How men and women listen

I don't look at a person's face attentively to talk to them, and I'm female. Often, I'm looking at my hands or the side of their face, or if I'm lucky I'm buried by their clothes by leaning against them.

Looking somebody in the eye takes a lot of nerve, and it also attaches a lot of importance to what's said. It can even give the wrong impression and unsettle people.

In fact, I'd say because of the stereotype that women are multitaskers, they'd be less likely to look at the person they're talking to because they'd be doing something else at the same time that needs their eyes.

I think it depends on the character. I always look directly in someones face when I talk to them, especially in professional situations. During a more casual conversation with a friend I might wander a bit but not much.

My hypothesis is that it depends on the person and situation and an equal chance that either sex will have eyes on a speaker's face.

As usual for an Aspie, I take cursory glances toward a speaker than actually watch them unless they have a lot of unique gestures or animated when they speak.

As for experience, I have heard both. There are those who never notice I don't look at them and those who point it out, men and women.

I think it has less to do with gender and more to do with the type of person you have. If someone's confident (or overconfident) they'd be more likely to look someone in the eye, regardless of gender. Also I think it depends on how well you know someone--the less formal you are, the less likely you are to keep the focus right on their face.

Haphazard said:

Looking somebody in the eye takes a lot of nerve,

Click to expand...

Really? I always look everyone in the eye when I talk to them. I always thought it was very rude not to do so.

It also depends on the conversation you're having and the circumstances surrounding the conversation. If the conversation's very serious, then people are more likely to look at each other in the face. If one of the conversants (is that even a word?) is in a hurry, they'll be looking at their watch or looking at the exit or whatever. Or if they're doing something else, like cooking while they speak, their eyes will be in the task at hand and not the person speaking.

Bartholomew said:

Really? I always look everyone in the eye when I talk to them. I always thought it was very rude not to do so.

Click to expand...

Eye contact comes in many different forms. The only times I can remember getting a good look in the eye is when I've done something wrong. Call it conditioning.

mollyluna said:

There is a term (can't remember what it's called) for this and it's related to "power distance", which varies from culture to culture. Some cultures consider it rude to stand too far away from someone you're speaking to, while others consider it rude to stand too close. We covered this in my MBA program both in international management and human resources (organizational management). I can't find it in either book, but both their indexes suck. Maybe someone else knows what it's called. Wikipedia was worthless.

Click to expand...

It's something like this, among my friends. Even though we're literally on top of each other all the time in physical contact, we can't bare to look each other in the eye. usually, I know somebody's hairline like the back of hy hand, but I won't know the color of their eyes. I really don't think eye contact has much to do with physical closeness of a person to another, but then again, I may just have some weird friends.

Just a note supporting the minority view --

I remember reading about a sociolinguistic study in which pairs (both girls, or both boys) were given chairs to carry into a room, and they were supposed to sit down and talk. They were already friends.

Almost without exception, the girls placed the chairs so they were looking at each other; and almost without exception, the boys placed the chairs so they were sitting next to each other, and staring out at the wall while they talked.

Really? I always look everyone in the eye when I talk to them. I always thought it was very rude not to do so.

Click to expand...

I grew up learning the same thing. It's rare that I don't look someone talking to me in the eye.

For gorillas, however, the same can not be said. Looking them directly in the eyes is considered far more than rude. It's considered a threat or a challenge. I feel so bad for the gorillas at the zoo. All those gawking humans. Maybe that's why the gorillas seem so emo.

Actually, all the animals at the zoo are pretty emo. . .

I don't know if you have the information you are looking for, but I have a tiny scoop of thought.

I am a twenty-one year old male by the way.

It may have something to do with age differences as well. I find it easier to look someone in the eyes if they are much older or much younger. However, someone of the same age looking me in the eyes as I look into their eyes has always felt very awkward to me. It is a very intimate thing if eyes meet. It can create an unintended connection. Guys (for the most part) are naturally closed off emotionally (and pardon the generalization.) This experience of closeness may cause a guy to feel uncomfortable, and out of controle of the situation.

I personaly stare at the bridge of a person's nose when I talk to them. There is no risk of meeting their eyes, however the person is aware that you are attentive to their speaking.
My wife, before we got married, first brought my attention to how I did not look her in the eyes. Honestly, it was just me being shy in a masculine way.

I hope that helps.

Zach

from wiki:
Personal Space: The term proxemics was introduced by anthropologist Edward T. Hall in 1959 to describe set measurable distances between people as they interact. The effects of proxemics, according to Hall, can be summarized by the following loose rule:

“ Like gravity, the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only to the square of their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them."

Body spacing and posture, according to Hall, are unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts, such as subtle changes in the sound and pitch of a person's voice. Social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the following delineations:

Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering
Close phase - less than 6 inches (15 cm)
Far phase - 6 to 18 inches (15 - 45 cm)
Personal distance for interactions among good friends
Close phase - 1.5 to 2.5 feet (45 - 75 cm)
Far phase - 2.5 to 4 feet (75 - 120 cm)
Social distance for interactions among acquaintances
Close phase - 5 to 7 feet (1.5 - 2.1 m)
Far phase - 7 to 12 feet (2.1 - 3.6 m)
Public distance used for public speaking
Close phase - 12 to 25 feet (3.6 - 7.5 m)
Far phase - 25 feet (7.5 m) or more
Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. In Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference.

The felicific calculus is an algorithm formulated by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical hedonist, believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. Thus, the felicific calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the Utility calculus, the Hedonistic calculus and the Hedonic calculus.

Variables, or vectors of the pleasures and pains included in this calculation—which Bentham called "elements" or "dimensions"—were:[clarify]

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:

7. Extent: How many people will be affected?

In general, women tend to be more attuned to body language, facial expressions, and tone where men are more focused on the content. But... this isn't the kind of thing that is absolute with a "right" and "wrong" as long as it's true to your character.

I think the thing that should dictate your character's body language and attentiveness when listening is the character herself. That depends on so many things, not just gender. Personality, for one. Is she sensitive and thoughtful or is she self-centered and dismissive of others?

It's also situational. What is her relationship with the other character? Are they discussing ordering take-out or where to park the car, or are they professing their undying love for each other or deciding whether to put an elderly parent in a nursing home?

Of course, someone might make go overboard on eye contact and attentiveness if they're lying, too. I recently had to meet with a man whom I knew was likely to lie to me when I asked a particular question so I was watching for signs of a lie. During the entire conversation, he was too attentive and kept eye contact for so long it didn't look natural. As it turned out, not only was his answer to the particular question a lie, but so was most of the conversation.

I think this is another wide brushstroke thing. Not all men are inattentive assholes. Not all women are attentive. You should decide this as a character trait, not as a gender trait.

Do men, ordinary men, watch people's faces as closely as women and girls do? If they don't, how do they listen?

Click to expand...

Interesting, I'll look at people when I'm listening to them (out of politeness, well sometimes I won't), but when I'm speaking, I'll avoid eye contact because they might be a distraction.

But when either listening or talking I normally lean to one side and try to relax, I might fiddle with things - some reason I need to do something with my hands (hence when I speak I do the old politician thing of throwing my hands at the listening)

I found a similar trend when observing a conversation with two men. (For character building)

Bartholomew said:

Really? I always look everyone in the eye when I talk to them. I always thought it was very rude not to do so.

Click to expand...

Too much eye contact makes me jittery. I'm with Haphazard. I'll look you in the eyes at key moments -- more than that, and it gets clammy.

Unless you are a pretty girl and clammy is what we're after.

Diviner said:

It seems right to have a female character look attentatively at a speaker's face but less so for a male. Am I right about this? Do men, ordinary men, watch people's faces as closely as women and girls do? If they don't, how do they listen? Or are they just waiting for a chanceto talk or wishing they were elsewhere? I know this is generalization, but is there a difference, and if so, what is its nature?

Click to expand...

Depends on what the woman wants to talk about. Here's a hint for women:

If you want to have a useful conversation with your male counterpart . . . never say something like: "We need to talk."

You do that, he'll be thinking as hard about football as he can.

caw

seppuku05 said:

Interesting, I'll look at people when I'm listening to them (out of politeness, well sometimes I won't), but when I'm speaking, I'll avoid eye contact because they might be a distraction.

But when either listening or talking I normally lean to one side and try to relax, I might fiddle with things - some reason I need to do something with my hands (hence when I speak I do the old politician thing of throwing my hands at the listening)

I found a similar trend when observing a conversation with two men. (For character building)

Click to expand...

My understanding is that this is the norm. One will look more at one's conversation partner when they are doing the talking, than one does when oneself is talking.

(And I need to stop saying 'one' so much)

'One' is a good song, I wouldn't refrain from using it.

My 'lookings' do tend to be once every so often (perhaps key moments as mentioned) of course when I'm talking is the key moment to avoid eye contact for me, because the eye looking at you are analysing everything you're saying and I'd rather not see what they're thinking, it'll put me off.

So yeah, it's probably a common thing - men are really just social cowards when you get to know us on the inside.

Bartholomew said:

Really? I always look everyone in the eye when I talk to them. I always thought it was very rude not to do so.

Click to expand...

I find it creepy when someone is looking me in the eye like that. I start thinking they're a serial killer or something.

In fact, I believe you're advised to not make direct eye contact during interviews because it puts off the interviewer. Just occasional glances are fine.

It depends, too, on the topic. For example, if hubby starts talking about football, I have learned not to look him in the eye. It only encourages him.

I'm moving this topic to Roundtable. It should get much wider play there.