Wait vs. Interrupt Culture(benjaminrosshoffman.com)
benjaminrosshoffman.com
Wait vs. Interrupt Culture
http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/wait-vs-interrupt-culture/
265 comments
> On the other hand, when speaking with anti-interrupt people, I often get so bored it's hard to pay attention
The post didn't ever explicitly say this, but part of the power of wait culture is that fact that it forces you to listen. Even when you think someone is wrong.
Of course, if what the other person is saying is not worth your time, then there's no reason to be a good listener.
As for an objective look at the mechanics of interrupt culture that you described, it works perfectly if everyone can agree on the relative importances. But if someone never lets you interrupt or ALWAYS interrupts, then... it just breaks down. It's almost like you're taking an economist's stance of "all humans are rational actors". If that's the case, then your arguments for interrupt culture are an nice proof detailing how - in any situation, the person that needs to talk more has the ability and permission to immediately gain the floor without listening to the other person waste time explaining an irrelevant detail or counterargument to a misunderstood point.
I like the way you're thinking, and I know that you would act in good faith under this system you see and have explained so well. Together, I would converse with you like that. And just hope that one of us doesn't get frustrated that the other person keeps interrupting with boring stuff.
The post didn't ever explicitly say this, but part of the power of wait culture is that fact that it forces you to listen. Even when you think someone is wrong.
Of course, if what the other person is saying is not worth your time, then there's no reason to be a good listener.
As for an objective look at the mechanics of interrupt culture that you described, it works perfectly if everyone can agree on the relative importances. But if someone never lets you interrupt or ALWAYS interrupts, then... it just breaks down. It's almost like you're taking an economist's stance of "all humans are rational actors". If that's the case, then your arguments for interrupt culture are an nice proof detailing how - in any situation, the person that needs to talk more has the ability and permission to immediately gain the floor without listening to the other person waste time explaining an irrelevant detail or counterargument to a misunderstood point.
I like the way you're thinking, and I know that you would act in good faith under this system you see and have explained so well. Together, I would converse with you like that. And just hope that one of us doesn't get frustrated that the other person keeps interrupting with boring stuff.
It being boring to me would be a rude/invalid reason to interrupt, I mean the case specifically where someone is telling/explaining/describing something to you because they think you don’t know about it. The interruption is just to let them know that you do already know about it, not to change the subject. I would find it embarrassing if someone let me going on telling them something they already know just because they thought I didn’t want to be interrupted.
But thank you more generally and I’m sure we’d have a good conversation!
But thank you more generally and I’m sure we’d have a good conversation!
Sometimes I let people explain something I already know because they either explain it better or add more detail. Even a well described reminder is useful and interesting if told well.
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.
Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.
[deleted]
> Of course, if what the other person is saying is not worth your time, then there's no reason to be a good listener.
Sometimes you listen just as a gesture, though. To show respect and appreciation. Or you could listen so that you can ensure that the OTHER person will listen to you after.
It all depends on the context.
Sometimes you listen just as a gesture, though. To show respect and appreciation. Or you could listen so that you can ensure that the OTHER person will listen to you after.
It all depends on the context.
For me I think it depends on what is needed to be accomplished.
Interrupt based communication for me is indeed natural when you’re brainstorming and want to solve a really hard problem where everybody is on board and solving it is the most important thing. Like a startup refinement session.
The thing is most human interaction is not like that.
People generally have their position set, and are looking for allies - the words themselves don’t matter much, its the communication of emotions that people are after. Looking for understanding, support, approval etc.
In those scenarios, when communicating information would involve telling people they are actually wrong (communicating disapproval) interrupting would not be considered “nice” as solving the issue is not actually what’s driving the conversation, its the sending and receiving of emotional signals that’s important.
Kinda like some game’s rendition of conversations with just some emojis. Its silly I know but I think the metaphor is actually quite apt.
It took me a while to realize this, as I imagined most conversations were about finding the truth (interrupting). But when I accepted that most of the time its about seeking understanding or alies (waiting). People around me suddenly started saying I became a _much_ better person to talk to… And the thing is, _after_ people put you in the emotional ally bucket mentally for whatever you were discussing, then you can sometimes actually start interrupting each other and solving the problem together.
Interrupt based communication for me is indeed natural when you’re brainstorming and want to solve a really hard problem where everybody is on board and solving it is the most important thing. Like a startup refinement session.
The thing is most human interaction is not like that.
People generally have their position set, and are looking for allies - the words themselves don’t matter much, its the communication of emotions that people are after. Looking for understanding, support, approval etc.
In those scenarios, when communicating information would involve telling people they are actually wrong (communicating disapproval) interrupting would not be considered “nice” as solving the issue is not actually what’s driving the conversation, its the sending and receiving of emotional signals that’s important.
Kinda like some game’s rendition of conversations with just some emojis. Its silly I know but I think the metaphor is actually quite apt.
It took me a while to realize this, as I imagined most conversations were about finding the truth (interrupting). But when I accepted that most of the time its about seeking understanding or alies (waiting). People around me suddenly started saying I became a _much_ better person to talk to… And the thing is, _after_ people put you in the emotional ally bucket mentally for whatever you were discussing, then you can sometimes actually start interrupting each other and solving the problem together.
This feels like you are trying to explain common card game semantics of instants versus turn plays. With the twist that you are arguing that instants are the correct and more efficient mechanism.
But here is the thing. Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out. And even those that are, have well agreed "cards" that can be done in different situations. To argue that all things should be "instant" playable is a tough sell.
But here is the thing. Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out. And even those that are, have well agreed "cards" that can be done in different situations. To argue that all things should be "instant" playable is a tough sell.
I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there.
> Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out
I would argue that this is not necessary: just watch younger people who are friendly with each other discuss something: what I'm describing is a natural mode of communication. AFAICT it's just overridden in certain cases when people are taught "never interrupt someone speaking" or something along those lines.
But I would be curious if you could lay out the tradeoffs with instant plays in the card game semantics you mentioned.
> Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out
I would argue that this is not necessary: just watch younger people who are friendly with each other discuss something: what I'm describing is a natural mode of communication. AFAICT it's just overridden in certain cases when people are taught "never interrupt someone speaking" or something along those lines.
But I would be curious if you could lay out the tradeoffs with instant plays in the card game semantics you mentioned.
> I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there.
Magic: The Gathering works like a computer (quite literally it's Turing complete). When you play a card or ability, it is put on a stack. After you're done, you need to yield - then the other player may play things on the stack too (but, they can only play "instants" - most other cards can only be played if the stack is empty). Then they must yield, and so on.
(In the 90s, instants meant to interrupt other spells were called "interrupts", but this name was dropped)
After everyone is done, things are popped from the stack in the reverse order they were played (like any stack). So if your opponent played something in response to what you played, their card resolves first, then yours. But if you played something in response to their response, your card resolves first, then theirs, then yours.
This would be very tedious, but in fact most decks have few instants and little interaction with the stack, so most of time you play a card I will just wait it to resolve and generally wait my turn to play. And famously, no card of MtG is allowed to mention the stack in their printed text: while the concept itself is intuitive, talking about the stack is a sure way to make a card overly complicated.
Magic: The Gathering works like a computer (quite literally it's Turing complete). When you play a card or ability, it is put on a stack. After you're done, you need to yield - then the other player may play things on the stack too (but, they can only play "instants" - most other cards can only be played if the stack is empty). Then they must yield, and so on.
(In the 90s, instants meant to interrupt other spells were called "interrupts", but this name was dropped)
After everyone is done, things are popped from the stack in the reverse order they were played (like any stack). So if your opponent played something in response to what you played, their card resolves first, then yours. But if you played something in response to their response, your card resolves first, then theirs, then yours.
This would be very tedious, but in fact most decks have few instants and little interaction with the stack, so most of time you play a card I will just wait it to resolve and generally wait my turn to play. And famously, no card of MtG is allowed to mention the stack in their printed text: while the concept itself is intuitive, talking about the stack is a sure way to make a card overly complicated.
> Magic: The Gathering works like a computer (quite literally it's Turing complete). When you play a card or ability, it is put on a stack. After you're done, you need to yield - then the other player may play things on the stack too (but, they can only play "instants" - most other cards can only be played if the stack is empty). Then they must yield, and so on.
This is actually my single least favorite part of magic compared to yugioh, and I've played both a ton. Instead of a stack, yugioh has a similar first-in-first-out concept called the chain, with two major differences:
1) Every time you place a card on the stack, you yield to your opponent, who can either play a response or yield back to you, and this goes on forever until both of you have yielded without taking an action
2) cards have "spell speeds" of 1, 2, or 3 , where you can only chain an equivalent or higher speed card - this means unlike magic, you can pile up multiple sorceries/spell speed 1 cards into the same resolution queue
Both of these encourage a ton of interaction on the stack/chain, and often times yugioh games are won or lost as the result of a resolution or 5 or more cards and effects piling up and resolving, which is a relative rarity in magic outside of a few combo decks or infinites. Conversely, yugioh also presents a lot of powerful defensive options for interrupting degenerate combos, usually at a high cost.
This is actually my single least favorite part of magic compared to yugioh, and I've played both a ton. Instead of a stack, yugioh has a similar first-in-first-out concept called the chain, with two major differences:
1) Every time you place a card on the stack, you yield to your opponent, who can either play a response or yield back to you, and this goes on forever until both of you have yielded without taking an action
2) cards have "spell speeds" of 1, 2, or 3 , where you can only chain an equivalent or higher speed card - this means unlike magic, you can pile up multiple sorceries/spell speed 1 cards into the same resolution queue
Both of these encourage a ton of interaction on the stack/chain, and often times yugioh games are won or lost as the result of a resolution or 5 or more cards and effects piling up and resolving, which is a relative rarity in magic outside of a few combo decks or infinites. Conversely, yugioh also presents a lot of powerful defensive options for interrupting degenerate combos, usually at a high cost.
We're getting a little off-topic here, but this is actually the first I'm learning that MtG can't explicitly mention the stack (I follow set releases and read cards casually sometimes, cube once in a blue moon, played standard one summer ever). That's a bit of a shame - one of the other card games I've played (Yu-Gi-Oh) works its equivalent (a "Chain") into card effects and it doesn't have to be complicated. One very good card ("Chain Strike") does damage multiplied by its stack position (chain link) so the later in the stack (chain) it appears, the more damage it does. That's not too crazy. Would've loved that either to attempt the inevitable degenerate combos or just splash it into RDW. There is also a balancing mechanism where certain effects can only be activated once per stack (chain) which is not as draconian as "per turn" but could otherwise when omitted potentially make cards ingredients in degenerate combos (e.g. "Accumulated Fortune").
Final aside: I used the phrase twice, so it should be clear that the history of said game (again, Yu-Gi-Oh) is plagued with degenerate combos.
EDIT: Editing in this edit to acknowledge that there is a sibling comment with a valid nit that invalidates the reason I responded. In my defense, my slow phone-based composition took me so long I did not see it until this edit. I'm leaving it for the sake of hopefully any nascent game designer getting any insight, I suppose. Or hey, card game players getting their kicks thinking about card game mechanics.
Final aside: I used the phrase twice, so it should be clear that the history of said game (again, Yu-Gi-Oh) is plagued with degenerate combos.
EDIT: Editing in this edit to acknowledge that there is a sibling comment with a valid nit that invalidates the reason I responded. In my defense, my slow phone-based composition took me so long I did not see it until this edit. I'm leaving it for the sake of hopefully any nascent game designer getting any insight, I suppose. Or hey, card game players getting their kicks thinking about card game mechanics.
> no card of MtG is allowed to mention the stack in their printed text
Nit: The Split Second keyword ability is usually accompanied by reminder text which mentions the stack
> Split second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...
Nit: The Split Second keyword ability is usually accompanied by reminder text which mentions the stack
> Split second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multive...
Welp, that's true, my bad! It seems this rule was relaxed somewhat - mentioning the stack in the rules text is still frowned upon, but there's still some cards that mention it in the rules text (and a lot more that contains the split second reminder)
Note how the waterhouse's link - https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?actio... - contains a bunch of cards that were playtested but eventually rejected (they are the black-and-white cards with just a rough sketch in place of art), presumably because of the high bar that stack-fiddling cards should meet
Note how the waterhouse's link - https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?actio... - contains a bunch of cards that were playtested but eventually rejected (they are the black-and-white cards with just a rough sketch in place of art), presumably because of the high bar that stack-fiddling cards should meet
Doing a search, I count 40 results with "stack" in their text; it appears that 18 of them have "split second", a few of them have "stack" in their name, several are from "Un" expansions or this weird "Mystery Booster" thing, several mention the stack in explanatory text about what it means to end the turn or end the combat phase... but there are several cards such as Grip of Chaos ("Whenever a spell or ability is put onto the stack, if it has a single target, reselect its target at random") that are from regular expansions.
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?actio...
https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?actio...
Is this a recent standards change? I remember some legendary artifact that caused spells on the stack to be copied and explicitly described it that way.
Tangentially, this is why I've often found it a bit easier to teach MTG to friends who also are programmers than in general; being able to tell a fellow programmer "instants are put on a stack when cast, and then are popped off the stack when they resolve" ("instant" is the term that MTG ended up standardizing on now that "interrupts" are no longer a card type) is a quick shortcut that they always end up understanding. When teaching someone who doesn't already have a mental concept of a stack data structure, I can explain how the analogy of a "stack" works, but it often takes a bit of playing and seeing it in action for them to fully internalize how it works.
Funny, as with the cards, this should be a bit easier to literally act out. Intent to play a card is to lay it down. If someone has an instant, they can put theirs on top.
That only works with cards you play from the hand, but effects that you activate on a permanent (e.g. by tapping it) also go on the stack.
You just blew my mind a little bit, realizing MTG gameplay was based on CS concepts, and made me fee old since interrupts is what we called them (way before I knew about processor interrupts).
To be fair, this is more that a formal system described precisely can be mapped to many computer science structures.
And I'm fairly confident these semantics exist in many card games. Unstable Unicorns has the neigh card. Uno has the rule of declaring uno. (Where you can interrupt the next play by calling uno to force the last player to draw a card. Note that this is a very specific time you can interrupt play.)
And I'm fairly confident these semantics exist in many card games. Unstable Unicorns has the neigh card. Uno has the rule of declaring uno. (Where you can interrupt the next play by calling uno to force the last player to draw a card. Note that this is a very specific time you can interrupt play.)
Great explanation, thanks. I actually played MtG a bit when I was a kid and have a vague recollection of interrupts but don't think I understood the stack dynamics too clearly. Insightful design decision to disallow stack referencing lol.
Forming a hierarchy of leadership and follower is also fairly common among children. Probably fairly common among people, period. In that, you quickly start to form boundaries on who can interrupt what and why. And, in all cases, you almost always need someone that cannot be interrupted.
The article does cover this. They have moderators that would keep things on track. Most of your interactions on a daily basis don't have moderators.
The article does cover this. They have moderators that would keep things on track. Most of your interactions on a daily basis don't have moderators.
This is an interesting additional aspect to the situation. I wouldn't deny at all that what you're describing happens, but whether it's a problem or a solution is debatable imo ;) Is it always better to have an enforced equality of priority among speakers, or do these emergent hierarchies serve as effective regulators of group communication?
However, I'd also argue that in most cases these social group hierarchical roles aren't going to end up having a large influence on communication style: typically it's only if there's something pressing going on. (Or, as I've already described elsewhere, if someone is unfairly taking advantage, the negation of which is a condition for cooperative interrupting to work.)
However, I'd also argue that in most cases these social group hierarchical roles aren't going to end up having a large influence on communication style: typically it's only if there's something pressing going on. (Or, as I've already described elsewhere, if someone is unfairly taking advantage, the negation of which is a condition for cooperative interrupting to work.)
The post you're responding to this qualified it with "as long as both participants are willing to yield to interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts when interrupting" - that addresses your point. This doesn't necessarily work well in a context where people are unfamiliar, but with close friends/colleagues/family who are all on board with this conversation paradigm and familiar with each other's interruptive style, it works very well.
That's a good addition: if the participants do not trust one another, the interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts are not going to work.
As far the actual signaling goes, AFAICT it's pretty built-in (though I can imagine in other countries for instance there are likely enough differences that you'd have to take time to learn specific signals): I can go into this style of conversation immediately with strangers as long as we're at least giving each other a little benefit of the doubt.
As far the actual signaling goes, AFAICT it's pretty built-in (though I can imagine in other countries for instance there are likely enough differences that you'd have to take time to learn specific signals): I can go into this style of conversation immediately with strangers as long as we're at least giving each other a little benefit of the doubt.
Role play a policemen and a minority in this form of communication to see an easy way it can fall flat. Disastrously.
It's already been said plenty of times that mutual trust is a requirement, this will be my last reply to your comments if you keep straw-manning.
It isn't a straw man, though. It literally happens all the time. Role play a woman in an office. And, I should have stated flat out I can see this style can exist. My discourse is why not to lead in with it. Pretty much anywhere.
I think I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. But in a scenario with abusive power dynamics injustice is going to play out the same regardless of preferred conversation style, an outlet will trivially be found.
Ok, I grant that going full on abusive is not helpful. Such that I apologize on jumping there immediately. :(
My concern is more in the ones that aren't quite as stark. Role play that you are talking to someone that doesn't feel safe enough to tell you that they don't feel perfectly safe. Now, how do you know this? If they felt safe, you could ask. But, we have established that they don't, per the role play.
And this is a large part of why the conversation around "privilege" is so tough. At large, what we call "privilege" can be easily recast to more subtle dynamics of folks that are allowed to give voice without as much interruptions. Note, not none. Just fewer. (Note that there are obviously other aspects to this that don't necessarily make the recasting.)
My concern is more in the ones that aren't quite as stark. Role play that you are talking to someone that doesn't feel safe enough to tell you that they don't feel perfectly safe. Now, how do you know this? If they felt safe, you could ask. But, we have established that they don't, per the role play.
And this is a large part of why the conversation around "privilege" is so tough. At large, what we call "privilege" can be easily recast to more subtle dynamics of folks that are allowed to give voice without as much interruptions. Note, not none. Just fewer. (Note that there are obviously other aspects to this that don't necessarily make the recasting.)
> Now, how do you know this?
What I'm describing is founded on both participants being well-intentioned. If one person interrupts another to ask for a clarification, or to let them know they are already aware of something, and the original speaker is threatened by it, I would say this is an unusual circumstance: someone with a preoccupation about being interrupted may feel that way and may need special treatment, sure. If they are uncomfortable about it, hopefully the well-intentioned interrupter is able to perceive that. If there is a combo of someone with this preoccupation + someone who is bad at reading body language, that would be unfortunate.
As far as that recasting of privilege, it's an insightful metaphor imo, but at the end of the day still just a metaphor: the dynamics of not having your voice heard in society are in practice just a separate matter from this communication style.
What I'm describing is founded on both participants being well-intentioned. If one person interrupts another to ask for a clarification, or to let them know they are already aware of something, and the original speaker is threatened by it, I would say this is an unusual circumstance: someone with a preoccupation about being interrupted may feel that way and may need special treatment, sure. If they are uncomfortable about it, hopefully the well-intentioned interrupter is able to perceive that. If there is a combo of someone with this preoccupation + someone who is bad at reading body language, that would be unfortunate.
As far as that recasting of privilege, it's an insightful metaphor imo, but at the end of the day still just a metaphor: the dynamics of not having your voice heard in society are in practice just a separate matter from this communication style.
Yeah, to pile on with anecdata here (TFA opens by characterizing their early experience as "Growing up with friends who were disproportionately male and disproportionately nerdy"), my experience is that majority male spaces are interrupt culture, minority male spaces are wait culture, and non-males effectively get "shouted down" in interrupt cultures.
My brain (maybe this is arrogant but here we go) works faster than conversation so I have to work harder in wait cultures, but after years of this I'm 100% on board. I _super hate_ to be interrupted: I don't go on and on and I'm generally saying things I want others to hear. People think they know what I'm going to say, they almost never do. People want to interrogate a minor thing I just said, but it derails us all and wasn't the overarching point I was trying to make. On and on.
I'm not saying "don't ever ever interrupt"; sometimes it's critical to stop--respectfully--and clarify something important, like "aha that's what we're misunderstanding here" or whatever. But it should be like, "I know interrupting is disrespectful, but I feel like we could solve this right now, so bear with me." I think what most people in this thread are talking about isn't the occasional interruption, but the constant interrupt/overtalk style.
Anyway, maybe there are others with experiences in diverse workplaces (genders, races, backgrounds, etc.) where interrupt culture works, but I'm skeptical. I think in those situations you're always building mutual respect and team trust, and as such interrupt culture is out of reach. I disagree that these issues are separate from communication style--the medium is the message here and interrupt culture benefits people who haven't experienced barriers to interrupting/overtalking others--largely not women, but also not introverts or people with anxiety, etc. I think if you're "well-intentioned", you're taking those factors into consideration as well.
My brain (maybe this is arrogant but here we go) works faster than conversation so I have to work harder in wait cultures, but after years of this I'm 100% on board. I _super hate_ to be interrupted: I don't go on and on and I'm generally saying things I want others to hear. People think they know what I'm going to say, they almost never do. People want to interrogate a minor thing I just said, but it derails us all and wasn't the overarching point I was trying to make. On and on.
I'm not saying "don't ever ever interrupt"; sometimes it's critical to stop--respectfully--and clarify something important, like "aha that's what we're misunderstanding here" or whatever. But it should be like, "I know interrupting is disrespectful, but I feel like we could solve this right now, so bear with me." I think what most people in this thread are talking about isn't the occasional interruption, but the constant interrupt/overtalk style.
Anyway, maybe there are others with experiences in diverse workplaces (genders, races, backgrounds, etc.) where interrupt culture works, but I'm skeptical. I think in those situations you're always building mutual respect and team trust, and as such interrupt culture is out of reach. I disagree that these issues are separate from communication style--the medium is the message here and interrupt culture benefits people who haven't experienced barriers to interrupting/overtalking others--largely not women, but also not introverts or people with anxiety, etc. I think if you're "well-intentioned", you're taking those factors into consideration as well.
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court are a fairly formalized interrupt culture in which the justices literally interrupt the attorneys to ask questions, and funny enough, the women justices tend to speak more than the men justices. Clarence Thomas famously speaks the least; he actually would prefer to hear out the attorneys making their case to the court.
> Clarence Thomas famously speaks the least; he actually would prefer to hear out the attorneys making their case to the court.
Eh, my impression is that he's extremely arrogant and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's deeply uncurious and consequently relatively ignorant. He rarely engages in good faith with the facts and merits, and frequently misconstrues them to suit his own ideology. These are not the acts of an active listener who wants to learn and be shaped by what they learn. They're the acts of someone who believes they've got it all figured out.
Eh, my impression is that he's extremely arrogant and doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He's deeply uncurious and consequently relatively ignorant. He rarely engages in good faith with the facts and merits, and frequently misconstrues them to suit his own ideology. These are not the acts of an active listener who wants to learn and be shaped by what they learn. They're the acts of someone who believes they've got it all figured out.
I'm basing this off of what Justice Thomas has said when he has been asked about this in the past. But if you want to form your impressions based on your personal biases and prejudices, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
No bias or prejudice here, just reading his opinions. But think about it for just a minute: there's never a mystery about how he's gonna vote--oral arguments never change his mind. Does that sound like a guy who's listening?
It really doesn't, though. For one, it is recursive. Can I interrupt a counter? What if it is already in a counter? Does it depend on why I'm interrupting?
That is, this all only works if you know what "plays" each side can do, and you agree on when each one can be played. Card games with instants captures this remarkably well. In that you have a finite number of "interrupt" cards, and are often limited to how many times you can play each one.
That is, this all only works if you know what "plays" each side can do, and you agree on when each one can be played. Card games with instants captures this remarkably well. In that you have a finite number of "interrupt" cards, and are often limited to how many times you can play each one.
The rules (although I'll argue none are needed, see below) really are quite simple: yes, what I described above works recursively: there is no difference between a counter-interrupt and a counter-counter-interrupt.
All of this hinges on and ends up being managed by each person giving the other a certain amount of benefit of the doubt, that any of these interrupt-related actions are being done out of a genuine desire to communicate effectively (vs someone trying to make some kind of power play). With that trust in place you don't need to know any "rules", this all emerges quite naturally.
All of this hinges on and ends up being managed by each person giving the other a certain amount of benefit of the doubt, that any of these interrupt-related actions are being done out of a genuine desire to communicate effectively (vs someone trying to make some kind of power play). With that trust in place you don't need to know any "rules", this all emerges quite naturally.
My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well" with "I didn't realize there is a social hierarchy here that I'm massively benefiting from." Or, worse, "there could be consequences for my interrupting this person, I should keep quiet and let it go."
But again, this isn't going to be the case among people who know each other well. My family and I are interrupters, and we've been at it for decades now - none of the issues you're raising would apply.
In terms of knowing when/whether you can interrupt the interrupter/counter-interrupt/etc., see my other post in this thread about how the time of interrupters talking over each other is a signal to both that's constantly evolving (because the increasing time is an increasingly strong signal).
In terms of knowing when/whether you can interrupt the interrupter/counter-interrupt/etc., see my other post in this thread about how the time of interrupters talking over each other is a signal to both that's constantly evolving (because the increasing time is an increasingly strong signal).
For certain. I'm less arguing that it isn't a conversation style, than I am that it is a dangerous one. Even in families, it is easy to see this form lead to resentment between folks. Or a contest to be last person talking. In a large sense, mansplaining is similar. Echoing back and explaining things even to people that know them isn't, itself, bad. But it is very easy to portray in a negative light and should not be the assumed default.
Now, I fully grant that the largest poison in all of this is the transactional view of conversation. The interrupt style is still predicated on an open transaction that will eventually commit.
Now, I fully grant that the largest poison in all of this is the transactional view of conversation. The interrupt style is still predicated on an open transaction that will eventually commit.
> My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well"
You are right, at least for people who have poor social skills, are emotionally unstable or immature in some way, including people with autism, ADHD, dementia, children, etc.
With such people arround, it may be better to have clearly defined rules for who speaks when. The same goes in situations where people come from very different background or there are very low levels of trust to start with.
The better a group of people are at communicating in a cooperative manner, the fewer hard rules are needed.
You are right, at least for people who have poor social skills, are emotionally unstable or immature in some way, including people with autism, ADHD, dementia, children, etc.
With such people arround, it may be better to have clearly defined rules for who speaks when. The same goes in situations where people come from very different background or there are very low levels of trust to start with.
The better a group of people are at communicating in a cooperative manner, the fewer hard rules are needed.
I had an experience somewhat opposite to the article. I somehow ended up with a friend group and family that tended to avoid interrupting. I guess the idea was that it was rude. People who were interrupted would complain and call you out for interrupting, and I would feel guilt if I did it.
Once I entered the professional world, I found that people (especially managers) would interrupt me all the time. I was a bit shocked - it felt animalistic, as though people were just not interested in having a "real" conversation.
Instead of becoming bitter about it, I just tried to adapt. I figured "ok, I need to express my thought in about 3 seconds or else I'll get interrupted". This seems to have worked quite well. It's forced me to think hard about what the crux of my argument is and then get it out as fast as possible. I never really thought about it much until seeing this article, but I think being interrupted has made me a better communicator.
Once I entered the professional world, I found that people (especially managers) would interrupt me all the time. I was a bit shocked - it felt animalistic, as though people were just not interested in having a "real" conversation.
Instead of becoming bitter about it, I just tried to adapt. I figured "ok, I need to express my thought in about 3 seconds or else I'll get interrupted". This seems to have worked quite well. It's forced me to think hard about what the crux of my argument is and then get it out as fast as possible. I never really thought about it much until seeing this article, but I think being interrupted has made me a better communicator.
Huh, that's pretty interesting. It reminds me that I had a workplace experience related to this recently
I was working with a client based in another country (which made me a little less certain about customs/etiquette), and our relationship was a little similar to manager/subordinate (esp. because I had a peer in meetings which he would somewhat direct).
For the first several months we were actually pretty strictly non-interrupting in conversation, but there was a transition at some point because a lot needed to be communicated and everyone involved was very interested/engaged. I think he was a bit taken aback at my first interrupts (which were e.g. to let him know I'd already heard about something he was trying to tell me), but once he saw that I also very readily yielded if he ever wanted to interject, our style of speaking morphed so that cooperative interrupting became commonplace (and our conversations became more fun :).
I think in a situation like that it's inherently a bit risky because it can signal things about power dynamics, but if you actually play nicely with it, don't use it for your own benefit, just for efficiency, it can also be a way of upping trust level (specifically because it was something risky, they had to trust you some, but it turned out fine, you didn't take advantage).
I was working with a client based in another country (which made me a little less certain about customs/etiquette), and our relationship was a little similar to manager/subordinate (esp. because I had a peer in meetings which he would somewhat direct).
For the first several months we were actually pretty strictly non-interrupting in conversation, but there was a transition at some point because a lot needed to be communicated and everyone involved was very interested/engaged. I think he was a bit taken aback at my first interrupts (which were e.g. to let him know I'd already heard about something he was trying to tell me), but once he saw that I also very readily yielded if he ever wanted to interject, our style of speaking morphed so that cooperative interrupting became commonplace (and our conversations became more fun :).
I think in a situation like that it's inherently a bit risky because it can signal things about power dynamics, but if you actually play nicely with it, don't use it for your own benefit, just for efficiency, it can also be a way of upping trust level (specifically because it was something risky, they had to trust you some, but it turned out fine, you didn't take advantage).
Being succinct goes a long way. I found that people rarely interrupts me because I try to convey my thought in a relatively dense manner. If asked one question, I answer that question in the first sentence, then the justifications and explanations. If I'm explaining something, I do the same thing with the abstract idea first, then detailing after that. I don't fear being interrupted, as that usually means I've been talking longer than needed.
People love to build arguments on piles of “facts” which nobody would be able to question in a timely manner after the final conclusion is done. Both consciously and not. Cutting this flow of nonsense short is essential for communication and negotiation, especially in gullible/hierarchical groups like family and friends (YMMW). I find that most of the times when I listen to a lenghty monologue, it serves a persuading rather than an informing purpose. 5 minute “ted” voice messages are the extreme example of it.
To put your comment into the 'bigger picture', as I see it at least: if I can assume that by efficiency, you mean the rate of verbal exchange of information, then I would argue that this is often not the sole function of a conversation; for example, building rapport is often an indirect but desirable outcome. There are no doubt other outcomes and that they vary wildly by context. Though to stick with rapport: pursuing near-optimal information exchange through interruptions may (and for anti-interrupt people, probably will) come at the hefty cost of rapport which may effect future conversations.
This is a super interesting topic and also cool because everyone has a slightly different take. I had not really considered that people who interrupt may do so because they actually like it and think it's beneficial. I just (probably prematurely) assumed it was a bit of a personal flaw based on how it made me feel.
This is a super interesting topic and also cool because everyone has a slightly different take. I had not really considered that people who interrupt may do so because they actually like it and think it's beneficial. I just (probably prematurely) assumed it was a bit of a personal flaw based on how it made me feel.
Indeed it’s pretty interesting how differently people relate to it. My main personal reason for liking it is actually enjoyment, and part of that relates to efficiency but even more importantly it’s because people interrupt in this way naturally when they are truly interested in what you’re talking about and have thoughts about it too, and those conversations are just gonna be more fun.
I agree with you. Furthermore, I think, the interrupt stance doesn't prevent you from attentively listen to what others say. You can absolutely listen a person talking for a long time. The opposite not being true.
However in an educational context like described in the article, if think that waiting for the other to finish is better as it allow a better analysis and criticism of the whole argument development.
However in an educational context like described in the article, if think that waiting for the other to finish is better as it allow a better analysis and criticism of the whole argument development.
Oh I (for instance) 100% do it cause I like it. I get bored talking to people who want to take turns.
Understandable. I don't want to give the impression that my ideal conversation involves a Talking Pillow. We're probably all imagining the far, opposite end of the spectrum when we think about it. I'm picturing my old boss who couldn't go 10 seconds without stammering his way into my sentence, which drove me nuts, but like I said in another comment, interruptions probably happen in every conversation and it's only the routine, out-of-place ones that are frustrating.
I think you’re omitting one of the most important nuances in the article: Wait (interrupt-averse) culture works well when turns speaking have short time spans. It’s effectively built in interruption.
What’s interesting about your preference—that’s what it is, none of this is objective—is how much it reinforces my own interruption aversion, and how much that reflects your preconditions. I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare.
It’s not, to me, a question of efficiency but with the question posed, I find communication much more efficient when there aren’t N+1 speakers (the interruption queue being the additional participant), particularly when N queues get saturated.
Granted all of this, either approach or any blend of both, takes patience and active effort when preferences don’t match. And granted my preference is also just that, it’s not objective. But I definitely have better communication with people who generally agree to yield communication space without prompting and who generally agree that not yielding automatically is a good indicator that their thoughts are more complex than fit in a tiny contained space.
In contrast to your last paragraph, I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds.
And… that was a lot of words, sorry about that. I yield both implicitly and explicitly.
What’s interesting about your preference—that’s what it is, none of this is objective—is how much it reinforces my own interruption aversion, and how much that reflects your preconditions. I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare.
It’s not, to me, a question of efficiency but with the question posed, I find communication much more efficient when there aren’t N+1 speakers (the interruption queue being the additional participant), particularly when N queues get saturated.
Granted all of this, either approach or any blend of both, takes patience and active effort when preferences don’t match. And granted my preference is also just that, it’s not objective. But I definitely have better communication with people who generally agree to yield communication space without prompting and who generally agree that not yielding automatically is a good indicator that their thoughts are more complex than fit in a tiny contained space.
In contrast to your last paragraph, I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds.
And… that was a lot of words, sorry about that. I yield both implicitly and explicitly.
> I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption
I may be misunderstanding but in what I describe in my post above, yields are the prevailing assumption: I describe them as a critical component that makes this kind of interrupting possible.
> ... and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.)
> I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds.
It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions, which could be because A) you planned out everything you want to say before, so regardless of the content of interruptions you still think it needs to be said, or B) you find in your experience that the content of interruptions is typically independent of what you're saying, so of course your model of What Needs To Be Said doesn't update, and you have to keep queuing things.
In the case of B, you are communicating with someone who is not cooperatively interrupting to expedite communication; you are dealing with someone interrupting for their own benefit.
In the case of A, you may be pre-deciding that interruptions are useless and won't affect your model of What Needs To Be Said, so you queue things up and say what you were originally going to say anyway.
I don't know which case you are dealing with. I can say in my own experience though that a queue beyond 1 or 2 items is rarely necessary because cooperative interrupts tend to modify what I was going to say as my understanding of our shared informational context evolves, so things I previously was going to say are more frequently discarded rather than queued.
I may be misunderstanding but in what I describe in my post above, yields are the prevailing assumption: I describe them as a critical component that makes this kind of interrupting possible.
> ... and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.)
> I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds.
It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions, which could be because A) you planned out everything you want to say before, so regardless of the content of interruptions you still think it needs to be said, or B) you find in your experience that the content of interruptions is typically independent of what you're saying, so of course your model of What Needs To Be Said doesn't update, and you have to keep queuing things.
In the case of B, you are communicating with someone who is not cooperatively interrupting to expedite communication; you are dealing with someone interrupting for their own benefit.
In the case of A, you may be pre-deciding that interruptions are useless and won't affect your model of What Needs To Be Said, so you queue things up and say what you were originally going to say anyway.
I don't know which case you are dealing with. I can say in my own experience though that a queue beyond 1 or 2 items is rarely necessary because cooperative interrupts tend to modify what I was going to say as my understanding of our shared informational context evolves, so things I previously was going to say are more frequently discarded rather than queued.
> I may be misunderstanding but in what I describe in my post above, yields are the prevailing assumption: I describe them as a critical component that makes this kind of interrupting possible.
The distinction is that I prefer communicating when the yielding itself is the prevailing assumption, that it doesn’t need to be requested or accepted. That’s what the article describes too. Not yielding to interruption, yielding to other participants and their participation.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.)
I mean that if a conversation already leaves places for people to enter and yield without interruption, interruption itself is a correction but one you don’t need often. And that’s my preference.
> It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions
I can see why you might think so, but it’s actually the opposite. It’s reacting to too many dangling threads which gets hard to track. Each thread produces a new subqueue of things which could have been addressed in turn if the conversation wasn’t a stack of competing What Needs To Be Said. Sometimes I had something to say that wasn’t readily discarded and sometimes the pile of interruption tangents produces more unsaid things which all could be addressed by just not being interrupted in the first place, or by having a fellow conversation partner inviting me to remain uninterrupted. Even the most cooperative interruption conversations I’ve had tend to pace ahead of that and create related tendrils of topic which can’t be connected at the same pace and produce fractals or misunderstanding.
The distinction is that I prefer communicating when the yielding itself is the prevailing assumption, that it doesn’t need to be requested or accepted. That’s what the article describes too. Not yielding to interruption, yielding to other participants and their participation.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.)
I mean that if a conversation already leaves places for people to enter and yield without interruption, interruption itself is a correction but one you don’t need often. And that’s my preference.
> It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions
I can see why you might think so, but it’s actually the opposite. It’s reacting to too many dangling threads which gets hard to track. Each thread produces a new subqueue of things which could have been addressed in turn if the conversation wasn’t a stack of competing What Needs To Be Said. Sometimes I had something to say that wasn’t readily discarded and sometimes the pile of interruption tangents produces more unsaid things which all could be addressed by just not being interrupted in the first place, or by having a fellow conversation partner inviting me to remain uninterrupted. Even the most cooperative interruption conversations I’ve had tend to pace ahead of that and create related tendrils of topic which can’t be connected at the same pace and produce fractals or misunderstanding.
> I mean that if a conversation already leaves places for people to enter and yield without interruption, interruption itself is a correction but one you don’t need often.
Ah I think I might see what you're getting at here. I have seen a certain dynamic in group conversations where a subset of the group kinda gets locked into making exchanges, then other participants can't get a word in, so they'd be forced into interrupting as the only recourse. Maybe? In that case I agree, it's good to keep an eye out and make sure everyone is able to participate through a certain amount of conscious turn-taking.
> It’s reacting to too many dangling threads which gets hard to track.
> sometimes the pile of interruption tangents produces more unsaid things
I think we are talking about two different things. You seem to be referring to topic-switching interruptions; I'm specifically referring to interruptions which engage with what the speaker is saying, requesting info that's needed to make any sense of what's being said (e.g. they are talking about Zoikbugs but you don't know what a Zoikbug is, and they thought you did, so you need to ask for a quick definition and then let them resume), or, to let them know it's unneeded to continue on a particular strand because you already have the info (in this second case it's possible for the would-be interrupter to be incorrect, but that's why "interrupt-denies" are so critical: in less then a second, via eyes, hands, posture etc. you can have one person communicate, "Gotcha, I see where you're going, now lemme respond" and for the other person to reply "I know why you think that, but just hang on", with no actual, or extremely brief, interruption to speech; or there can just be a light confirmation: you, as the original speaker, yield to your interlocutor and allow them to speak and for the conversation to move along its natural course; if it turns out they didn't anticipate you correctly after all, you counter-interrupt and if they're "playing fair", they should desist).
If someone is interrupting to talk about something different, adding tangents or disallowing you from completing an idea, that's another matter entirely.
Ah I think I might see what you're getting at here. I have seen a certain dynamic in group conversations where a subset of the group kinda gets locked into making exchanges, then other participants can't get a word in, so they'd be forced into interrupting as the only recourse. Maybe? In that case I agree, it's good to keep an eye out and make sure everyone is able to participate through a certain amount of conscious turn-taking.
> It’s reacting to too many dangling threads which gets hard to track.
> sometimes the pile of interruption tangents produces more unsaid things
I think we are talking about two different things. You seem to be referring to topic-switching interruptions; I'm specifically referring to interruptions which engage with what the speaker is saying, requesting info that's needed to make any sense of what's being said (e.g. they are talking about Zoikbugs but you don't know what a Zoikbug is, and they thought you did, so you need to ask for a quick definition and then let them resume), or, to let them know it's unneeded to continue on a particular strand because you already have the info (in this second case it's possible for the would-be interrupter to be incorrect, but that's why "interrupt-denies" are so critical: in less then a second, via eyes, hands, posture etc. you can have one person communicate, "Gotcha, I see where you're going, now lemme respond" and for the other person to reply "I know why you think that, but just hang on", with no actual, or extremely brief, interruption to speech; or there can just be a light confirmation: you, as the original speaker, yield to your interlocutor and allow them to speak and for the conversation to move along its natural course; if it turns out they didn't anticipate you correctly after all, you counter-interrupt and if they're "playing fair", they should desist).
If someone is interrupting to talk about something different, adding tangents or disallowing you from completing an idea, that's another matter entirely.
> Ah I think I might see what you're getting at here.
Yep! And it’s what the article was getting at too. I probably wouldn’t have been able to articulate it as well without that.
> I think we are talking about two different things.
I could go into the details of the rest of what you said here, but I’m going to yield because we’ve both perfectly demonstrated one another’s points without either intending to do so. :)
Yep! And it’s what the article was getting at too. I probably wouldn’t have been able to articulate it as well without that.
> I think we are talking about two different things.
I could go into the details of the rest of what you said here, but I’m going to yield because we’ve both perfectly demonstrated one another’s points without either intending to do so. :)
You point it out as the prerequisite, but having both people on the same page as to how to play the interruption game is I think non trivial.
In particular, people not used to get interrupted don't structure their talk in the same ways, and that makes is difficult to ad-hoc switch from one style to the other.
IMO talking in small bursts and checking on the listener to see how they receive it could be seen as the best of both worlds and work with less coordination than either style.
In particular, people not used to get interrupted don't structure their talk in the same ways, and that makes is difficult to ad-hoc switch from one style to the other.
IMO talking in small bursts and checking on the listener to see how they receive it could be seen as the best of both worlds and work with less coordination than either style.
> But the trick people seem to miss is that interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts make the whole thing possible.
Exactly. Interrupting when you want to talk but being unwilling to yield in return, or unwilling to let them continue if they insist, isn’t an efficient conversational technique, it’s just bulldozing.
I also draw a distinction between interrupting (and then monopolising the floor) and interjecting with a quick addition before handing back to the speaker.
Exactly. Interrupting when you want to talk but being unwilling to yield in return, or unwilling to let them continue if they insist, isn’t an efficient conversational technique, it’s just bulldozing.
I also draw a distinction between interrupting (and then monopolising the floor) and interjecting with a quick addition before handing back to the speaker.
It's a good distinction. Unfortunately the term "interrupt" here is a bit overloaded since you definitely get some real assholes interrupting for nefarious purposes. "Cooperative overlap" often gets used to describe this non-competitive, overlapping communication style (though I think it's not quite explicit enough for an audience who spends a lot of time thinking about communication protocols etc.)
There are two sides to any coin.
Similarly put your self in the position of someone who is more attuned to a 'wait' mode who just had a conversation with you.
Only from your description above, they might walk away from it feeling you did not listen very well, rather one-sidedly just wanted to be listened to, and took the conversation all over the place.
In the end they might also walk away thinking how boring and wasteful of time and energy it had been
Similarly put your self in the position of someone who is more attuned to a 'wait' mode who just had a conversation with you.
Only from your description above, they might walk away from it feeling you did not listen very well, rather one-sidedly just wanted to be listened to, and took the conversation all over the place.
In the end they might also walk away thinking how boring and wasteful of time and energy it had been
I just adapt when I see someone doesn't do cooperative interrupting; I switch to their mode. It's not difficult to tell when people aren't into it (if nothing else, they aren't engaging with you in the same way, so it feels wrong, like you keep hitting tennis balls to them but instead of hitting them back they catch them and then walk them over).
I guess to clarify, it's not that 'wait mode' people are always boring, it's just much more likely to be boring because:
1) You don't feel their engagement if they aren't interrupting you to dig deeper, clarify, respond to points etc.—that's what's fun (for me and many others anyway), when you are interacting live like that, quick back and forth. By contrast waiting and storing everything up and then trying to say it all in your turn, feels very slow and unnatural.
2) If I'm missing information and the other person keeps talking and I can't interrupt them to ask for clarification, then everything they're saying is meaningless to me, information free, boring. Same if they think I don't know about topic X, try explaining it to me, but I do know topic X, but I can't quickly let them know I already know it so we can move on, so I have to listen to an explanation of something that needs no explaining—also devoid of any new information, hence boring.
But granted, sometimes a non-interrupter has very practiced speech and will string together something that's nice to listen to as long as they don't hit the above obstacles.
I guess to clarify, it's not that 'wait mode' people are always boring, it's just much more likely to be boring because:
1) You don't feel their engagement if they aren't interrupting you to dig deeper, clarify, respond to points etc.—that's what's fun (for me and many others anyway), when you are interacting live like that, quick back and forth. By contrast waiting and storing everything up and then trying to say it all in your turn, feels very slow and unnatural.
2) If I'm missing information and the other person keeps talking and I can't interrupt them to ask for clarification, then everything they're saying is meaningless to me, information free, boring. Same if they think I don't know about topic X, try explaining it to me, but I do know topic X, but I can't quickly let them know I already know it so we can move on, so I have to listen to an explanation of something that needs no explaining—also devoid of any new information, hence boring.
But granted, sometimes a non-interrupter has very practiced speech and will string together something that's nice to listen to as long as they don't hit the above obstacles.
I agree with you that there isn't always value in what people say, no matter their mode.
Being more of a 'wait' mode my self, I sure have had very long, slow and 'boring' conversations with other 'wait' oriented people before.
In those instances I have usually suggested to change the subject matter by way of 'I'm sorry but would you mind if we shift the conversation over to x?'.
Usually to great success.
Being more of a 'wait' mode my self, I sure have had very long, slow and 'boring' conversations with other 'wait' oriented people before.
In those instances I have usually suggested to change the subject matter by way of 'I'm sorry but would you mind if we shift the conversation over to x?'.
Usually to great success.
This seems to be a recurring confusion in this thread: the boring aspect is a consequence of certain other factors, it is not a reason in itself for interruption. It would be rude in my opinion to interrupt someone and change the subject because they are being boring. However, if you consider the specific examples I gave you'll see it's not about it being generically boring, it's about the speaker having a misunderstanding of the knowledge-state of their listener.
In attempt to say it with absolute clarity: interruptions that shift topic are rude and I would not advocate for them
In attempt to say it with absolute clarity: interruptions that shift topic are rude and I would not advocate for them
If it wasn't clear then the redirection of the conversation would only happen after the person has come to a junction in what they are discussing.
Not mid sentance, nor mid explanation that has not reached some settled point.
There is nothing rude about directing a topic of discussion if done with tact and respect.
Not mid sentance, nor mid explanation that has not reached some settled point.
There is nothing rude about directing a topic of discussion if done with tact and respect.
Hard agree. It is such a fluid conversation, with instant asides, interruptive humour with redirects back to subject, riffs off what you're saying, etc. I love it. Crucially, I want to be interrupted too. As soon as you've caught up to my thoughts and have outraced them, interrupt me and take over.
West Coast America (at least, and possibly elsewhere) is pretty big on the do-not-interrupt culture, though, and I felt a little ashamed whenever I did it. But then I found not all people are like that and realized I have so much more fun with people who interrupt me and permit me to interrupt.
And it feels so natural. A slightly louder tone, a hand gesture, enough to say "hang on, here comes something"; but also enough of a signifier to you to move things along. I'm with you, man.
West Coast America (at least, and possibly elsewhere) is pretty big on the do-not-interrupt culture, though, and I felt a little ashamed whenever I did it. But then I found not all people are like that and realized I have so much more fun with people who interrupt me and permit me to interrupt.
And it feels so natural. A slightly louder tone, a hand gesture, enough to say "hang on, here comes something"; but also enough of a signifier to you to move things along. I'm with you, man.
You get it :)
It is potentially more efficient, but that efficiency is dependent on mutual buy-in and understanding.
It cam also be efficient to non-verbally signal a request for interrupt via hand or face gestures.
The real skill is on the fly protocol identification and adaption.
It cam also be efficient to non-verbally signal a request for interrupt via hand or face gestures.
The real skill is on the fly protocol identification and adaption.
Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies.
This implies all communication is scaled which is a false assumption. Most interaction is one on one not N to many and there's no reason you need to use the same for both.
Thus conseding interruptions aren't "inherently more efficient", and rather as the author presents different communication methods are more effective under different circumstances.
> Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies.
The difference is that packet has max length and therefore can be mixed with other senders, not be infinite monologue that chokes whole traffic in the network
As for interrupts, you just need to queue them instead of them causing collision. Notice the need for question and let the other side finish the sentence, as what they say next might be answer to question
The difference is that packet has max length and therefore can be mixed with other senders, not be infinite monologue that chokes whole traffic in the network
As for interrupts, you just need to queue them instead of them causing collision. Notice the need for question and let the other side finish the sentence, as what they say next might be answer to question
One gets interrupted by two kinds of people:
- Those who ask for help after exhausting other avenues. These people grow more productive over time.
- Those who ask for help at the first sign of trouble every time. These people take you for granted, use you as a door mat, and often make for incompetent teammates or toxic managers.
- Those who ask for help after exhausting other avenues. These people grow more productive over time.
- Those who ask for help at the first sign of trouble every time. These people take you for granted, use you as a door mat, and often make for incompetent teammates or toxic managers.
In other words, the world is black and white and you know exactly what's going on at any time.
I use a piece of paper and scratch one or two words in order to not forget getting back into a point but also not interrupting.
Obviously this doesn’t work on all circumstances, but it works well on work zoom meetings.
Obviously this doesn’t work on all circumstances, but it works well on work zoom meetings.
This is much worse now that so much business and technical communication is by video, since to make these gestures you have to ensure that your hands are in the frame -- if the camera is even on.
Your post is complete, because I wasn't able to interrupt it. So your argument is as good as the "wait culture".
If you're teaching someone something in a 1 on 1 situation, then yeah, interruptions might be better. And that seems to be what you're focusing on. But in other situations your observations seem not to hold.
I find that interrupters are boring. So many pointless words to describe something that could be handled in a sentence. When I talk to such people I often find myself bored and wondering why they have such a strong desire to go into excruciating detail over the blindingly obvious, why they need to constantly reiterate and belabor some simple fact. Usually I come to the conclusion that they are hiding their inability to think well, let alone deep - they try to cover it by using lots of words to appear as if they have a lot in their head.
It sounds like you might just be a poor listener and are pushing that problem off onto other people.
Ironically it sounds like you didn't actually read my comment at all, but if you wouldn't mind providing a little more detail on how you derived your stance from what I said I'd be happy to take a listen.
That was my initial read, but you may want to read their comment again. They expressed a way they prefer to listen in a conversation that’s closer to the article’s Wait culture than what you or I might object to in the article’s Interrupt culture.
[deleted]
I could not agree less
I have a strong habit of "autocompleting" people's thoughts in my head before they're done saying them. I'm only right maybe ~60% of the time, but it comes with a strong urge to interrupt them and let them know where I think they're going. This is especially true if I can tell that it will take them multiple sentences to finish their thought. It does not come from a place of "you're wasting my time, I get it, jeez", but more from a "I understand the point you're making and I am eager to hear the next thing you have to share."
What I've noticed is that my habit of interruption is received wildly differently by different kinds of people. It drives some people absolutely crazy, and in these settings I've learned to be a little more mindful and try to restrain myself from interjecting so frequently. However, for other people, it works wonderfully and we'll get into a really fast-moving conversation where less redundant information is shared.
My theory is that two well-intentioned interrupters can have a pleasant conversation, and two well-intentioned waiters can have a pleasant conversation, but any pairing of an interrupter and a waiter will be disastrous unless both are very mindful of how they participate in the conversation.
What I've noticed is that my habit of interruption is received wildly differently by different kinds of people. It drives some people absolutely crazy, and in these settings I've learned to be a little more mindful and try to restrain myself from interjecting so frequently. However, for other people, it works wonderfully and we'll get into a really fast-moving conversation where less redundant information is shared.
My theory is that two well-intentioned interrupters can have a pleasant conversation, and two well-intentioned waiters can have a pleasant conversation, but any pairing of an interrupter and a waiter will be disastrous unless both are very mindful of how they participate in the conversation.
> What I've noticed is that my habit of interruption is received wildly differently by different kinds of people. It drives some people absolutely crazy
I think it hugely depends on which of the cultures you grew up in. I grew up in an interrupting culture family - interrupting was just the norm, nobody considered it rude. My wife grew up in a wait culture family. If I interrupt her she can get really mad. Over the years I've had to learn to use the wait-method when talking to her and it's made me more mindful of the two different cultures. I try to do more waiting than interrupting anymore since I now realize there's a large percentage of the population that considers interrupting to be rude.
There's also another thing that the waiters can consider an interruption, but I guess I never considered an interruption - saying something in agreement with the speaker as sort of an affirmation of what they're saying. My wife considers that an interruption, I consider it just participating in the conversation.
I think it hugely depends on which of the cultures you grew up in. I grew up in an interrupting culture family - interrupting was just the norm, nobody considered it rude. My wife grew up in a wait culture family. If I interrupt her she can get really mad. Over the years I've had to learn to use the wait-method when talking to her and it's made me more mindful of the two different cultures. I try to do more waiting than interrupting anymore since I now realize there's a large percentage of the population that considers interrupting to be rude.
There's also another thing that the waiters can consider an interruption, but I guess I never considered an interruption - saying something in agreement with the speaker as sort of an affirmation of what they're saying. My wife considers that an interruption, I consider it just participating in the conversation.
At least from my viewpoint, I agree with your wife. A nod of the head or a quick "uh-huh" gets your agreement across without the interruption that a fully stated sentence of agreement might cause.
Personally, I enjoy some "back and forth" (interruptions) during a discussion.
What ends up being maddening is when the interrupter is wrong about the direction that the talker intends the conversation to go, and you end up in endless digressions from the intended focus.
You said you’re right ~60% of the time. Have you ever experienced a big misassumption about where the person is going with it?
I find that most gains from this style are unwound when you discover 10 minutes later that there was a critically missed assumption and you have to redo parts of the conversation. (Or worse you never realize and then build a whole project with different ideas in mind)
I find that most gains from this style are unwound when you discover 10 minutes later that there was a critically missed assumption and you have to redo parts of the conversation. (Or worse you never realize and then build a whole project with different ideas in mind)
I have a smart acquaintance who talks quietly under his breath as soon as his brain starts predicting the words you are about to speak: Brian the living brain Markov chain?
Instead I change my wording on the fly - I'm not actually sure he knows he is subvocalising and I've never had any indication he knows I am toying with his quirk (good naturedly - I like the guy).
Instead I change my wording on the fly - I'm not actually sure he knows he is subvocalising and I've never had any indication he knows I am toying with his quirk (good naturedly - I like the guy).
Wow, that was a very succinct explanation! I've definitely experienced this, but thought through the two perspectives like this.
I definitely fall into the interrupter camp. With some of my friends in particular, conversation seems to form one long sentence being picked up by different people as it meanders along. It feels less like a dialogue and more like a melding of minds. Occasionally I'll meet someone though who I really struggle to communicate with. I find myself either frustrating them by interrupting, or I end up feeling like I'm getting lost with all of the clarifying questions and comments I'm trying to keep queued up in my head for whenever they finish.
I guess it's just one of those things where you need to get to know the person you're speaking with before leaning too far one way or the other. And of course it's challenging since the safe default to start with is the one that does not come naturally to me.
I definitely fall into the interrupter camp. With some of my friends in particular, conversation seems to form one long sentence being picked up by different people as it meanders along. It feels less like a dialogue and more like a melding of minds. Occasionally I'll meet someone though who I really struggle to communicate with. I find myself either frustrating them by interrupting, or I end up feeling like I'm getting lost with all of the clarifying questions and comments I'm trying to keep queued up in my head for whenever they finish.
I guess it's just one of those things where you need to get to know the person you're speaking with before leaning too far one way or the other. And of course it's challenging since the safe default to start with is the one that does not come naturally to me.
Have you found any patterns to the people in these two groups? I find that older (50+) people are far more likely to get upset with my interruptions.
I have ADHD and I've anecdotally found that other ADHD people tend to be far more receptive to it, because it's how they often work too. Apparently it's a common symptom?
I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the power dynamics of interruption. It is well known in psychology that interrupting anothers speech is a way to exert power. The boss can interrupt anyone, no one interrupts the boss. It's one of several types of interruption:
https://www.psychmechanics.com/psychology-of-interrupting/
Interrupting someone can say "I am more important than you". This can also cause failures to communicate since the boss can change the subject and the interrupted speaker may never get to finish their thought. I've seen projects fail because a boss intentionally interrupted people who were trending in a direction they did not want to go, squashing anyone who was pointing out a major flaw in the bosses plans, which resulted in building things in a bad way and then having the flaw manifest and cause the project to fail.
There are other types of interruption though that can be more supportive or more like parallel conversations. The efficiency of those often depends on the quality of the participants memory and ability to follow multiple threads simultaneously.
https://www.psychmechanics.com/psychology-of-interrupting/
Interrupting someone can say "I am more important than you". This can also cause failures to communicate since the boss can change the subject and the interrupted speaker may never get to finish their thought. I've seen projects fail because a boss intentionally interrupted people who were trending in a direction they did not want to go, squashing anyone who was pointing out a major flaw in the bosses plans, which resulted in building things in a bad way and then having the flaw manifest and cause the project to fail.
There are other types of interruption though that can be more supportive or more like parallel conversations. The efficiency of those often depends on the quality of the participants memory and ability to follow multiple threads simultaneously.
Without interruptions, I would not be able to finish meetings on time. EVER.
Information exchange is always the bottleneck in larger organizations, so efficiency of meetings is really important.
I will interrupt someone if I understood their point, and we have different, more pressing items on the agenda. It's not a power play, not psychological warfare or bullying. I just want to get shit done on time.
Information exchange is always the bottleneck in larger organizations, so efficiency of meetings is really important.
I will interrupt someone if I understood their point, and we have different, more pressing items on the agenda. It's not a power play, not psychological warfare or bullying. I just want to get shit done on time.
Companies with a waiting culture get things done on time. You might perceive interrupting as being more efficient but interrupting has its own set of inefficiencies.
Ok, next time an engineer on my team can't stop himself from talking about his SIMD lock-free distributed queue, I'll just keep listening. Maybe I get to sleep in the office too.
In a waiting culture people almost never talk at length like that. They are eager to listen to other ideas. In fact, meetings are usually shorter.
It's also less stressful. And I almost never hear the kind of skeptical sarcasm you're using here. Both of which are nice.
It's also less stressful. And I almost never hear the kind of skeptical sarcasm you're using here. Both of which are nice.
Both modes are subject to failures. Waiting is subject to live locks and interrupting is subject to thrashing. The socially maladroit or power tripper will misuse or abuse either system.
Yes, of course there is no silver bullet. The point is that the parent comment thinks only an interupting culture can work which anyone who has worked in a functional waiting culture knows is false.
There are pros and cons to both approaches. My personal experience has been that waiting cultures are more efficient at communication and get more work done. It would be interesting to see what actual instead of anecdotal data would show.
There are pros and cons to both approaches. My personal experience has been that waiting cultures are more efficient at communication and get more work done. It would be interesting to see what actual instead of anecdotal data would show.
Could you tell me more about your experiences with effective waiting culture?
I'm having a hard time believing that a e.g. a high-level manager/exec with 20 meetings per day, and a 60 hour work week is able to be on time with a purely waiting approach.
There are so many people that you need to align with this culture. If it worked for you, wherever you are, I respect that a lot.
I'm having a hard time believing that a e.g. a high-level manager/exec with 20 meetings per day, and a 60 hour work week is able to be on time with a purely waiting approach.
There are so many people that you need to align with this culture. If it worked for you, wherever you are, I respect that a lot.
The detail it deserves doesn't fit in an HN comment. But I'll drop some observations here. You really need to experience it to get it though. Body language and so many other nuances all come into play in any communication style.
I'll suggest that it's the interruption culture itself that is motivating the tendency for monologues.
When an executive regularly says "John please let Mary finish, I wanted to hear the rest of her thoughts" it sends at least two signals:
1. The obvious that interrupting is not welcome here. 2. The less obvious but easy enough to figure out that listening is valued. The vast majority of folks are smart enough to figure out that a monologue is just as unwelcome as interruptions in a culture where listening is valued.
At the the end of the day what everyone wants is a dialog. In a non-interupting culture folks tend to pass the baton far quicker which takes the place that interruptions used to serve. Once people understand that they will get uninterrupted time to speak, they relax and aren't so desperate to get everything out all at once before someone interrupts and shuts them down.
Imagine a manager who tells you that she can give you 30m max, no interruptions. That's a lot of trust and responsibility they've put on you. You pretty quickly figure out how to make effective use of that time, and it's for sure not a monologue.
And it's also manageable over a series of meetings. It's easy enough for a manager to start a meeting with "Kevin, please hold off your thoughts until the end of the meeting because we heard mostly from you last meeting".
People catch on very quickly if it's coming from the top. Which it almost always has to.
I'll suggest that it's the interruption culture itself that is motivating the tendency for monologues.
When an executive regularly says "John please let Mary finish, I wanted to hear the rest of her thoughts" it sends at least two signals:
1. The obvious that interrupting is not welcome here. 2. The less obvious but easy enough to figure out that listening is valued. The vast majority of folks are smart enough to figure out that a monologue is just as unwelcome as interruptions in a culture where listening is valued.
At the the end of the day what everyone wants is a dialog. In a non-interupting culture folks tend to pass the baton far quicker which takes the place that interruptions used to serve. Once people understand that they will get uninterrupted time to speak, they relax and aren't so desperate to get everything out all at once before someone interrupts and shuts them down.
Imagine a manager who tells you that she can give you 30m max, no interruptions. That's a lot of trust and responsibility they've put on you. You pretty quickly figure out how to make effective use of that time, and it's for sure not a monologue.
And it's also manageable over a series of meetings. It's easy enough for a manager to start a meeting with "Kevin, please hold off your thoughts until the end of the meeting because we heard mostly from you last meeting".
People catch on very quickly if it's coming from the top. Which it almost always has to.
If only my fraternity brothers understood this during our meetings. So many hours wasted on off-topic ranting or the entire chapter discussing issues that should’ve been settled in committee (or one malcontent stalling the committee’s report)
If workers can’t interrupt boss, then you’re in dysfunctional organization.
Perhaps if it is taken to the extreme. But it may be pretty efficient to have teams where workers only interrupt the boss when there is a strong reason to interrupt, and sparingly, especially if the team is gathered.
Especially if the boss came by the role as boss BECAUSE he/she is a good communicator.
Similarly with parents and small children, teachers and pupils or other situations with large asymmetries in competencies.
Especially if the boss came by the role as boss BECAUSE he/she is a good communicator.
Similarly with parents and small children, teachers and pupils or other situations with large asymmetries in competencies.
I see that you're describing many blue collar jobs then as dysfunctional. The power imbalance in many companies that rely on year's tenure means that juniors can be seen but never heard.
My thought exactly.
Obviously there ARE dynamics there, but they're not nearly that solid.
Obviously there ARE dynamics there, but they're not nearly that solid.
The cost of interrupting someone is killing their train of thought. It is not just a politeness thing.
So like everything it depends on the context.
Interrupting to keep meetings from getting too long is an essential skill. Especially with someone who has grown up with the blab-until-interrupted protocol!
So like everything it depends on the context.
Interrupting to keep meetings from getting too long is an essential skill. Especially with someone who has grown up with the blab-until-interrupted protocol!
The “flow state” is much more than just a train of thought that can be easily recovered if you have decent memory. Your mood - not so much. In case of meetings it’s probably not that critical but could be more expensive for unsolicited interruptions during say coding/design sessions
That’s a tough one because some people seem to have trouble finding flow state to begin with. I tend to have a fairly easy time but have picked up that few people are as cavalier about it as I am.
That may also be why I was able to walk away and experiment with not doing it. Writers, for instance, seem to be notoriously bad at finding flow state. And if I told one to abandon it mid-stream I’d probably get hurt.
That may also be why I was able to walk away and experiment with not doing it. Writers, for instance, seem to be notoriously bad at finding flow state. And if I told one to abandon it mid-stream I’d probably get hurt.
Interruption is sometimes productive though. If the person speaking is not able to stick to one point at a time and instead goes on a monologue expanding multiple topics, others may have critical things to say, but are not able to say because by the time the person stops, the dialogue has moved on to a different topic.
This is very important in say a business setting where decisions need to be made while evaluating all the aspects of the task at hand. If useful information is not discussed because the only way it could’ve happened is by interrupting the speaker, then everyone loses out.
This is very important in say a business setting where decisions need to be made while evaluating all the aspects of the task at hand. If useful information is not discussed because the only way it could’ve happened is by interrupting the speaker, then everyone loses out.
Or if they’re building castles in the clouds, letting them spin not only themselves up but everyone else is not conducive to getting to a reasonable outcome. They’ve built a pretty picture based on bad assumptions, now you get to be the asshole by tearing it apart. It might be kinder to not let them finish.
Some people just talk too much and say little. That also kills the train of thought of everyone else.
The private school culture only works in the artificial setting of a school or another formal setting and is the equivalent of written comment threads, like this one
The private school culture only works in the artificial setting of a school or another formal setting and is the equivalent of written comment threads, like this one
It's a tradeoff between priorities. Easiest seen in speech vs writing.
Speech is on the speaker's flow primarily. Listeners are expected to keep up not just in vocabulary, but speed among others.
Writing is far friendlier to the reader, being able to set their own pace.
Interruptions allow listeners to shift the balance at the cost of potentially destroying the pace. And sometimes destroying the pace is necessary (e.g. endless discussions).
Speech is on the speaker's flow primarily. Listeners are expected to keep up not just in vocabulary, but speed among others.
Writing is far friendlier to the reader, being able to set their own pace.
Interruptions allow listeners to shift the balance at the cost of potentially destroying the pace. And sometimes destroying the pace is necessary (e.g. endless discussions).
Is this not just a matter of culture? New Yorkers’ conversations are so compressed that they outright overlap. Any silence is an invitation and anyone with something to say is expected to just say it - to make room for themself. Californians let silence stand longer. It’s hard for me to say one is better than the other.
This is a great example of why in-person collaboration is irreplaceable for discussions and the like. With people you are familiar with, you can semi-interrupt with facial expressions, movements, grunts, etc. You can use body language and tone of voice to make a side remark or "threaded" discussion. You can interrupt at the exact right time and interleave your words with other people's. You can, simply by looking at the other listeners, confirm whether anyone else has the same concerns that you do. And it's instant. So the acceptable threshold for interruption gets higher and the consequences get lower.
On high-latency, low-bandwidth channels (Google Voice, I'm looking in your direction...), you choose between long, confusing silent waiting and constant infuriating interruption.
On high-latency, low-bandwidth channels (Google Voice, I'm looking in your direction...), you choose between long, confusing silent waiting and constant infuriating interruption.
Have you seen Meta Quest Pro avatars? They mapped facial expressions onto avatars for that specific reason.
I think it'd be extremely interesting to see how it compares to real life, vid calls and other alternatives.
I think it'd be extremely interesting to see how it compares to real life, vid calls and other alternatives.
I don't know if I have, to be honest. I've seen some very short clips of people supposedly mapping certain exaggerated facial movements to cartoon avatars that look nothing like them. I guess I don't think that Facebook's solution will be a replacement for the real thing. I think we may get there once we have 3d cameras that can saturate a room, and glasses/contact lens/retinal displays.
Meta is DOA and an utter nonstarter.
"Irreplaceable" is not accurate, since as you said, the big issue is with high latency and low-bandwidth channels.
In the same city with a good connection, video is often about as good.
In the same city with a good connection, video is often about as good.
I still think it's accurate, especially in the context of the article. Video doesn't give you eye contact, let alone selective eye contact among a group. Video doesn't let your ears hear the room around in you in 3d.
VR can provide those things (eye contact maybe with Meta Quest Pro, we'll see if it works)
Eh...I think it will be bad enough at those things for a long enough time that it effectively will not provide those things, but rather inferior imitations. And since we've shifted from video links to VR, I'll boldly state that any solution that requires strapping a box to your face is not going to cut it.
It also matters what type of conversation is being had.
I'm more of a waiter than interrupter, who lives with a strong interrupter. If we're having a debate or discussing the newest silly thing in the news or whatever, it's not a big deal -- the topic was never _that_ important that I care about getting interrupted.
However, I find it very rude and annoying to get interrupted while telling a story. Like, event XYZ happened on the drive home, or something that happened with others in our mutual friend group. It's only going to take a minute or two for me to tell the whole story, but 15 seconds in it's been hijacked and the interrupter is off on their own tangent.
I'm more of a waiter than interrupter, who lives with a strong interrupter. If we're having a debate or discussing the newest silly thing in the news or whatever, it's not a big deal -- the topic was never _that_ important that I care about getting interrupted.
However, I find it very rude and annoying to get interrupted while telling a story. Like, event XYZ happened on the drive home, or something that happened with others in our mutual friend group. It's only going to take a minute or two for me to tell the whole story, but 15 seconds in it's been hijacked and the interrupter is off on their own tangent.
> It's only going to take a minute or two for me to tell the whole story, but 15 seconds in it's been hijacked and the interrupter is off on their own tangent.
The interrupters can only be fought on their terms. Fight fire with fire. Interrupt back and just keep telling the story.
The interrupters can only be fought on their terms. Fight fire with fire. Interrupt back and just keep telling the story.
Or choose to leave. I have walked out of meetings, having been repeatedly interrupted despite telling the interrupter that I did not appreciate it.
I’m not hard line on “no interrupting”, but if I ask someone to stop, then I expect them to stop. Or I’ll just leave. I have other things I could be doing.
I’m not hard line on “no interrupting”, but if I ask someone to stop, then I expect them to stop. Or I’ll just leave. I have other things I could be doing.
Very much this.
As a few others have noted, it's not an absolute, and some interruptions --- for clarifying questions or corrections, say --- are welcomed. But to interrupt continuously, to do so in a way that disrupts rather than promotes the conversation, to not catch the nonverbal cues that this is annoying, and then to ignore multiple spoken requests to please not do that ... is beyond frustrating.
I've expereinced this with friends and coworkers I otherwise respect and admire their knowledge and capabilities. But in spoken interactions they're unbearable.
Message-based comms, where there's a discrete comment-and-response cycle, as on HN, email (lists or exchanges), and many message boards, though not quite so much text-based chat, is interesting in that it's possible to say (or write) one's piece without interruption. Of course, whether or not that's read is another question....
One of the people I'm thinking of specifically in this case actually does communicate quite well in written form. Verbal, interactively, again, not so much.
As a few others have noted, it's not an absolute, and some interruptions --- for clarifying questions or corrections, say --- are welcomed. But to interrupt continuously, to do so in a way that disrupts rather than promotes the conversation, to not catch the nonverbal cues that this is annoying, and then to ignore multiple spoken requests to please not do that ... is beyond frustrating.
I've expereinced this with friends and coworkers I otherwise respect and admire their knowledge and capabilities. But in spoken interactions they're unbearable.
Message-based comms, where there's a discrete comment-and-response cycle, as on HN, email (lists or exchanges), and many message boards, though not quite so much text-based chat, is interesting in that it's possible to say (or write) one's piece without interruption. Of course, whether or not that's read is another question....
One of the people I'm thinking of specifically in this case actually does communicate quite well in written form. Verbal, interactively, again, not so much.
Do you think it's the interrupting that's the issue here, or the fact that they're changing the subject? (and hence, not listening to you)
I think both "wait" and "interrupt" culture etiquettes involve supporting the current conversation, not ignoring the other person's input. The latter is frustrating in both styles.
I think both "wait" and "interrupt" culture etiquettes involve supporting the current conversation, not ignoring the other person's input. The latter is frustrating in both styles.
Being from a wait culture, I find it mildly rude to also interrupt in an agreement, even if for a very short acknowledgement. It's an interruption after all.
I don't mind in a work setting or with acquaintances as I know lot of people are interrupters, but now I realize I do expect my friends and partner to let me finish uninterrupted. So it's clearly still a rudeness flag for me.
I don't mind in a work setting or with acquaintances as I know lot of people are interrupters, but now I realize I do expect my friends and partner to let me finish uninterrupted. So it's clearly still a rudeness flag for me.
I'm 100% in interrupt culture. When I interact with people from wait culture it's pretty bad experience for me because not being interrupted feels for me like not being listened, understood or like nobody cares what I'm saying. Occasionally it seems even cruel when I'm mistaken at the beginning of my thread but they silently let me go on with stating my erroneous conclusions from false premise. Only then to hear that all my input was sheer garbage.
The only two people from wait culture I've met were from management (they were just my friends, I had no professional relationship with them).
I think wait style must have been pretty natural for them because they are used to nobody saying anything to them while they are talking and maybe even untill explicitly asked. And since they are nice people they mirrored that in their behavior.
The only two people from wait culture I've met were from management (they were just my friends, I had no professional relationship with them).
I think wait style must have been pretty natural for them because they are used to nobody saying anything to them while they are talking and maybe even untill explicitly asked. And since they are nice people they mirrored that in their behavior.
It feels great when I'm talking to someone and they're so interested that they can't wait to ask questions. It's not even really interrupting (as in talking over me), it's often just looking like they're going to speak, and I yield. And vice versa.
I feel that constant feedback is useful to keep the conversation going in a productive direction.
Interrupting is much easier in person though, you can just look like you're going to say something and the other person will pause. It can even be just an intake of breath. Over Zoom it's much harder.
Sometimes when someone's speaking over Zoom I find myself about to say something, but then I don't, because the other person couldn't pick up the cues and pause. I only realised I do this because someone in a meeting room with me (with other participants on Zoom) actually picked up the cues and asked me if I wanted to say something.
I now find myself signaling I want to interrupt (breathing in, cocking my head) during a Zoom call very often, only to catch myself. I can't bring myself to actually interrupt someone, but in person they would've stopped and I would've interjected. I wonder how often I was doing that.
I feel that constant feedback is useful to keep the conversation going in a productive direction.
Interrupting is much easier in person though, you can just look like you're going to say something and the other person will pause. It can even be just an intake of breath. Over Zoom it's much harder.
Sometimes when someone's speaking over Zoom I find myself about to say something, but then I don't, because the other person couldn't pick up the cues and pause. I only realised I do this because someone in a meeting room with me (with other participants on Zoom) actually picked up the cues and asked me if I wanted to say something.
I now find myself signaling I want to interrupt (breathing in, cocking my head) during a Zoom call very often, only to catch myself. I can't bring myself to actually interrupt someone, but in person they would've stopped and I would've interjected. I wonder how often I was doing that.
> not being interrupted feels for me like not being listened
I'm curious if this is the case if the other party is giving other visual indications of focus. (Making intent eye contact, nodding, etc.)
Obviously it may still be uncomfortable because it's not your preferred communication/feedback style, but I'm curious if that mitigates the feeling of not being listened to or not.
I'm curious if this is the case if the other party is giving other visual indications of focus. (Making intent eye contact, nodding, etc.)
Obviously it may still be uncomfortable because it's not your preferred communication/feedback style, but I'm curious if that mitigates the feeling of not being listened to or not.
I'm not great at eye contact. Especially when I'm focusing on something I'm trying to convey. But that could probably help. I remember the most intense feelings of being not listened in situations where eye contact was not possible. For ex we were walking side by side or doing something manual facing away from each other.
> not being interrupted feels for me like not being listened
When people listen to you talk, you feel like they're not listening?
Where do you think that stems from? It seems peculiar that as someone more actively listens to you, you feel just the opposite.
When people listen to you talk, you feel like they're not listening?
Where do you think that stems from? It seems peculiar that as someone more actively listens to you, you feel just the opposite.
Because in an interrupt culture, the speaker expects not just active listening but active feedback.
I speak when I think someone can use what I have to say. If they interrupt me, I just take it as judgment that they disagree and stop talking.
Possibly a post-hoc rationalization because I prefer put my energy into what I want to say, not fighting bad conversation flow control. It's just too much of a hassle.
Possibly a post-hoc rationalization because I prefer put my energy into what I want to say, not fighting bad conversation flow control. It's just too much of a hassle.
I think there's a subtle system that interrupters use (and for context I am definitely an interrupter, though I very consciously work to not be one when I'm with non-interrupters). If I'm speaking and you interrupt, if my expectation is that your thought is more valuable than mine, I stop and let you go. If I think my thought is more valuable, I continue. In this situation, you're doing the same thing. So if we both continue to talk, each of us is signaling that we think our thought is more important, but each of us is also taking in the information that the other thinks their thought is more important. So if you're still talking after some threshold (and this is quick, so that's maybe 2-3 seconds), even though I think my thought is important, it's not 2-3 seconds of interruption important, ergo your thought is probably more important, so I cede the metaphorical baton to you.
That might sound insane to non-interrupters, and even for interrupters it's a quick, natural assessment, but if you listen to two interrupters talk for a while, especially about something they're both passionate about, you can pick up on what's happening.
That said, there are also some interrupters who just do not stop speaking once they've interrupted no matter what. They're a minority, but they drive me nuts. So it's all relative, I suppose.
That might sound insane to non-interrupters, and even for interrupters it's a quick, natural assessment, but if you listen to two interrupters talk for a while, especially about something they're both passionate about, you can pick up on what's happening.
That said, there are also some interrupters who just do not stop speaking once they've interrupted no matter what. They're a minority, but they drive me nuts. So it's all relative, I suppose.
Huh. It's my impression that 2-3 seconds of talking over someone else is not "quick". To me, that's a long time to keep going.
I have a similar thought pattern with who's thoughts are more valuable - but my perception is that the person butting in knows what I am saying and what they want to say, whereas I only know what I'm saying. Therefore, they are in a much better position to determine which thought is more valuable, so my best course of action is probably to pass the baton.
I have a similar thought pattern with who's thoughts are more valuable - but my perception is that the person butting in knows what I am saying and what they want to say, whereas I only know what I'm saying. Therefore, they are in a much better position to determine which thought is more valuable, so my best course of action is probably to pass the baton.
Honestly you might be right about the 2-3 seconds. It's one of those things that happens pretty quickly and naturally, so it's very plausible I'm judging the timing wrong.
But yeah, 100% agree with what you're saying, but the part I'd add is that if I think that they think they know what I'm saying but are likely to be wrong, that's when I'll keep talking over them as they try to interrupt. That might happen if I'm about to make a point that's counterintuitive, so they've likely misjudged where I'm going.
My mom (from whom I definitely learned to be an interrupter) and I do this to each other in more direct fashion with a "no no, shush, I haven't made my point yet," or something along those lines. But that obviously only works because it's just a normal conversational paradigm for us, and neither of us would ever get offended.
But yeah, 100% agree with what you're saying, but the part I'd add is that if I think that they think they know what I'm saying but are likely to be wrong, that's when I'll keep talking over them as they try to interrupt. That might happen if I'm about to make a point that's counterintuitive, so they've likely misjudged where I'm going.
My mom (from whom I definitely learned to be an interrupter) and I do this to each other in more direct fashion with a "no no, shush, I haven't made my point yet," or something along those lines. But that obviously only works because it's just a normal conversational paradigm for us, and neither of us would ever get offended.
Certainly agree on there being "good" and "bad" interruptors. Being a jerk with the way you interrupt is never a good idea, and unfortunately the reputation of interruption in general as mode of communication has been sullied by such jerks.
I also agree with your analysis of us interrupters having a secret system—that's totally the case in my experience as well. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you instinctually view the act of interruption as inherently disrespectful or not.
I also agree with your analysis of us interrupters having a secret system—that's totally the case in my experience as well. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you instinctually view the act of interruption as inherently disrespectful or not.
As a habitual interrupter, this is one of my big fears when talking to non-interrupters. For me, frequent brief interruptions is how I follow along with what the other person is saying—otherwise it's almost certain I'll lose track. If I am not actively engaged in a conversation, I find it very difficult to retain anything from that conversation, so in a way, coming from me interruption is intended as a sign of respect, because it means I care about what you're saying and want to constantly check my understanding. I am always terrified that people will see it as rude or dismissive, because that's not at all how I intend it—it's just how I process new information.
Luckily, most people I interact with seem to not be put off by it, and I make an effort to make it obvious that my interjections are supposed to come across as encouraging. In situations where it's best for me to remain silent, I often struggle to keep from losing interest. My retention rate for Zoom calls is close to zero as a result!
Luckily, most people I interact with seem to not be put off by it, and I make an effort to make it obvious that my interjections are supposed to come across as encouraging. In situations where it's best for me to remain silent, I often struggle to keep from losing interest. My retention rate for Zoom calls is close to zero as a result!
I quit my last job for several reasons but one was my team leader's inability to go 10 seconds without interrupting myself or someone else. I'd caution anyone against romanticizing it because for some people, being unable to complete a thought without interruption is unbearable.
To expand on why this can be so frustrating for me at least:
* If I have something significant or impactful to say, and someone interrupts midway through, the effect is diminished.
* If I'm saying something which I intend to follow with a qualification, e.g. "Elegant code is a priority, but we need to actually deliver code too", and someone interrupts before I add my qualification to dispute my claim or add their own qualification, then now we have pointless conflict, and I appear silly as though my statement wasn't thought through.
* If someone interrupts to complete my thought for me, and they get it wrong, suddenly I have to navigate the social implications of gently shutting them down and possibly returning to their comment later, and I'm now focusing on that instead of the topic.
* One can engage in active listening without interjecting at every opportunity, but admittedly it takes practice to learn the cues of each person you're speaking to and when is an appropriate time to jump in. I'm sure that I've been interrupted by many people many times in my life so far, but there's only 2 that I remember as having made a habit of it. Probably because they did it regularly, never caught themselves and apologised, and frustrated me which I imagine imprinted on me in some way as emotional events tend to.
mkaic, I don't mean to liken you to these people. I obviously don't know you or the way you converse so please take these only as anecdotes about the experiences of someone on the other end of the interruption spectrum. I've also just seen another comment of yours relating to "good" and "bad" interrupters and that seems like a reasonable distinction. I think my experience is with the bad ones, and maybe the good ones just fly under the radar because it feels like a natural interaction.
To expand on why this can be so frustrating for me at least:
* If I have something significant or impactful to say, and someone interrupts midway through, the effect is diminished.
* If I'm saying something which I intend to follow with a qualification, e.g. "Elegant code is a priority, but we need to actually deliver code too", and someone interrupts before I add my qualification to dispute my claim or add their own qualification, then now we have pointless conflict, and I appear silly as though my statement wasn't thought through.
* If someone interrupts to complete my thought for me, and they get it wrong, suddenly I have to navigate the social implications of gently shutting them down and possibly returning to their comment later, and I'm now focusing on that instead of the topic.
* One can engage in active listening without interjecting at every opportunity, but admittedly it takes practice to learn the cues of each person you're speaking to and when is an appropriate time to jump in. I'm sure that I've been interrupted by many people many times in my life so far, but there's only 2 that I remember as having made a habit of it. Probably because they did it regularly, never caught themselves and apologised, and frustrated me which I imagine imprinted on me in some way as emotional events tend to.
mkaic, I don't mean to liken you to these people. I obviously don't know you or the way you converse so please take these only as anecdotes about the experiences of someone on the other end of the interruption spectrum. I've also just seen another comment of yours relating to "good" and "bad" interrupters and that seems like a reasonable distinction. I think my experience is with the bad ones, and maybe the good ones just fly under the radar because it feels like a natural interaction.
I prefer wait style, but I don't mind occasional interruptions so long as they are very brief and immediately yield control back to the original talker. Like:
---
A: We just got a new shipment of XYZs, we need to --
B: Woa woa sorry, what's a XYZ again?
A: It's a type of ABC.
B: Right, okay.
A: Anyway, we need to ...
---
In that exchange, it's still implicitly A's turn even when B is speaking; B is just "borrowing" the turn and has to give it back quickly. I wouldn't find this rude; B just did it so he wouldn't be bamboozled by the unfamiliar term in the rest of the conversation. But if B had interrupted and started off down on his own topic, like how in his opinion it's a bad idea to buy XYZs and we should make our own instead, that would be rude. That's stealing A's turn, not borrowing.
---
A: We just got a new shipment of XYZs, we need to --
B: Woa woa sorry, what's a XYZ again?
A: It's a type of ABC.
B: Right, okay.
A: Anyway, we need to ...
---
In that exchange, it's still implicitly A's turn even when B is speaking; B is just "borrowing" the turn and has to give it back quickly. I wouldn't find this rude; B just did it so he wouldn't be bamboozled by the unfamiliar term in the rest of the conversation. But if B had interrupted and started off down on his own topic, like how in his opinion it's a bad idea to buy XYZs and we should make our own instead, that would be rude. That's stealing A's turn, not borrowing.
Matching communication styles with your coworkers is very important. I was once in a team with mostly non-interrupters and was unhappy (but didn't really realise it). I moved cities, countries (to a more interrupty place), and teams, and my new coworkers and manager interrupt all the time. I think the flow of conversation is much better, and we get on the same page faster.
Obviously people can change communication styles over time (see the article for an example), but sometimes people prefer things a certain way. And that's fine!
If someone's obviously not an interrupter, I try to consciously pause for questions and avoid interrupting. Learning about different communication styles and trying not to dominate is crucial too.
Obviously people can change communication styles over time (see the article for an example), but sometimes people prefer things a certain way. And that's fine!
If someone's obviously not an interrupter, I try to consciously pause for questions and avoid interrupting. Learning about different communication styles and trying not to dominate is crucial too.
> I just take it as judgment
> fighting bad conversation flow control
> hassle
Something to keep in mind on topics like this is that neither of these two styles is bad or wrong - they are merely different; your perfectly-valid communication style can be just as irritating and off-putting to someone else as theirs is to you.
Heads isn't better than tails, you know?
> fighting bad conversation flow control
> hassle
Something to keep in mind on topics like this is that neither of these two styles is bad or wrong - they are merely different; your perfectly-valid communication style can be just as irritating and off-putting to someone else as theirs is to you.
Heads isn't better than tails, you know?
It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder. That way you signal that you have something to retort and they should wrap it up. Think of it like a continuous curve between 0 and 1, rather than a jump to exactly 0 or 1.
In general, in debates where you don’t interrupt, people can just gish gallop all over the place.
And furthermore, verbal conversations aren’t the best way to solve things. Better to break what you say into written claims, and each one can have a community upvote arguments for and against the claim, hyperlinking to other claims.
Most conversations on social networks are totally useless wastes of time where people pretend they know more than they do, and repeat the same thing 3000 other people said in other similar conversations. And nothing gets solved anyway because they have no power to do so LMAO
The older I got the more I realized how much of a waste of time most activities are, unless you are enjoying yourself or building something over time, or raising children. Having a conversation about politics has just as much effect as having one about astronomy, and you may as well just read wikipedia, to get a far more balanced and broad view.
In general, in debates where you don’t interrupt, people can just gish gallop all over the place.
And furthermore, verbal conversations aren’t the best way to solve things. Better to break what you say into written claims, and each one can have a community upvote arguments for and against the claim, hyperlinking to other claims.
Most conversations on social networks are totally useless wastes of time where people pretend they know more than they do, and repeat the same thing 3000 other people said in other similar conversations. And nothing gets solved anyway because they have no power to do so LMAO
The older I got the more I realized how much of a waste of time most activities are, unless you are enjoying yourself or building something over time, or raising children. Having a conversation about politics has just as much effect as having one about astronomy, and you may as well just read wikipedia, to get a far more balanced and broad view.
> It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder.
I think absolute pronouncements of what is better or what is worse will always be wrong for someone. For me, I am perfectly capable of waiting a moment after speaking to see if someone wants to respond, and hate having to shout over someone who is interrupting me "a little". But of course it's as unreasonable for me to expect other people always to adapt to my preferences as it is for other people to expect me always to adapt to theirs.
Interrupting "a little" also doesn't work if you have an interrupt-ee who expects just to talk louder, and an interrupt-er who does not intend to be put off: that can, and in my experience usually does, just lead to each of them talking a little louder in turn, until they are both practically shouting, often without noticing that they're doing so.
I think absolute pronouncements of what is better or what is worse will always be wrong for someone. For me, I am perfectly capable of waiting a moment after speaking to see if someone wants to respond, and hate having to shout over someone who is interrupting me "a little". But of course it's as unreasonable for me to expect other people always to adapt to my preferences as it is for other people to expect me always to adapt to theirs.
Interrupting "a little" also doesn't work if you have an interrupt-ee who expects just to talk louder, and an interrupt-er who does not intend to be put off: that can, and in my experience usually does, just lead to each of them talking a little louder in turn, until they are both practically shouting, often without noticing that they're doing so.
> But of course it's as unreasonable for me to expect other people always to adapt to my preferences as it is for other people to expect me always to adapt to theirs.
I'm actually not quite so sure about this. Admittedly, as a lifelong member of the waiters, I find "interrupt culture" incredibly frustrating. But I also think there's a framework by which we can establish interrupt culture as ostensibly more rude, even if that's the custom you're used to and expect. Consider children at recess, all wanting to use the same toy. The children could
1. take the toy from whoever is using now when they want it, or
2. use the toy for a short while before returning it so someone else can use it.
You could cast the second a little differently,
3. use the toy until they're done with it before returning it
Assuming the kids can't simply prevent each other from playing and there's some moderation effect to ensure other kids can play at the next recess, both of the "wait culture" analogies seem less rude than the "interrupt culture" one. Of course, the toy represents the shared conversational resource. "The stage," if you will.
I think the societal trick is, then, not to "learn to adjust to wait/interrupt culture if you're used to interrupt/wait culture", but to encourage more mindfulness about using the shared resource and returning it if others want it.
I'm actually not quite so sure about this. Admittedly, as a lifelong member of the waiters, I find "interrupt culture" incredibly frustrating. But I also think there's a framework by which we can establish interrupt culture as ostensibly more rude, even if that's the custom you're used to and expect. Consider children at recess, all wanting to use the same toy. The children could
1. take the toy from whoever is using now when they want it, or
2. use the toy for a short while before returning it so someone else can use it.
You could cast the second a little differently,
3. use the toy until they're done with it before returning it
Assuming the kids can't simply prevent each other from playing and there's some moderation effect to ensure other kids can play at the next recess, both of the "wait culture" analogies seem less rude than the "interrupt culture" one. Of course, the toy represents the shared conversational resource. "The stage," if you will.
I think the societal trick is, then, not to "learn to adjust to wait/interrupt culture if you're used to interrupt/wait culture", but to encourage more mindfulness about using the shared resource and returning it if others want it.
> I'm actually not quite so sure about this. Admittedly, as a lifelong member of the waiters, I find "interrupt culture" incredibly frustrating. But I also think there's a framework by which we can establish interrupt culture as ostensibly more rude, even if that's the custom you're used to and expect.
I think you can definitely make this argument, and it will establish, conveniently, that everyone should do things our way. But then interrupters can make an argument about how, if only we could all agree to do things their way, then things would be so efficient, and no-one would need to waste time waiting for someone else to finish up a sentence whose content they've already guessed, or that they can already tell will be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or … well, whatever the argument is. Of course, I find your argument more persuasive than the interrupters’; but … well, I would, wouldn't I? If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people to realize that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.
I think you can definitely make this argument, and it will establish, conveniently, that everyone should do things our way. But then interrupters can make an argument about how, if only we could all agree to do things their way, then things would be so efficient, and no-one would need to waste time waiting for someone else to finish up a sentence whose content they've already guessed, or that they can already tell will be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or … well, whatever the argument is. Of course, I find your argument more persuasive than the interrupters’; but … well, I would, wouldn't I? If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people to realize that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.
Yes, that's exactly my point. It's easy to say "I think X so X is right" but I'm trying to find more objectivity by drawing analogies/looking for asymmetries with other things. What happens if we perturb the system in a given direction? Of course, pronouncements of absolute moral certainty pretty much fall to unprovable religion - "murder is always bad because God doesn't approve, even if everyone agrees to it!" - but I find it likely that there are approximate moral certainties (like murder or theft generally being harmful, or, in this case, interruption culture being the more rude of the two).
> If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.
I appreciate this position greatly and I think it's very noble. I try very hard to argue with myself along the same lines to arrive at better conclusions. My concern with the alternative - that people are hard, there are no answers, and all we can do is communicate - is that it means nothing is knowable with a side effect of supporting the status quo.
> If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.
I appreciate this position greatly and I think it's very noble. I try very hard to argue with myself along the same lines to arrive at better conclusions. My concern with the alternative - that people are hard, there are no answers, and all we can do is communicate - is that it means nothing is knowable with a side effect of supporting the status quo.
That's funny that he used that word, because waiters repeatedly come and interrupt our dinner to ask how we are doing :-P
Why can't they just have an app or a button to summon them like on an airplane? LOL
Why can't they just have an app or a button to summon them like on an airplane? LOL
> Why can't they just have an app or a button to summon them like on an airplane? LOL
Life's hard enough for waiters even when they can visit all their tables in a rotation that's convenient for them; I don't think we need to add an additional hassle.
Life's hard enough for waiters even when they can visit all their tables in a rotation that's convenient for them; I don't think we need to add an additional hassle.
> It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder.
One of my friend groups has established a nose touch as a similar (though perhaps less...rude) signal. If you have a point you'd like to make while someone else is speaking, touch your finger to your nose and keep it there. The speaking party is expected to relinquish the conversation soon so the nose toucher can speak their point while it's still relevant.
One of my friend groups has established a nose touch as a similar (though perhaps less...rude) signal. If you have a point you'd like to make while someone else is speaking, touch your finger to your nose and keep it there. The speaking party is expected to relinquish the conversation soon so the nose toucher can speak their point while it's still relevant.
> One of my friend groups has established a nose touch as a similar (though perhaps less...rude) signal. If you have a point you'd like to make while someone else is speaking, touch your finger to your nose and keep it there. The speaking party is expected to relinquish the conversation soon so the nose toucher can speak their point while it's still relevant.
This is a great idea, although of course it relies on agreement and understanding (of the meaning of the gesture). Which you have in a friend group, but can't necessarily be relied upon in, say, a meeting with a large group.
This is a great idea, although of course it relies on agreement and understanding (of the meaning of the gesture). Which you have in a friend group, but can't necessarily be relied upon in, say, a meeting with a large group.
Do it a couple of times in any group setting and people will begin to understand and possibly adopt it.
[deleted]
There isn't a one true way when it comes to humans - which is a good thing. It would be a shame if the human experience were to be condensed into a standard operating procedure on how humans should talk/debate/converse with other humans.
your first point is true and works well if you have a good team or company culture. you have to know when it's not effective, though. some people or groups will try and dominate conversations and if you don't adjust and interrupt (usually loudly), you'll never be heard.
“When people are interrupting each other - when they're constantly tugging the conversation back and forth between their preferred directions - then the conversation itself is just a battle of wills”
This is a common lazy conclusion that extraverts frequently hear from introverts— when they can be bothered to speak up.
No, it’s not a battle of wills. It’s not really a battle. It’s the music of enthusiasm; the peal of many bells. Energy is not necessarily a curse; placidity is not necessarily a virtue.
Let’s respect that there are different cultures. I come from enthusiasm culture. My culture works. There are other cultures, and they can also work.
This is a common lazy conclusion that extraverts frequently hear from introverts— when they can be bothered to speak up.
No, it’s not a battle of wills. It’s not really a battle. It’s the music of enthusiasm; the peal of many bells. Energy is not necessarily a curse; placidity is not necessarily a virtue.
Let’s respect that there are different cultures. I come from enthusiasm culture. My culture works. There are other cultures, and they can also work.
If only those cultures would work separately instead of getting in each other’s way.
Oddly I have found that switching nearly entirely to video meetings has helped me participate better, because it gives me "license" to interrupt. I'm culturally a hard-line non-interrupter. In person I will always wait until the other has finished speaking, collating a list of items to address with them (often forgetting them along the way). In video calls I have experienced a new sense of permissiveness where I find it's much easier to jump into the middle of a conversation. I'm not sure if it's because everybody is waiting that extra few hundred ms due to latency, or if it's purely a psychological difference of not being face to face with them in person, or knowing that people will be judging me less harshly because it's plausible I'm interrupting due to latency rather than out of disrespect for what they are saying.
I know this is opposite to the experience for many others who I assume have an easier time with in-person interactions because they feel very natural going with the conversation flow.
I know this is opposite to the experience for many others who I assume have an easier time with in-person interactions because they feel very natural going with the conversation flow.
I've noticed the same thing. In in-person conversation, I'm usually slow on the draw when it's time for the next person to speak, and if I'm with interrupters, they almost always beat me to it. But in video calls, the extra round trip of lag gives me just enough quiet to signal that it's my turn to talk, so I don't get shut out quite as much. Even if someone else is quicker on the draw, I've already started talking, so I don't just instinctively shut up when I hear another person going first.
> This seemed totally crazy. Some people would just blab on unchecked, and others didn't get a chance to talk at all. Some people would ignore the norm and talk over others, and nobody interrupted them back to shoot them down.
Yes, I can totally relate to this feeling. I grew up in an interrupting culture family. My wife grew up in a wait culture family. I've learned to try not to interrupt her because when I do she can go all Galadriel on me. So over the years I try to wait - and it can still be really hard to do. I suspect that people who find it easy grew up in the waiting culture families.
We used to have a neighbor who would talk & talk saying the same thing over and over just in slightly different ways. It was really frustrating to try to wait her out because she'd go on and on for a long time without a pause- but I did suspect that she did this because she didn't feel heard in life.
Yes, I can totally relate to this feeling. I grew up in an interrupting culture family. My wife grew up in a wait culture family. I've learned to try not to interrupt her because when I do she can go all Galadriel on me. So over the years I try to wait - and it can still be really hard to do. I suspect that people who find it easy grew up in the waiting culture families.
We used to have a neighbor who would talk & talk saying the same thing over and over just in slightly different ways. It was really frustrating to try to wait her out because she'd go on and on for a long time without a pause- but I did suspect that she did this because she didn't feel heard in life.
people who get interrupted a lot often have very little to say
this in turn makes them monopolize the poor soul who doesn’t interrupt them
this in turn makes them monopolize the poor soul who doesn’t interrupt them
>did this because she didn't feel heard in life
I think this is an under-appreciated reason why people socialize, and people who aren't getting the level of socialization they need can have a compulsion to pursue conversation by any means necessary.
I feel for cashiers and waiters when they have lonely customers.
I think this is an under-appreciated reason why people socialize, and people who aren't getting the level of socialization they need can have a compulsion to pursue conversation by any means necessary.
I feel for cashiers and waiters when they have lonely customers.
Ben Hoffman might have gone to the talking school. But, he's missing the point here.
There's two types of conversations in life.
"Brain in 5th gear conversations." Every word carefully chosen. And the second type, "Priority 2" conversations. Priority 2 is where both parties winging it and do their best via heuristic.
Most folk wait their turn during Priority 2. It's just the convention, nobody is in a rush.
For engineers, every conversation ends up being Priority 2 because their brain is gutted from coding. However, they need to get shit done, fast, and get back to coding. Hence the convention to interrupt conversations and get to the point.
It's a speed vs productivity vs margin of error triple constraint.
What Hoffman doesn't realize is the goal. Deliberately practicing 5th gear conversations forces you to concentrate on the material.
There's two types of conversations in life.
"Brain in 5th gear conversations." Every word carefully chosen. And the second type, "Priority 2" conversations. Priority 2 is where both parties winging it and do their best via heuristic.
Most folk wait their turn during Priority 2. It's just the convention, nobody is in a rush.
For engineers, every conversation ends up being Priority 2 because their brain is gutted from coding. However, they need to get shit done, fast, and get back to coding. Hence the convention to interrupt conversations and get to the point.
It's a speed vs productivity vs margin of error triple constraint.
What Hoffman doesn't realize is the goal. Deliberately practicing 5th gear conversations forces you to concentrate on the material.
Totally agree. Not many forms of communication require as much careful decision making as coding. You can do it fast or you can do it right.
Getting priorities straight is a matter of competence, not culture.
If you've ever wondered why people scoff at the term "software engineer", this is one potential answer.
Getting priorities straight is a matter of competence, not culture.
If you've ever wondered why people scoff at the term "software engineer", this is one potential answer.
I don't have a good enough memory for the "wait" style of conversations. I'd need to take notes.
"We know X=1, so we should do Y which involves connecting A to C and removing B, so D, E & F need feature Z to be implemented in the next T months."
* Actually, X=2 so the logic as presented is questionable at best
* (but people don't like all their ideas to be dismissed with a single point, so we continue...)
* We can't remove B, it's required by M & N
* E doesn't need feature Z
* Feature Z depends on feature Q which won't be done in T months
The interrupt version is better:
"We know X=1..."
* Do we? I think X=2
"Is it? Why do you say that?"
* Reasons
"We know X=1, so we should do Y which involves connecting A to C and removing B, so D, E & F need feature Z to be implemented in the next T months."
* Actually, X=2 so the logic as presented is questionable at best
* (but people don't like all their ideas to be dismissed with a single point, so we continue...)
* We can't remove B, it's required by M & N
* E doesn't need feature Z
* Feature Z depends on feature Q which won't be done in T months
The interrupt version is better:
"We know X=1..."
* Do we? I think X=2
"Is it? Why do you say that?"
* Reasons
Deborah Tannen talks about this type of thing in her book 'You Just Don't Understand'. There's a whole chapter about interrupting. There is a difference between overlapping and trying to dominate and it talks about successful and unsuccessful 'co-operative overlapping'. It talks about culture too.
Also this article: https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
Also this article: https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
Oh, this is something my wife and I ran into.
My family dinners would have 6 conversations going at once with people fluidly moving between them, often by interrupting the person talking.
My wife's family has dinners where there is exactly one conversation and nobody interrupts. Even with 16 people at a table.
My family dinners would have 6 conversations going at once with people fluidly moving between them, often by interrupting the person talking.
My wife's family has dinners where there is exactly one conversation and nobody interrupts. Even with 16 people at a table.
Reminds me a lot of this story, which was on HN recently, about the design of open spaces and how offices get them wrong: https://www.mtajchert.com/libraries-and-open-spaces/
Long story short, a lot of it is just related to the existing societal norms and expectations of different environments, similar to the author.
Long story short, a lot of it is just related to the existing societal norms and expectations of different environments, similar to the author.
This is the largest issue that I have with MS Teams. Latency of even a few hundred milliseconds substantially throw conversations off. Instead of interrupting at the right inflection point, you are interrupting directly while someone is talking. Conversations degrade to serial monologs which I'm convinced is less effective overall.
[deleted]
I'm first-born and was very much an interrupter growing up. I try to be cognizant of it these days because I value my marriage. (Fortunately my spouse has the patience of Job and we've been together over three decades.) :-)
My second-born brother perceived my interruptions as aggression/dominance and eventually started out-interrupting me. I find it hard to have a conversation with him on any topic that we even slightly disagree.
My third-born sister is just a very loud and gregarious person.
My fourth-born sister, being the youngest, found it very difficult to get a word in edge-wise among the four of us. She grew up to be very aggressive in her speaking when she has a point she wants to make, but is also a very patient listener. Just don't dare interrupt her when she has something to say.
Anyway, I found this paper from a few years back about interruptions among SCOTUS justices pretty interesting:
"Female Supreme Court Justices Are Interrupted More by Male Justices and Advocates" (2017)
https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-in...
Which led to the court changing its oral argument rules:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/15/us-supreme-court...
Conversational styles and gender:
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/02/exploring-interruption-...
My second-born brother perceived my interruptions as aggression/dominance and eventually started out-interrupting me. I find it hard to have a conversation with him on any topic that we even slightly disagree.
My third-born sister is just a very loud and gregarious person.
My fourth-born sister, being the youngest, found it very difficult to get a word in edge-wise among the four of us. She grew up to be very aggressive in her speaking when she has a point she wants to make, but is also a very patient listener. Just don't dare interrupt her when she has something to say.
Anyway, I found this paper from a few years back about interruptions among SCOTUS justices pretty interesting:
"Female Supreme Court Justices Are Interrupted More by Male Justices and Advocates" (2017)
https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-in...
Which led to the court changing its oral argument rules:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/15/us-supreme-court...
Conversational styles and gender:
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/02/exploring-interruption-...
I'm noticing there's no mention of how long speakers would continue without voluntarily allowing someone else to speak before being interrupted.
The paper linked from the HBR article has examples where the justices get interrupted literally in the middle of their questions:
> Antonin Scalia: No. He reached the conclusion because--
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: And that’s completely supported by the proffer.
> Antonin Scalia:--He reached the conclusion because he--
> William H. Rehnquist:--No two voices at the same time. Justice Scalia is asking you a question.
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: Excuse me.
Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor:
> Bert W. Rein: His estimate was that a very small number, and it--it’s in his opinion. It’s--it’s not only by percentage, but it’s by number, and that number is insignificant relative--
> Sonia Sotomayor: Do you think--do you think that change has to happen overnight? And do you think it’s--
> Antonin Scalia: Excuse me. Can I--can I hear what you were about to say? What are those numbers? I was really curious to hear those numbers.
> Bert W. Rein: He assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually African-American or Hispanic outside the Top Ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add
So I don't think it's the case that the justices are getting interrupted in the middle of long-winded questions. In any case the paper examines interruptions with respect to gender, seniority, and ideology and has a lot more detail than what's in the article.
> Antonin Scalia: No. He reached the conclusion because--
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: And that’s completely supported by the proffer.
> Antonin Scalia:--He reached the conclusion because he--
> William H. Rehnquist:--No two voices at the same time. Justice Scalia is asking you a question.
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: Excuse me.
Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor:
> Bert W. Rein: His estimate was that a very small number, and it--it’s in his opinion. It’s--it’s not only by percentage, but it’s by number, and that number is insignificant relative--
> Sonia Sotomayor: Do you think--do you think that change has to happen overnight? And do you think it’s--
> Antonin Scalia: Excuse me. Can I--can I hear what you were about to say? What are those numbers? I was really curious to hear those numbers.
> Bert W. Rein: He assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually African-American or Hispanic outside the Top Ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add
So I don't think it's the case that the justices are getting interrupted in the middle of long-winded questions. In any case the paper examines interruptions with respect to gender, seniority, and ideology and has a lot more detail than what's in the article.
> Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor
This example you provided is actually Scalia stopping Sotomayor from interrupting the first speaker and asking them to continue.
Perhaps there are better examples, however your framing and the framing of the article is not held up by the evidence provided (here, and there).
This example you provided is actually Scalia stopping Sotomayor from interrupting the first speaker and asking them to continue.
Perhaps there are better examples, however your framing and the framing of the article is not held up by the evidence provided (here, and there).
I omitted a key bit of context:
> Given that Justices are permitted to, and frequently do, interrupt advocates, Scalia’s interruption was a breach of that norm, prioritizing both the advocate’s response and his own interest above that of Sotomayor’s inquiry. The effect of this breach was that Sotomayor’s question went unaddressed, as Rein instead responded to Scalia’s demands. One may look at the significant discrepancies in seniority and ideology between Scalia and Sotomayor, however, and surmise that the interruption could be the effect of such differences.
The paper is 108 pages containing dozens of examples and two empirical analysis. The datasets are publicly available if you find fault with its methods. I wouldn't judge it based on my apparently poor job of providing a couple examples.
> Given that Justices are permitted to, and frequently do, interrupt advocates, Scalia’s interruption was a breach of that norm, prioritizing both the advocate’s response and his own interest above that of Sotomayor’s inquiry. The effect of this breach was that Sotomayor’s question went unaddressed, as Rein instead responded to Scalia’s demands. One may look at the significant discrepancies in seniority and ideology between Scalia and Sotomayor, however, and surmise that the interruption could be the effect of such differences.
The paper is 108 pages containing dozens of examples and two empirical analysis. The datasets are publicly available if you find fault with its methods. I wouldn't judge it based on my apparently poor job of providing a couple examples.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think this article portrays a lack of understanding of conversational dynamics based on my experience with people.
Interruption isn't black and white and to me there is nothing nice about people who interrupt by default. Still I usually don't don't mind interruptions when in a friendly brainstorming or casual conversation with good people. But the interrupter has to understand that he's interrupting and do it in a good way.
But things like interrupting and going totally off topic, interrupting to argue or interrupting when power dynamics are at play is entirely a different beast. I feel like the first version I mentioned should have a different name than this one.
Interruption isn't black and white and to me there is nothing nice about people who interrupt by default. Still I usually don't don't mind interruptions when in a friendly brainstorming or casual conversation with good people. But the interrupter has to understand that he's interrupting and do it in a good way.
But things like interrupting and going totally off topic, interrupting to argue or interrupting when power dynamics are at play is entirely a different beast. I feel like the first version I mentioned should have a different name than this one.
As the article itself points out it depends a lot on who is talking and in what environment. The 'let them talk' approach works well for people who can speak concisely and keep on topic.
But if you have someone who is prone to just go on tangents or repeat themselves endlessly interruption isn't a bad thing for a conversation.
For example I don't think I could make it through the same 20 year old Stallman stump speech in person without losing my mind. There's people who exhibit a really bad combo of being repetitive, verbose and allergic to challenge that makes for dreadful conversations.
But if you have someone who is prone to just go on tangents or repeat themselves endlessly interruption isn't a bad thing for a conversation.
For example I don't think I could make it through the same 20 year old Stallman stump speech in person without losing my mind. There's people who exhibit a really bad combo of being repetitive, verbose and allergic to challenge that makes for dreadful conversations.
High variance in groups with different cultural norms. And, even within those groups, there is variance based on the level of trust within the group and the context of the conversation. Example: I like observing negotiation-heavy (implicit or explicit) conversations between two groups of people on deep or nuanced topics. If one group has folks 'interrupting' each other in a natural, accretive, iterative way, then it often means they have a high level of trust in each other and confidence.
Reminds me of this other article I read a while ago in that thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32545023
Definitely an interesting thought. I think there are problems with both interrupting and waiting.
Interruption works only if the other person works in the same way. It can, however, be very efficient because the flow of the conversation is much faster. It also simply does not work in group settings.
Waiting allows to converse with the most people, but it is harder to do and requires much effort to put into practice correctly. It also relies on people talking in short bursts to simply provide their input on the topic at hand, so there's still a certain amount of discipline required.
That's why I prefer text-based conversation. You can come back to what other people said easily, have less trouble remembering what you want to provide input on, and can skip the parts you already know about. It takes more time than verbal communication, but it's truly the best way to communicate in my opinion. The only real problem is that you lose an important part of communication; physical cues, tone, etc. Text has a lot of trouble conveying emotions.
Definitely an interesting thought. I think there are problems with both interrupting and waiting.
Interruption works only if the other person works in the same way. It can, however, be very efficient because the flow of the conversation is much faster. It also simply does not work in group settings.
Waiting allows to converse with the most people, but it is harder to do and requires much effort to put into practice correctly. It also relies on people talking in short bursts to simply provide their input on the topic at hand, so there's still a certain amount of discipline required.
That's why I prefer text-based conversation. You can come back to what other people said easily, have less trouble remembering what you want to provide input on, and can skip the parts you already know about. It takes more time than verbal communication, but it's truly the best way to communicate in my opinion. The only real problem is that you lose an important part of communication; physical cues, tone, etc. Text has a lot of trouble conveying emotions.
I grew up with the interrupting style, but when I realized some people get very offended by it, I decided to switch to waiting. Now that I am on the receiving end of interruptions, I notice the main problem with interrupting- that the interrupters often think they know what is going to be said, but are wrong. This is inefficient and not a proper exchange of ideas (which requires thinking about what was said), which can easily feel demoralizing. I find that waiting is actually a lot more efficient than interrupting if everyone can talk succinctly and avoid useless tangents (which isn’t easy to do). You do have to lead by example here and often have to step back and moderate the conversation that way.
It’s mind opening to see some of these articles advocating for the interrupting style. I see how it can work well, and I will try to adapt to that style some more in some circumstances. And in particular try to develop more signaling abilities. However, in my experience interrupting is useful just when someone is not succinct- otherwise it’s too easy for interrupters to do a poor job listening and actually facilitate a good conversation.
It’s mind opening to see some of these articles advocating for the interrupting style. I see how it can work well, and I will try to adapt to that style some more in some circumstances. And in particular try to develop more signaling abilities. However, in my experience interrupting is useful just when someone is not succinct- otherwise it’s too easy for interrupters to do a poor job listening and actually facilitate a good conversation.
One thing that's interesting about remote work and Teams calls is that the 'interrupt' mode doesn't work particularly well. The subtle increase in latency means that you're not interrupting when out think you are and often two people interrupt at the same time and you end up in a 'random backoff' situation.
The client team I work with is kind of trying (although without verbalising) to move more towards a "wait" mode of talking, assisted by the "put your hand up" functionality in Teams. The problem we run into is that it isn't clear whether you should be speaking before or after the next person - sometimes you have a supplementary point about the exact current topic that makes more sense to be said before the next person slightly changes the subject. In an engineering discussion it makes a lot more sense to make your point about the performance of the feature in discussion before the conversation moves to talking about testing it!
The client team I work with is kind of trying (although without verbalising) to move more towards a "wait" mode of talking, assisted by the "put your hand up" functionality in Teams. The problem we run into is that it isn't clear whether you should be speaking before or after the next person - sometimes you have a supplementary point about the exact current topic that makes more sense to be said before the next person slightly changes the subject. In an engineering discussion it makes a lot more sense to make your point about the performance of the feature in discussion before the conversation moves to talking about testing it!
I interrupt because sometimes my attention span and memory can be measured in milliseconds.
It’s a bad habit in the wrong circumstances sometimes.
It’s a bad habit in the wrong circumstances sometimes.
Why assume that there are just two, mutually exclusive schools of thought?
My experience is people usually decide whether to wait or interrupt depending on context - they just different in their assessment of the situation.
Personally I often explicitly yield to someone who to me appears like they want to say something, but are waiting for the right moment.
In face to face conversation I sometimes lift my finger and make an "uuuuum" face to signify that I want to say something right now. People usually respond to that very well - the more braindead my expression, the better.
In college our conversations were moderated and you would lift your hand if you wanted to say something, and the moderator would at times interrupt the person speaking.
On one hand everyone waited, on the other people were interrupted constantly. To me this is how most real world conversations work and pigeonholing them into just two categories is counterproductive.
My experience is people usually decide whether to wait or interrupt depending on context - they just different in their assessment of the situation.
Personally I often explicitly yield to someone who to me appears like they want to say something, but are waiting for the right moment.
In face to face conversation I sometimes lift my finger and make an "uuuuum" face to signify that I want to say something right now. People usually respond to that very well - the more braindead my expression, the better.
In college our conversations were moderated and you would lift your hand if you wanted to say something, and the moderator would at times interrupt the person speaking.
On one hand everyone waited, on the other people were interrupted constantly. To me this is how most real world conversations work and pigeonholing them into just two categories is counterproductive.
I think its sad that we have to frame it this way. This is just manners versus lack of manners.
Its not a different culture. Its a lack of culture.
There is no excuse for constantly interrupting people. Its disrespectful and counterproductive.
There is a bit of subtlety also in that interrupting in the middle of a word is more rude than in the middle of a sentence versus a paragraph.
If, for example, someone has completed the third sentence of a paragraph that is clearly wrapping up, and pauses longer before what apparently may be the fourth sentence, but the other person thinks they have already got the message, it might not necessarily be rude at all to start talking before the last (probably not really important) sentence comes out. Sometimes it depends on the context and how long the pause is.
Lack of common courtesy is unfortunately very common. That doesn't mean we should accept it without comment.
Its not a different culture. Its a lack of culture.
There is no excuse for constantly interrupting people. Its disrespectful and counterproductive.
There is a bit of subtlety also in that interrupting in the middle of a word is more rude than in the middle of a sentence versus a paragraph.
If, for example, someone has completed the third sentence of a paragraph that is clearly wrapping up, and pauses longer before what apparently may be the fourth sentence, but the other person thinks they have already got the message, it might not necessarily be rude at all to start talking before the last (probably not really important) sentence comes out. Sometimes it depends on the context and how long the pause is.
Lack of common courtesy is unfortunately very common. That doesn't mean we should accept it without comment.
Manners are almost entirely dependent on culture.
There is no natural law that says the person who starts talking first has a right to talk. It's a reasonable rule, but not the only reasonable one.
There is no natural law that says the person who starts talking first has a right to talk. It's a reasonable rule, but not the only reasonable one.
I didn't say anything about natural law.
Most contexts globally where there is education and respect will show this type of common courtesy. If there is a lack of respect of education or both, more rude interruption is likely. I think there are for example some contexts or cultures where there is less respect, for example some executives talking to workers in certain countries. But it's not excusable and the workers there who are the majority in that country will not have the same behavior.
Most contexts globally where there is education and respect will show this type of common courtesy. If there is a lack of respect of education or both, more rude interruption is likely. I think there are for example some contexts or cultures where there is less respect, for example some executives talking to workers in certain countries. But it's not excusable and the workers there who are the majority in that country will not have the same behavior.
You seem to assume there is a universal set of manners all people are taught and should adhere to, is that correct?
I’m having trouble reading this comment as sincere, even though I think it probably is. You’re not trolling?
Not trolling. The reality is that many people are ignorant, impolite and/or disrespectful. I try to avoid them. That's one reason I don't have a lot of social interactions. I am just not very tolerant of trash.
[deleted]
If I decide to not interrupt, automatically I tend to atleast let them know I have something to say that is SO important.
I will tend to change my body language (become eager) or just mouth something (aa). Online, I unmute myself.
I think its the only solution I have to demonstrate my intent to interrupt without actually doing it.
I will tend to change my body language (become eager) or just mouth something (aa). Online, I unmute myself.
I think its the only solution I have to demonstrate my intent to interrupt without actually doing it.
IMO, the most effective solution to this problem is to sidestep the issue altogether by splitting groups so that more people can talk at the same time.
It's also much easier to negotiate rules - interrupt vs wait - in a group size of 2-4 than in one on the order of 20 people.
It's also much easier to negotiate rules - interrupt vs wait - in a group size of 2-4 than in one on the order of 20 people.
[deleted]
In operating systems, we call that cooperative multitasking (everything up to DOS+Windows 3.11, where software is allowed to hog the CPU until it explicitly yields) versus preemptive multitasking (Windows 95 onwards, where software is regularly interrupted by the OS). There's a reason preemptive multitasking has “won” and nobody wants to go back to cooperative. A lot of software just isn't cooperative (i.e. doesn't yield enough).
This is so interesting. At home, we absolutely have wait culture. My mother moderates informally using a round robin format.
Most places I have worked have had interrupt culture. I hated going to meetings, it felt like the people that spoke loudest “owned” the meeting. After a while I started taking notes, but never participating. It was easier to get answers afterwards by talking directly to the stakeholders once they were identified.
It is so interesting to me to hear the counter argument here, that some people actually prefer this method of communication, I’ll need to think about what my participation looks like in this culture.
Most places I have worked have had interrupt culture. I hated going to meetings, it felt like the people that spoke loudest “owned” the meeting. After a while I started taking notes, but never participating. It was easier to get answers afterwards by talking directly to the stakeholders once they were identified.
It is so interesting to me to hear the counter argument here, that some people actually prefer this method of communication, I’ll need to think about what my participation looks like in this culture.
For what it's worth I highly disagree with a lot of the opinions in here.
Waiting prioritizes clear communication at the expense of some time that is almost always justified. People who wait are typically detail oriented and have the infamously prevailing cooler heads. They're the ones actually getting stuff done while management impatiently glances at their pathetically underspecified checklists.
Interrupting prioritizes a false sense of efficiency and just seems like weak impulse control or a bad short-term memory. Every interrupter I've ever met is disorganized and unreliable.
Waiting prioritizes clear communication at the expense of some time that is almost always justified. People who wait are typically detail oriented and have the infamously prevailing cooler heads. They're the ones actually getting stuff done while management impatiently glances at their pathetically underspecified checklists.
Interrupting prioritizes a false sense of efficiency and just seems like weak impulse control or a bad short-term memory. Every interrupter I've ever met is disorganized and unreliable.
> Interrupting prioritizes a false sense of efficiency and just seems like weak impulse control or a bad short-term memory. Every interrupter I've ever met is disorganized and unreliable
While I have noticed that ADHD people gravitate towards interrupters, and are more likely to be disorganized and unreliable, generalizing this to all interrupters is absurd.
Everybody in my mom's family is an interpreter, including my mom. You will meet few people more organized and reliable than her.
While I have noticed that ADHD people gravitate towards interrupters, and are more likely to be disorganized and unreliable, generalizing this to all interrupters is absurd.
Everybody in my mom's family is an interpreter, including my mom. You will meet few people more organized and reliable than her.
Personally, I'll often interrupt when I know someone is wrong about a topic, in the interest of efficiency.
How can you possibly know someone is wrong until you've heard them out?
It's very much worth questioning what your accuracy threshold is before deciding to interrupt.
Maybe they're wrong about a minor detail but have a much better overall plan. Maybe they have some ideas buried under all the mud that are worth the wait.
If the perception of efficiency is always the priority, that will come at the cost of everything else.
It's very much worth questioning what your accuracy threshold is before deciding to interrupt.
Maybe they're wrong about a minor detail but have a much better overall plan. Maybe they have some ideas buried under all the mud that are worth the wait.
If the perception of efficiency is always the priority, that will come at the cost of everything else.
It only takes a single sentence sometimes.
A similar phenomenon happens with various Western speakers in Japan: https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/aizuchi-japanese-listening/
It's a bit different as "aizuchi" is merely signaling that you're being listened to, rather than an actual switching of speakers. "Enthusiastic listening" is how I've heard it described, and it can be a distraction if you're not used to it.
It's a bit different as "aizuchi" is merely signaling that you're being listened to, rather than an actual switching of speakers. "Enthusiastic listening" is how I've heard it described, and it can be a distraction if you're not used to it.
Say what you want but chit-chatting with people you know is far more fun and dynamical when everyone feels free to interrupt others. Part of that culture is of course learning to not let go, and fight back those interrupting you - refusing the interrupt request if you will.
Wait culture is IMHO more appropriate for larger groups of people and more formal settings, or some subjects that are very important to the one speaking, so interruption would be disrespectful.
Wait culture is IMHO more appropriate for larger groups of people and more formal settings, or some subjects that are very important to the one speaking, so interruption would be disrespectful.
This has an analogy (maybe?) in service culture. In the US if the guy behind the counter is making a sandwich for someone else, I can ask him/her a quick question and get an answer without disrupting the flow of work. But in Finnish culture this is a no-no: the customer "owns" the worker until task completion. It is (IMHO) wildly inefficient.
Does no one else just talk simultaneously?
I only do this with friends I am familiar with, but it's quite efficient to respond to things in real time, without waiting for people to stop.
I only do this with friends I am familiar with, but it's quite efficient to respond to things in real time, without waiting for people to stop.
A guy I used to work with would interrupt, start talking and continue talking while I was. Sometimes, I would continue for a few seconds in the hopes that it would prompt him to think "Whoops I just interrupted, I'll say 'oops sorry go on' now", but after several comical instances of us both speaking simultaneously for what felt like at least 10-20 seconds (probably only 5 realistically), I realised how ridiculous this was and I resigned to letting him interrupt. He was a great engineer and a good guy so I was happy to accommodate it rather than calling him out. Work contexts do interesting things to social dynamics.
This sounds like my own personal hell
These differences are also regional & cultural. Here's a good intro from sociolinguist Deborah Tannen on how interrupting & overtalking as practiced cooperatively in New York (& related cultures) clashes with other American regional styles:
https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/newyork...
https://www.pbs.org/speak/seatosea/americanvarieties/newyork...
It's eaiser to gauge how interested in a story someone is if they interrupt for something. If they truly aren't interested then you can pivot accordingly.
Although some people might listen to the end and be engaged, or you could tell by their facial expressions. That isn't always perfect, some people naturally aren't expressive. By default, you got no clue what they're feeling.
Although some people might listen to the end and be engaged, or you could tell by their facial expressions. That isn't always perfect, some people naturally aren't expressive. By default, you got no clue what they're feeling.
This is often referred to "high-involvement" vs "high-considerateness" [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Tannen#%22High-involve...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Tannen#%22High-involve...
[deleted]
Interrupt culture seems more creative to me and also reaching conclusions faster. However it's not always ok to interrupt. It's ok to interrupt if the discussion is set up from the beginning as such and after the person who speaks finishes his idea.
Just go to the passing around the talking stick with a timer attached model.
It's also why the 15 min presentation followed by 5 min Q & A is a decent communication model, you can do three per hour and then the meetings over.
It's also why the 15 min presentation followed by 5 min Q & A is a decent communication model, you can do three per hour and then the meetings over.
If I may interrupt here, I found the small, faint type on the site an annoyance...
The big problem with interrupting is that you simply cannot both actually listen to someone and formulate an argument at the same time. This pattern just leads to people talking without being listened to.
I'm a part of spice-culture because I like spicy food.
Are you a part of wuss-culture because you don't like spicy food?
I'm also a part of male-culture ... wait, no that' one isn't allowed.
Are you a part of wuss-culture because you don't like spicy food?
I'm also a part of male-culture ... wait, no that' one isn't allowed.
Kind of an interesting take! I definitely know people who find interruption an offense vs. then others who will just continue talking rather allow themselves to be interrupted.
It's hard to learn one style, being accustomed to another.
Isn't that precisely the point of the entire article? It literally ends with encouraging you to try the other one. People don't need encouragement to do easy things.
Yeah, I'm an interrupter and it's a tough urge to suppress. That said, I can and absolutely do suppress it, especially in meetings with people who I know are not interrupters, so it definitely frustrates me when there are interrupters who just make no urge to suppress it. In those cases, I try to use my interrupting for good - interrupt the interrupter to ask the very smart but quiet non-interrupters in the room for their thoughts.
I think my biggest breakthrough was when I learned it was sometimes OK to interrupt.
Prior to that... I avoided interrupting under any circumstances. And that was a mistake.
Prior to that... I avoided interrupting under any circumstances. And that was a mistake.
Related - The Church of Interruption [1].
> When people are interrupting each other - when they're constantly tugging the conversation back and forth between their preferred directions - then the conversation itself is just a battle of wills. But when people just put in one thing at a time, and trust their fellows to only say things that relate to the thing that came right before - at least, until there's a very long pause - then you start to see genuine collaboration.
I think that's the meat of the collaborative conversational spirit. Interruption/waiting is one axis, another nearly orthogonal axis is continuation/abandonment of the current topic which correlates more strongly with actual listening rather than politeness.
In terms of [1], I've definitely encountered "civil barkers", who will never interrupt you verbally (but usually offer increasingly strong nonverbal cues that they want their turn), then very weakly link into a new topic. That is to say, waiting isn't a sufficient (nor I'd say necessary) condition for constructive conversation. E.g. the Trump/Hillary debate, when asked to say something nice about each other, Hillary immediately pivoted into talking about her platform.
[1] https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
> When people are interrupting each other - when they're constantly tugging the conversation back and forth between their preferred directions - then the conversation itself is just a battle of wills. But when people just put in one thing at a time, and trust their fellows to only say things that relate to the thing that came right before - at least, until there's a very long pause - then you start to see genuine collaboration.
I think that's the meat of the collaborative conversational spirit. Interruption/waiting is one axis, another nearly orthogonal axis is continuation/abandonment of the current topic which correlates more strongly with actual listening rather than politeness.
In terms of [1], I've definitely encountered "civil barkers", who will never interrupt you verbally (but usually offer increasingly strong nonverbal cues that they want their turn), then very weakly link into a new topic. That is to say, waiting isn't a sufficient (nor I'd say necessary) condition for constructive conversation. E.g. the Trump/Hillary debate, when asked to say something nice about each other, Hillary immediately pivoted into talking about her platform.
[1] https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
What that Church of Interruption axis is missing is authority vs freedom
Refusing to interrupt is cowing to authority.
Refusing to yield is asserting authority.
If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.
Refusing to interrupt is cowing to authority.
Refusing to yield is asserting authority.
If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.
Ah yes, the “I’m not an asshole I’m just independent” argument. Refusing to interrupt is respecting the other person enough to let them say what they think, and trusting them enough that they will grant you the same respect.
Which they probably won't, if they can prevent it, most of the time. People tend not to invite discussion for the purposes of challenging their positions.
Small-minded people, perhaps. Is it worth discussing things with them?
For what it’s worth, this is a common take from interrupty people which I have found not to be the case in the long run. I suspect there’s a significant observer effect.
For what it’s worth, this is a common take from interrupty people which I have found not to be the case in the long run. I suspect there’s a significant observer effect.
> If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.
I disagree, and I think a lot of bad feeling and a lot of bad meetings come out of people assuming that the dynamic that is comfortable for them is what others always prefer, or is somehow the natural state of conversation, from which other dynamics are a flawed aberration.
I hate being interrupted because of the family dynamic with which I grew up (ceaseless interruption), and so try very hard not to interrupt others. When I feel safe that my ideas will eventually be heard, I don't interrupt; and, when I feel safe that I am interacting with my peers as equals, and will neither hurt feelings nor impose authority, I will request of them that they don't interrupt me, i.e., taken together with the first point, that we have a conversational dynamic where we don't interrupt one another.
(The latter is, of course, more dicey, since while I indisputably have a right not to interrupt others, but don't have a right to insist others not interrupt me. But, under the very stringent conditions of conversations with equals with the understanding that it is OK to say "no" to a request, I think that it is a reasonable thing to request.)
I disagree, and I think a lot of bad feeling and a lot of bad meetings come out of people assuming that the dynamic that is comfortable for them is what others always prefer, or is somehow the natural state of conversation, from which other dynamics are a flawed aberration.
I hate being interrupted because of the family dynamic with which I grew up (ceaseless interruption), and so try very hard not to interrupt others. When I feel safe that my ideas will eventually be heard, I don't interrupt; and, when I feel safe that I am interacting with my peers as equals, and will neither hurt feelings nor impose authority, I will request of them that they don't interrupt me, i.e., taken together with the first point, that we have a conversational dynamic where we don't interrupt one another.
(The latter is, of course, more dicey, since while I indisputably have a right not to interrupt others, but don't have a right to insist others not interrupt me. But, under the very stringent conditions of conversations with equals with the understanding that it is OK to say "no" to a request, I think that it is a reasonable thing to request.)
Refusing to interrupt is to stick to your ideals. Tit-for-tat does not work against interrupters, and especially against barkers
It feels like society is falling apart and we're supposed to trust our fellow conversationalists to go where the conversation should. As democracy crumbles and the climate of our earth becomes unlivable, I have no doubt your polite approach to engaging others will make them feel comforted in their last moments.
lol I thought we were discussing programming paradigms-- but at the same time I think considering the NVIC and different peripheral/vs high speed busses may be relevant.
Interruptions as part of the natural flow of conversation can pass almost unnoticed, when done appropriately. It is interesting - but mostly frustrating - when people fail at it in a jarring way which comes across as rude. Sadly my wife is one of those people, and her cross-cutting interruptions are a habit learned from her mother. Sigh, mothers-in-law - how distressed I was to discover the stereotype was so accurate...
What they miss is that interruptions should be like a "yes, and..." in improv comedy, not a "yesyesyes, BUT..."
What they miss is that interruptions should be like a "yes, and..." in improv comedy, not a "yesyesyes, BUT..."
I find I can't talk to people who do that. Things don't flow, they don't work well, and both of us end up frustrated.
So that ends up being a limit for me, I just choose not to interact with people like that if I can help it, and communicating async if I have to.
So that ends up being a limit for me, I just choose not to interact with people like that if I can help it, and communicating async if I have to.
In my experience, things work best when interrupters work with interrupters, and waiters work with waiters.
That's not to say someone can't switch styles, but the unfortunate reality is that it's easier if people don't have to do that. This results in the kind of self segregation that you do. I've also done that, by switching to a team that shared my communication style.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but it does seem to be the path of least resistance.
That's not to say someone can't switch styles, but the unfortunate reality is that it's easier if people don't have to do that. This results in the kind of self segregation that you do. I've also done that, by switching to a team that shared my communication style.
I don't know if this is good or bad, but it does seem to be the path of least resistance.
A) Anticipate up front what other person needs to hear and say it all
B) Rapid adjustment to ideal info requirements as your model of their knowledge/interest is live-updated.
But the trick people seem to miss is that interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts make the whole thing possible.
When I'm talking with someone for whom this style is natural, there can be many very rapid small gestures to interrupt, which sometimes are accepted and sometimes are rejected by a small "just let me keep going, you'll see why" gesture. Each of those gestures takes a fraction of a second (and generally does not actually break flow of speech, just eye contact + a little head motion), and conversations employing them are far more enjoyable because information flow is near optimal.
On the other hand, when speaking with anti-interrupt people, I often get so bored it's hard to pay attention because either 1) they left something out that I wanted to ask about so I can't follow what they are saying, or 2) I already had a thorough understanding of something they insist on giving a long explanation of.