Is how you speak a good representation of how you think?

[sadavis00]

When you talk, you folllow certain social conventions of how to talk (such as being polite), but you don't simulatenously have an inner monologue of what to say and translate that monologue into "polite speech" (especially if the conversation is spontaneous and there is no time for preparation). Given this, what one says is just the same as an inner monologue I might have while alone, in theory. Practically, private monologue in solitude uses no social conventions such as politeness, and in addition, there is much more room to ponder an idea while at the same time doubting it, unlike when you have a conversation, where you can't really express that you doubt or don't agree with what you are saying, that is again a part of social convention where doubt is not easily expressed unless you actually say "I doubt".

When I can't speak spontaneously, that is often a sign for me that something is wrong. Either I don't understand the social conventions of speech in a particular situation, or my mind is disordered such that speech and thought are not "just in time", and I have to think carefully before I speak.

Speaking spontaneously is an public exhibition of your thinking process, it is similar to how you think in private. People who take a long time to speak, and what they speak doesn't really seem to need that much thought, are often suspect, because their lack of spontaneity indicates that they have some reason to not express their thinking process (even if you're lying, if you're doing it spontaneously, the way you go about it also indicates your thinking), or that they simply think slowly (not bad in itself, but all things equal, quick thinking is better than slow thinking).

I am often assumed to be intelligent when I speak, a characteristic not readily apparent in my schoolwork. I assume it is because I have no compunctions in speaking spontaneously. Perhaps other people should try this if they wish to improve how intelligent they seem, even if they don't have a high IQ.

[uberinquisitive]

Face-to-face communication is mainly non-verbal. If the words don't match up with the face and body and eyes...then it doesn't matter what you say.

Spontaneous words probably get better response, because you're acting naturally and consistently. When someone stops you suddenly, you say, "I'm surprised!" and your pupils, your shoulders, everything about you also reinforces the words.

People who don't speak often, or more slowly, are even more dependent on non-verbal cues. Some people, when they take time in answering, are shifty eyed or have facial ticks. They can't control it, and they are often imperceptible. However, the other person can "sense" something is wrong. (Expert con men are masters of controlling their non-verbal cues)

Then again, there are some people who take time in answering, yet when they do speak, their words carry deep and powerful impact. It's because all the non-verbal cues show them to be strong and trustworthy.

Again, it's not important what you say. It's whether your words and actions match. And...your non-verbal cues are much more important than verbal.

[ctutt]

What we say with our words, intonations, gestures, facial expressions and more, all create "movies" in the minds of our listeners. They're not our movies and almost always not even what we intended to communicate.

The recipients of our communitations create their own movies based on their own filters, background, and experiences.

It becomes our job, then, as communicators, to very carefully select our target audience in order to choose the words, phrases, expressions, intonations, etc. to most accurately communicate our intended message.

[Ilya]

ctutt, you make me confused. You give a perfect (and brief, unlike mine) description of non-verbal communication and thinking and in the other thread claim that it would be indescribable. Did I misunderstand you in one of these threads?

[Ilya]

sadavis00, you'll be amazed, how different the mental backstage of speaking can be. For example, when I speak, I have plenty of time to compose my phrases, because my internal time is very fast compared to the external. I do speak slowly and tend not to speak spontaneously. And when I'm giving a speach, it becomes even more complicated. In addition to speaking, I usually pay a lot of attention to the feedback from the audience. I notice who nods, who doesn't, who lost attention, who is shaking their head, boy, sometimes I watch the rhythm of breathing of everyone in the audience to match it with the rhythm of my presentation. Once you become aware of all these mental weels and cogs in your head, you stop making conclusions about what does one's behavior really mean.