such that it conveys absolute conscious awareness of them - which generally makes people feel uncomfortable.

Outside that range, the intensity is less, there you can maintain visual contact for longer, and communicate moreso in terms of feeling.
Does that make sense?