How someone detects dog whistling?

[DiegoPalacios]

Tone of voice will offer you nothing when trying to determine someone's sincerity - just look at any successful salesman.

but it can help if you check their body language and familiarize with the speaker's cues.

[But_a_Jape]

I ask this out of genuine curiosity and not out of confrontation: when it comes to someone who intentionally couches their unsavory views through dogwhistling, what sort of body language or cues would inform you of whether or not they're operating in good faith?

[DiegoPalacios]

The concept of dogwhistling is relatively new to me, so i can't specify cues about that.

However, you can notice cues about deceptive or manipulative behavior:

Also, is important to notice that while there are some cues of concealing behavior, not every person have the exact same cues. For example, while some people avoid eye contact while lying, others actually increase it. Context is also important, sometimes people are just nervous or umconfortable.

It takes some degree of familiarity with the person. (seeing them through a screen enough times counts) You need to figure their base body language. When you are familiar with that, you can tell how they feel about a subject and how comfortable they are talking about it or if they are concealing /avoiding something.

Is not like this show "Lie to me" where every person scratching their ear was a liar XD

This may be a tangent, but if you are interested in studying body language, i recommend you the book "what every body is saying". The author Joe Navarro is an ex FBI agent, so he had to familiarize himself with deceptive behavior and how to notice it.

[darthmongoose]

The concept of dogwhistling is relatively new to me, so i can't specify cues about that.

Also, is important to notice that while there are some cues of concealing behavior, not every person have the exact same cues. For example, while some people avoid eye contact while lying, others actually increase it.

It takes some degree of familiarity with the person. (seeing them through a screen enough times counts) You need to figure their base body language. When you are familiar with that, you can tell how they feel about a subject and how comfortable they are talking about it or if they are concealing /avoiding something.

I can see where you're coming from, but the thing is... this can often be part of the problem. Imagine the following scenario:

You are watching some people debate about comics. Now in UK print comics, in the past, "manga artists" used to be a dogwhistle for "female comics creators", and it was a pretty notorious one among female creators. I'm using it as an example because this isn't really a thing any more, so it works well as an example.

So you're watching the debate and one of the guys looks around the audience, sees that he's mostly surrounded by men and says, "well, just between us, I think the problem with the industry these days is there are too many manga artists. They're pushing all these manga comics and nobody's catering to the original comics fans any more." and he looks really shifty while he says it, and you see him glancing at the women in the room to see if they react, and you see him wringing his hands like he always does when he's saying a bunch of rubbish.

Aha! You think! I have caught the baddie in the act! And so you say "hey, woah, ease off on the sexism dude. Women should be welcome in the comics industry too!"

And then everyone turns around: "You're overreacting!" "All he said was 'manga artists' why would you assume he's talking about women?" "What, do you think only women draw manga, maybe you're sexist!"
And you say, "but- but he was wringing his hands like he always does when he lies!"
Aaaaaand they all look at you like you're a conspiracy theorist tinfoil hatter. Because half the people there don't want to believe and therefore do not believe that the guy is sexist and think you're clutching at straws to go as far as analysing the minutae of a person's bodylanguage and extrapolating what their true intentions are from it... and the other half know full well this guy is a sexist dick, but they are also sexist and in on it and they know that denying it, gaslighting you and framing you as a "crazy oversensitive liberal white knight" is the perfect way to silence you, and also really easy because on paper... all the guy said was he thinks there are too many manga artists. You can't prove anything.

That's why dogwhistles work. If you spot them, well, welcome to the club of people who spot them, be prepared for people telling you it's all in your head.

[DiegoPalacios]

And that's why reading body language is not used as evidence, but as hints to find the relevant information.

Another fact to consider when engaging with a person is any inconsistence between their words and their actions.

That includes double standards favoring themselves and/or people that share their belief system or doing actions that in practice dont help the groups they claim to help and/or harms other ones.

[But_a_Jape]

Ok, I think I can see where you're coming from now and I believe your unfamiliarity with dogwhistling is where our disagreement on this technique lies. Dogwhistling doesn't take place in casual conversation with friends unless the dogwhistler already knows (or strongly suspects) you're on their side. And people don't engage in dogwhistling when they're nervous or uncomfortable, it's a tactic used by people who already know their conversation partners are sympathetic or they're confident enough to try to spread their message to others (either because they're behind a computer monitor or because they're professional communicators, such as politicians or other public thought leaders). If anything, visible nervousness or discomfort in communicating dogwhistles is probably more indicative of someone who isn't confident in their own knowledge and are just repeating what they've heard - when pressed they might change the topic to save face or get angry and defensive or both. But this still doesn't tell you if the person in question was being misled by a dogwhistler or is sympathetic to those views but uncomfortable with publicizing them.

But dogwhistling at its most effective is usually delivered by those who are professionals and have some sort of perceived authority - public thought leaders as I mentioned earlier. These people already have a knowledge of body language and cues, whether instinctual or learned, that can make the cover of plausible deniability stronger.

But I do agree with you on this:

It takes some degree of familiarity with the person.

But I don't agree that the familiarity is in understanding their body language. It's in understanding the context of where this specific person exists and knowing the history of their personal views. Do they have a habit of being a political provocateur? Are they constantly dipping their toes into progressively more extreme views? If there are people who regularly call them out on certain behaviors and thoughts, what are their arguments and do they hold weight?

The above is a lot of research to do on one person, which is another reason why this type of language is effective. People entering the discourse in the middle of everything will just see two sides fighting but they won't understand the full context enough to determine which side is more credible. It is at this point that the dogwhistler can continue a strategy of "acting civil" and "just asking questions" and win over the uninformed third party.

Another fact to consider when engaging with a person is any inconsistence between their words and their actions.

That includes double standards favoring themselves and/or people that share their belief system or doing actions that in practice dont help the groups they claim to help and/or harms other ones.

You posted this while I was typing this comment, so I'll offer a short response. This strategy falls under what I was saying as doing research into one specific person. On paper, it sounds effective, and if you're willing to put in the effort, it is. But again, this is just one, specific person and dogwhistles as a whole are a systemic issue that's advanced both consciously and unconsciously.

[DiegoPalacios]

But I don't agree that the familiarity is in understanding their body language. It's in understanding the context of where this specific person exists and knowing the history of their personal views.

Of course, that is also a variable on familiarity.

But I don't agree that the familiarity is in understanding their body language. It's in understanding the context of where this specific person exists and knowing the history of their personal views. Do they have a habit of being a political provocateur? Are they constantly dipping their toes into progressively more extreme views? If there are people who regularly call them out on certain behaviors and thoughts, what are their arguments and do they hold weight?

There is no need to know everything about a person, just figuring out the general guidelines of body behavior. Of course, the more you know the person, the more accurate will be your observations and i agree that this by itself don't count as evidence and is not like mind reading XD.

You posted this while I was typing this comment, so I'll offer a short response. This strategy falls under what I was saying as doing research into one specific person. On paper, it sounds effective, and if you're willing to put in the effort, it is. But again, this is just one, specific person and dogwhistles as a whole are a systemic issue that's advanced both consciously and unconsciously.

Yeah, this is not an ultimate solution to a whole system. Also, there is the fact that people can change the codes they use. That is why is important to pay attention to the content on the message and not get lost in fancy rethorics.