Cognitively Accurate Body Language

Do we control what we say with our body language? Does body language have a "grammar" and rules that influence how we interact? This article from the Huffinton Post examines the body language of the two presidential candidates as they interact with their wives. The authors, Kathlyn and Gay Hendricks, identify some aspects of verbal/emotional/cognitive aspects of a relationship and the body language of the partners.

While I find their specific conclusions about the presidential candidates illuminating, I wanted to highlight the bigger message in the article:

There are three major factors that determine the health of any relationship: Authenticity, responsibility and appreciation. The following discoveries apply to relationships at home, at work, and in the world at large:

•A relationship thrives only when people speak honestly to each other about the significant matters in the relationship.

•A relationship thrives only when people take responsibility, instead of blaming each other, for the issues that arise in the relationship.

•A relationship thrives only when people express abundant appreciation for each other.

These factors line up pretty precisely with the basic assumptions of cognitive accuracy: that we have flaws and often act fallibly; that we do best when we take responsibility for our actions and attitudes; that we achieve our preferred outcomes more reliably when we use up-to-date information and process it effectively and rationally.

I also wanted to especially draw your attention to the conclusion of the article, an insight I find refreshing and significant:

We've seen real magic happen when those three rules of relationship are applied, both in our own lives and the lives of people with whom we've worked. We feel strongly that it's time to apply them to the world of politics....

If enough of us demand authenticity, responsibility and appreciation from our political leaders, maybe they'll stop clogging the airwaves and our national consciousness with lies and blame. The McCain campaign is the first one in our lifetimes to be based entirely on blame and fear. If enough of us mobilize, perhaps it will be the last.

A campaign in favor of cognitive accuracy...now that's something I can get behind!

Novelty Search in Presidential Politics

In this New York Times article about Barack Obama's 50-state strategy for winning the presidency, I came across this:

For Obama’s political advisers, expanding the electoral map is not about making a philosophical statement; it is simply a strategic imperative. Presidential campaigns, after all, are about getting to 270 — the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win. In relying on the same 20 or so winnable states over the past few elections, Democratic nominees have given themselves almost no margin for error. By contrast, Obama’s campaign, in addition to fighting for the usual complement of about a dozen swing states, has shifted considerable resources into a group of states — the list has, at one time or another, included Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Georgia — that haven’t been strongly contested for at least three elections, if not longer. (Alaska was on the list, too, until McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.) The idea here is that the more states you put in play, the more permutations there are that lead to victory.

Sounds like the man who will likely win the presidency has some solid understanding of novelty search and the value of open-ended approaches to problem-solving.

The article continues with this quote from David Axelrod, Obama’s lead strategist:

If you expand the map, you improve your chances.

A simple idea, but not easy, as we like to say about this cognitive accuracy stuff. And not at all common, and thus even more impressive and welcome.

I must say I feel a great deal of optimism about the possibility of a president who thinks like this and has people like this around him.