Busting the Mehrabian Myth

I agree with you, but delivery CAN make or break a presentation.

This is absolutely right; but it really depends upon the context and type of message. I think that this debate in itself is redundant; analysis can only really be done reliably on a sentence by sentence basis; it is a failing attempt to quantify something which is inherently qualitative.

Yeah, because an ANIMATION of a guy mumbling absolutely represents real human discourse.

You may or may not have a point, but this is a total strawman argument.

Interesting how, despite our not being able to see or hear you, your words succeed in conveying your feelings about our animation...I think you may have helped us make our point!

Not fair to accuse science as the reason why such fallacies are propagated.

Our video is solidly pro-science. Its target is people who misquote scientific findings without first bothering to study and understand them. Professor Mehrabian was interviewed on BBC radio a few weeks after we posted our video, and he was asked, "whether 93% of communication is nonverbal?" He answered, "absolutely not. And whenever I hear that misquote of my findings I cringe because it should be obvious to anybody who would use any amount of common sense that that's not a correct statement!"

At least twice in the last year I've heard this myth presented as truth by consultants. The myth is out there - it needs rebutting no matter how this misinterpretation arose.

Words = Content
Non-verbals + Vocals + Feelings
Conflicting signals between content (what is said) and feelings (how it is presented) default to believing the feelings. Why? Words are easy to manipulate (lies). Non-verbals and vocals require the honed skills of a more professinal con artist to be truly misleading.