Michelle: A single, unconscious cue in a doctor's voice can predict with startling accuracy whether they'll be sued for malpractice. It has nothing to do with their medical skill, just the tone they use in a few seconds of conversation. Mark: Whoa, really? That’s terrifying. So a doctor could be a genius, but if their voice sounds wrong, they’re in trouble? Michelle: Exactly. It’s the power of the secret language we're all speaking, whether we know it or not. And that secret language is precisely what behavioral investigator Vanessa Van Edwards decodes in her bestselling book, Cues: Master the Secret Language of Charismatic Communication. Mark: Ah, I know her work. She's the founder of that research lab, Science of People. I've seen her TED talk. She's not just offering opinions; she's running experiments on this stuff, analyzing everything from presidential speeches to Shark Tank pitches. Michelle: That’s what makes her approach so powerful. She argues that charisma isn't some magical, elusive gift you're born with. It's a skill. And it all starts with a surprisingly simple equation.

Mark: Okay, I'm intrigued. An equation for charisma sounds almost too good to be true. Michelle: It’s incredibly straightforward. The formula is: Warmth + Competence = Charisma. In every single interaction, we are subconsciously asking two questions about the person in front of us. First, "Can I trust you?" That's warmth. And second, "Can I rely on you?" That's competence. Mark: Huh. Trust and reliability. That makes sense. But what happens when you get that balance wrong? I feel like most people, especially in a professional setting, focus way too much on competence and forget the warmth part. Michelle: Or they signal the wrong things entirely, even when their competence is off the charts. The book opens with this perfect, painful example. Do you remember the TV show Shark Tank? Mark: Of course. High-stakes, brutal pitches. Michelle: Well, in 2013, an inventor named Jamie Siminoff goes on the show to pitch his new video doorbell company. The product is called Doorbot. He's got a great idea, solid early sales—on paper, he's all competence. Mark: Okay, sounds like a slam dunk. Michelle: But the moment he starts talking, the cues are all wrong. He introduces himself with a rising intonation, so his name sounds like a question. 'My name is Jamie Siminoff?' It signals a lack of confidence. When he mentions the price, he does a little one-sided shoulder shrug—a classic cue of uncertainty. He's physically broadcasting doubt. Mark: Oh, I can picture it. It's like having the world's best recipe but burning the food when you serve it. His body was screaming, "I'm not sure about this!" and the Sharks read the body, not the business plan. Michelle: Precisely. They passed. Every single one of them. That company, Doorbot, was later renamed Ring. Amazon bought it for over a billion dollars. Siminoff had a billion-dollar idea, but his cues failed him. Mark: That is an incredible story. It shows how much this hidden language matters. So that's an example of competence without the right confidence cues. What about the other way around? Someone who is seen as all warmth, but needs to project competence? Michelle: The book gives a brilliant example: Goldie Hawn. For decades, her public image was all warmth—funny, likable, but as she put it, sometimes seen as "bubble-headed." Mark: Right, not exactly the person you'd expect to launch a serious educational initiative. Michelle: But that's what she wanted to do. In 2003, she founded the MindUp program, a mindfulness curriculum for children. She knew she'd face skepticism. So, she strategically balanced the scale. She partnered with neuroscientists and psychologists to conduct large-scale studies validating the program's effectiveness. Her website and materials were a perfect blend: smiling kids and her signature humor—that's the warmth—right alongside hard data, statistics, and social proof from experts. That's the competence. Mark: Wow, so she consciously dialed up her competence cues to match her natural warmth. That's a masterclass. It also addresses a big question I have about this stuff. Some people might hear this and think it's about being fake or manipulative. Michelle: That's a fair point, and one the book is careful about. It's not about faking it. It's about congruence—making sure your internal state and your external signals are aligned with your goal. Goldie Hawn genuinely believed in her program's scientific merit; she just needed to learn how to signal that competence effectively. It's about making sure the outside reflects the truth of the inside.

Mark: That idea of alignment is key. It's about consciously choosing the right signals to tell the true story. What are some of the most powerful signals we should be looking for? Michelle: Well, the book points to the first-ever televised U.S. presidential debate in 1960 as the ultimate laboratory for this. It was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Mark: The classic. I've heard about this. Michelle: It's the perfect example of how nonverbal cues can create two completely different realities. On the radio, the audience listened to their words. Both candidates sounded strong, and most radio listeners felt that Nixon, the more experienced politician, had won the debate. Mark: Makes sense. He was the Vice President at the time. Michelle: But on television, it was a different story. A completely different story. Nixon had been sick, he refused to wear makeup, and he was sweating under the hot studio lights. His eyes were shifty, his posture was tense. Kennedy, on the other hand, was tan, calm, and looked directly into the camera, appearing confident and composed. TV viewers overwhelmingly declared Kennedy the winner. Mark: That's incredible. The same words, two totally different outcomes based on body language. It proves that old idea: we often hear what we see. The visual information completely overrode the verbal. Michelle: It did. And that power is still at play every single day. Van Edwards breaks down dozens of these cues, but a few are incredibly powerful. One is called "steepling." It's when you lightly touch your fingertips together, forming a shape like a church steeple. It signals confident contemplation. You see leaders and thinkers do this when they're processing complex information. Mark: I can picture that. It looks thoughtful but also relaxed and in control. Michelle: Another is simply leaning. When you lean in during a conversation, it nonverbally says, "I'm engaged, I'm interested, what you're saying matters." It’s a huge warmth cue. And a simple one is the "eyebrow raise"—not a big, surprised one, but a quick flash. It signals recognition and curiosity. Mark: It's like a nonverbal "tell me more." What about vocal cues? The doctor's voice from the beginning is still haunting me. Michelle: Vocals are huge. The book talks a lot about two major credibility killers. The first is "vocal fry," that low, creaky, guttural sound at the end of sentences. Research shows it makes speakers sound less competent and less hirable. Mark: And the second has to be the question inflection, right? I hear that everywhere. It's when a statement ends on a high note, making it sound like a question. Michelle: Exactly! "Our sales are up 20 percent?" It instantly undermines the statement. You're verbally asserting a fact while vocally asking for validation. It’s a massive competence killer. But on the flip side, your voice can also be your most powerful tool for warmth. Mark: How so? Michelle: The book brings up the show Love is Blind, where contestants date from separate pods, unable to see each other. One couple, Lauren and Cameron, built such a strong connection through conversation alone that they fell in love and got engaged just based on their vocal cues—their tone, their laughter, the way they listened. It’s a testament to how much trust, warmth, and personality can be conveyed purely through the sound of our voice.

Mark: Putting this all together, it feels like we're all constantly broadcasting signals on these different channels—verbal, vocal, nonverbal. The big idea here isn't to become some kind of perfect, robotic communicator who has memorized a hundred gestures. Michelle: No, not at all. Mark: It’s more about becoming intentional. It's about realizing you're already speaking this language, so you might as well learn the grammar to make sure you're being understood correctly. Michelle: That's the heart of it. It's about congruence—making sure your words, your voice, and your body are all telling the same, authentic story. Van Edwards quotes research suggesting that nonverbal signals can account for 65 to 90 percent of our total communication. For most of us, that means we're ignoring the vast majority of the conversation. Mark: And it's not about being fake. The book is very clear on that. It's more like what you said—learning the grammar of a language you've been speaking your whole life without ever taking a class. It’s about awareness, not performance. Michelle: A great first step she suggests is just to pick one cue and notice it for a week. Don't even try to change anything at first. Just notice. Maybe it's the "lean in"—do you lean in when you're truly interested in what someone is saying? Or maybe it's catching yourself using that question inflection at the end of a statement. Just start by noticing. Mark: I love that. A simple, practical first step. I'm definitely going to be watching for steepling hands in my next meeting. I'd love to hear what cues our listeners notice in themselves or others this week. Let us know what you discover. It's a fascinating new lens to see the world through. Michelle: Absolutely. It changes how you see every interaction. This is Aibrary, signing off.