No.10
So we published these findings, and the media are all over it, and they say, Okay, so this is what you do when you go in for the job interview, right? (Laughter) You know, so we were of course horrified, and said, Oh my God, no, no, no, that’s not what we meant at all. For numerous reasons, no, no, no, don’t do that. Again, this is not about you talking to other people. It’s you talking to yourself. What do you do before you go into a job interview? You do this. Right? You’re sitting down. You’re looking at your iPhone — or your Android, not trying to leave anyone out. You are, you know, you’re looking at your notes, you’re hunching up, making yourself small, when really what you should be doing maybe is this, like, in the bathroom, right? Do that. Find two minutes. So that’s what we want to test. Okay? So we bring people into a lab, and they do either high- or low-power poses again, they go through a very stressful job interview. It’s five minutes long. They are being recorded. They’re being judged also, and the judges are trained to give no nonverbal feedback, so they look like this. Like, imagine this is the person interviewing you. So for five minutes, nothing, and this is worse than being heckled. People hate this. It’s what Marianne LaFrance calls “standing in social quicksand.” So this really spikes your cortisol. So this is the job interview we put them through, because we really wanted to see what happened. We then have these coders look at these tapes, four of them. They’re blind to the hypothesis. They’re blind to the conditions. They have no idea who’s been posing in what pose, and they end up looking at these sets of tapes, and they say, “Oh, we want to hire these people,” — all the high-power posers — “we don’t want to hire these people. We also evaluate these people much more positively overall.” But what’s driving it? It’s not about the content of the speech. It’s about the presence that they’re bringing to the speech. We also, because we rate them on all these variables related to competence, like, how well-structured is the speech? How good is it? What are their qualifications? No effect on those things. This is what’s affected. These kinds of things. People are bringing their true selves, basically. They’re bringing themselves. They bring their ideas, but as themselves, with no, you know, residue over them. So this is what’s driving the effect, or mediating the effect.
ボキャブラリー
So we published these findings, and the media are all over it, and they say, Okay, so this is what you do when you go in for the job interview, right? (Laughter) You know, so we were of course horrified, and said, Oh my God, no, no, no, that’s not what we meant at all. For numerous reasons, no, no, no, don’t do that. Again, this is not about you talking to other people. It’s you talking to yourself. What do you do before you go into a job interview? You do this. Right? You’re sitting down. You’re looking at your iPhone — or your Android, not trying to leave anyone out. You are, you know, you’re looking at your notes, you’re hunching up, making yourself small, when really what you should be doing maybe is this, like, in the bathroom, right? Do that. Find two minutes. So that’s what we want to test. Okay? So we bring people into a lab, and they do either high- or low-power poses again, they go through a very stressful job interview. It’s five minutes long. They are being recorded. They’re being judged also, and the judges are trained to give no nonverbal feedback, so they look like this. Like, imagine this is the person interviewing you. So for five minutes, nothing, and this is worse than being heckled. People hate this. It’s what Marianne LaFrance calls “standing in social quicksand.” So this really spikes your cortisol. So this is the job interview we put them through, because we really wanted to see what happened. We then have these coders look at these tapes, four of them. They’re blind to the hypothesis. They’re blind to the conditions. They have no idea who’s been posing in what pose, and they end up looking at these sets of tapes, and they say, “Oh, we want to hire these people,” — all the high-power posers — “we don’t want to hire these people. We also evaluate these people much more positively overall.” But what’s driving it? It’s not about the content of the speech. It’s about the presence that they’re bringing to the speech. We also, because we rate them on all these variables related to competence, like, how well-structured is the speech? How good is it? What are their qualifications? No effect on those things. This is what’s affected. These kinds of things. People are bringing their true selves, basically. They’re bringing themselves. They bring their ideas, but as themselves, with no, you know, residue over them. So this is what’s driving the effect, or mediating the effect.
publish: vt. 〔正式に〕発表[公表・公開]する、出版する、刊行する
go in for ~: 〔競技などに〕参加する、〔試験などを〕受ける
horrify: vt. （人を）怖がらせる、ぞっとさせる、びっくりさせる
numerous: a. 多数の、非常に多くの
for numerous reasons: 多くの理由で
leave out: 〜を除外する
hunch up: 肩をすぼめる、身を縮こめる、背を丸くする
bring — into ~: —を〜に連れてくる、参加させる
go through ~: 〜を体験する、経験する、味わう
stressful: a. 緊張の多い、ストレスの多い
judge: vt. 鑑定する、評価する
judge: n. 審査員、判定者
feedback: n. 反応、意見、評価、感想
hackle: vt. 質問攻めにする、やじを飛ばす、（質問・やじで）妨害する
quicksand: n. 流砂；〔抜け出すのに困難な〕危険な状況、窮地、泥沼
spike: vi. 急上昇する、釘のように飛び出る。vt. 〜を犬くぎで止める、犬くぎで固定する。（ここでは「コルチゾールを急上昇させる」という意味で使われているが、文法的には不正確。）
put — through ~: —に〜を経験させる、受けさせる
these: a. ｟話｠ある (何人かのいくつかの) (人物を話に導入して, 既出のことのような感覚を与える)
coder: n. （ここではdecoder「解読者、読み取る人」のこと。coderはしばしばencoderの略として使われるが、ここではdecoderの略と予想される。）
blind to ~: 〜に気づいていない、分かっていない
hypothesis: n. 仮説、仮定、前提
end up ~ing: 最終的に〜することになる
a set of ~: 一組の、一連の
hire: vt. 雇う
overall: adv. 概して、全体としては、全般的に見れば
drive: vt. 〜をさせる、駆り立てる
content: n. 内容、中身、趣旨
presence: n. 存在感、貫禄、風采、存在
rate: vt. 評価する、格付けする
variable: n. 変数、変化するもの
competence: n. 能力、適性
well-structured: よく構成された
qualification: n. 〖通例～s〗資格, 認定；適性, 技能, 経験 «for / to do»
affect: vt. 〜に影響する、作用する、〜の心に影響を与える
self: n. 自分自身、本性、性格
one’s true self: 本当の自分、本性
residue: n. 残余、残り、残留物、かす、燃え殻
mediate: vt. 〜に影響を与える、〜を左右する