The Church of Interruption(sambleckley.com)
sambleckley.com
The Church of Interruption
https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html
150 comments
Of course, in real-world discourse delaying the high-order bits often just means they're never reached.
> A: There's a thing I don't like. It's coarse, rough, and it gets...
> B: Many coarse and rough things are vitally important though, why for example there's...
> A: There's a thing I don't like. It's coarse, rough, and it gets...
> B: Many coarse and rough things are vitally important though, why for example there's...
My story telling preference is little-endian and the type of exchange you’ve just described drives me bonkers
I've noticed in my experience that the Big Endian approach has been less successful for me in work environments. Another wrench in the system is that when you want to get things done, especially at a leadership level, you will come to realize that the whole system in this article goes out the window if people aren't honest when they don't understand something.
I'm often thinking ahead in conversations and in a company hierarchy where people some don't want to admit not knowing or not understanding, I noticed people would nod or agree, but no actions would be taken. I though about this for a while and came to the conclusion that people simply need an explanation, but don't want to admit not understanding. SO what looked like agreement was facade to hide the confusion. It took me a bit, but I learned to move away from making a statement and waiting for questions, to leading into a conclusion so that everyone has more context with which to ask questions, or feel more comfortable asking a question because "hey, I understood most of that, but he/she lost me at that point"
I'm often thinking ahead in conversations and in a company hierarchy where people some don't want to admit not knowing or not understanding, I noticed people would nod or agree, but no actions would be taken. I though about this for a while and came to the conclusion that people simply need an explanation, but don't want to admit not understanding. SO what looked like agreement was facade to hide the confusion. It took me a bit, but I learned to move away from making a statement and waiting for questions, to leading into a conclusion so that everyone has more context with which to ask questions, or feel more comfortable asking a question because "hey, I understood most of that, but he/she lost me at that point"
Well said. In a business context it often feels like a risk to admit that you don't know something. Because it's a competitive situation and the Prod M Lead isn't about to display ignorance to the Dev Lead who is nodding sagely like they understood all the malarkey that the Chief Architect just spewed out.
And since those two doofuses are pretending they already have a clue, the QA Lead feels even more like THEY should already have one and so on and so forth.
Switch that to a context where you're the Prod M Lead, and you're talking about the roadmap to the Sales team who are all nodding their heads like they totally get it even when they're not and you have a high potential for an unproductive or counterproductive situation.
To me, being willing to admit you don't understand, or even to ask questions as if you don't understand when you do, is a sign of leadership-- it signals that you really care about having everyone on the team clued in and able to apply themselves to the situation at hand.
Heck, it might even be useful to have a "designated doofus" in your meetings who is there specifically to watch for this behavior and ask "stupid" questions to ensure understanding by as many people as possible in that room.
And since those two doofuses are pretending they already have a clue, the QA Lead feels even more like THEY should already have one and so on and so forth.
Switch that to a context where you're the Prod M Lead, and you're talking about the roadmap to the Sales team who are all nodding their heads like they totally get it even when they're not and you have a high potential for an unproductive or counterproductive situation.
To me, being willing to admit you don't understand, or even to ask questions as if you don't understand when you do, is a sign of leadership-- it signals that you really care about having everyone on the team clued in and able to apply themselves to the situation at hand.
Heck, it might even be useful to have a "designated doofus" in your meetings who is there specifically to watch for this behavior and ask "stupid" questions to ensure understanding by as many people as possible in that room.
That's an interesting approach.
For me, the issue with that, is that I'm more of a "stream of consciousness" conversationalist, where I say things as they come to mind and rarely have time to parse them in the way you suggest.
Maybe it's a matter of practice.
For me, the issue with that, is that I'm more of a "stream of consciousness" conversationalist, where I say things as they come to mind and rarely have time to parse them in the way you suggest.
Maybe it's a matter of practice.
It is; I think a lot of people go for stream of consciousness speaking because they're afraid if they pause someone else will take over the conversation. But the reality is that people's attention span just drops down after a sentence or two, especially if it's stream of consciousness - they have to spend more and more energy to follow your thoughts. Which is absolutely fine in some situations, but it's not the most efficient.
Your message comes across a lot more clearly if you get your thoughts in order before starting to speak. This is difficult at first, because if you're not practiced the conversation will have moved on before you've got your thoughts in line, but it is a skill you can practice. Take one of your stream of consciousness statements, maybe write it down, and repeat it a dozen times, each time making it shorter and more to the point - assertive, definitive, without feeling like you have to expand on your every point. Assume that if something is unclear, the other party will ask. But also try and limit the amount of concepts in one sentence so you don't overwhelm the other party with new stuff. (assuming you're talking technology or something of course).
Your message comes across a lot more clearly if you get your thoughts in order before starting to speak. This is difficult at first, because if you're not practiced the conversation will have moved on before you've got your thoughts in line, but it is a skill you can practice. Take one of your stream of consciousness statements, maybe write it down, and repeat it a dozen times, each time making it shorter and more to the point - assertive, definitive, without feeling like you have to expand on your every point. Assume that if something is unclear, the other party will ask. But also try and limit the amount of concepts in one sentence so you don't overwhelm the other party with new stuff. (assuming you're talking technology or something of course).
I find stream of consciousness rambling to be extremely irritating. Normally, I'm very much against interrupting, but I have been known to butt in to stream of consciousness speech, saying, "Okay, and what's your point?"
In my experience, that doesn't help. They don't know what their point is yet; they're just gratuitously holding conversational priority, so they can say what it is the instant they figure it out.
Once I detect stream-of-consciousness, I do a warning signal, like a frown or a yawn, then I make a visual cue that I'm exiting the conversation.
The Church of Interruption and Barker conversational style just doesn't work for me. I expect to be able to speak complete thoughts and listen to complete thoughts--thoughts that have a timely conclusion.
Once I detect stream-of-consciousness, I do a warning signal, like a frown or a yawn, then I make a visual cue that I'm exiting the conversation.
The Church of Interruption and Barker conversational style just doesn't work for me. I expect to be able to speak complete thoughts and listen to complete thoughts--thoughts that have a timely conclusion.
I find this most irritating. It is much more polite to the listener if you do your homework first and then start talking. It vastly increases the chances of being able to capture and hold and audience's attention.
If someone is irrational or malevolent, the only legitimate strategy is to not engage. Attempting to produce an irrefutable argument or use a strategy to bypass their dishonesty is futile and damages your own standing. Stated much more articulately by an author I admire:
"The first issue that I want to discuss is the topic of when to argue and when not--in other words, when to get into a full-fledged back-and-forth discussion, and when to refrain from it. There are many cases...in which it is not appropriate. In such cases, if it is a moral or otherwise significant issue, you could make clear that you disapprove of the person's view, so that you do not leave yourself in the position that your silence or refusal to argue implies agreement. Nevertheless, there are many cases in which, given that disclaimer by you, it simply makes no sense to engage in argument. I would summarize it like this: Assuming you want to argue--and remembering that there is no moral duty to argue--you have to decide: Is it worth it? Is it worth the strain, or do you think you will do anything for your inner clarity, or toward conversion or suggestion of a viewpoint to other people?
"Assuming that you are interested and do want to develop along these lines, I would say, in essence, argue when you believe that your opponent, however confused, is honest. He may disagree violently with you. But the question is, is he open to rational argument or not? If he is dishonest--which means that facts, arguments, and reasoning make no difference to him--then, of course, it is a waste of time. It is a waste of your breath, because you are giving arguments to someone who you believe holds that arguments are irrelevant. Moreover, if you argue with such a person, you are actually sanctioning his pretense. If he wants to engage in argument with you, that means he wants to pretend that he is a man of reason, that he has arguments for his view. If he does that while simultaneously denying reason, he is engaged in real fraud, and your refusal to comply is much more dreadful to him than any amount of refutation by you."
"The first issue that I want to discuss is the topic of when to argue and when not--in other words, when to get into a full-fledged back-and-forth discussion, and when to refrain from it. There are many cases...in which it is not appropriate. In such cases, if it is a moral or otherwise significant issue, you could make clear that you disapprove of the person's view, so that you do not leave yourself in the position that your silence or refusal to argue implies agreement. Nevertheless, there are many cases in which, given that disclaimer by you, it simply makes no sense to engage in argument. I would summarize it like this: Assuming you want to argue--and remembering that there is no moral duty to argue--you have to decide: Is it worth it? Is it worth the strain, or do you think you will do anything for your inner clarity, or toward conversion or suggestion of a viewpoint to other people?
"Assuming that you are interested and do want to develop along these lines, I would say, in essence, argue when you believe that your opponent, however confused, is honest. He may disagree violently with you. But the question is, is he open to rational argument or not? If he is dishonest--which means that facts, arguments, and reasoning make no difference to him--then, of course, it is a waste of time. It is a waste of your breath, because you are giving arguments to someone who you believe holds that arguments are irrelevant. Moreover, if you argue with such a person, you are actually sanctioning his pretense. If he wants to engage in argument with you, that means he wants to pretend that he is a man of reason, that he has arguments for his view. If he does that while simultaneously denying reason, he is engaged in real fraud, and your refusal to comply is much more dreadful to him than any amount of refutation by you."
So jokes are Little-endian I guess.
So I guess that means one thing that is little-endian is a joke.
FTFY :)
FTFY :)
Good jokes are.
I notice some jokes, especially on Facebook etc., where the punchline is far too early and it feels like they're obnoxiously drilling the joke home. It's also the same when you have someone make a reference in a comment thread, then the next person continues the reference with less subtlety.
I notice some jokes, especially on Facebook etc., where the punchline is far too early and it feels like they're obnoxiously drilling the joke home. It's also the same when you have someone make a reference in a comment thread, then the next person continues the reference with less subtlety.
It makes sense. They say humour is based on creating expectations and solving them suddenly.
> They say humour is based on creating expectations and solving them suddenly.
I don't know what it means to solve expectations; I'd guess it means to meet them, but I've always understood part of the recipe for humour to be violating expectations.
I don't know what it means to solve expectations; I'd guess it means to meet them, but I've always understood part of the recipe for humour to be violating expectations.
Only the shaggy dog jokes.
I would say that shaggy dog jokes are buffer overflows.
[deleted]
> In theory, the best way to conduct a church-of-interruption exchange of ideas is big-endian: you begin by summarising your idea and only then flesh out the details. That way if your conclusion is understood you find out as quickly as possible.
There are probably some linguistic phenomena at work here: subordinate clauses in German, for example, have trailing verbs (present perfect/pluperfect conjugations also have a final verb).
There are probably some linguistic phenomena at work here: subordinate clauses in German, for example, have trailing verbs (present perfect/pluperfect conjugations also have a final verb).
I used to really annoy my Japanese ex by interrupting. It seems in Japanese conversation the main point is arrived at, with a satisfying and meaningful ending. I'd just blurt out my next thought.
Sounds like 2 cultures, and the adaptive person realizes who they are speaking to, and adapts to that culture to have better conversations.
I was raised as a 'civil' person, but learned that in some groups, you get a better result & energy as an interrupter.
Another dynamic is high overt conflict & emotions vs low overt conflict & emotions cultures. High overt will seem like they are arguing passionately about something and they will never see each other again, and 10 minutes later are having tea like it's no big deal, because the emotion level isn't really a big deal to them. The same emotional display in a non-overt culture and you can be fairly certain that the conflict is a a fairly big deal, and 10 minutes later, it won't recover.
I was raised as a 'civil' person, but learned that in some groups, you get a better result & energy as an interrupter.
Another dynamic is high overt conflict & emotions vs low overt conflict & emotions cultures. High overt will seem like they are arguing passionately about something and they will never see each other again, and 10 minutes later are having tea like it's no big deal, because the emotion level isn't really a big deal to them. The same emotional display in a non-overt culture and you can be fairly certain that the conflict is a a fairly big deal, and 10 minutes later, it won't recover.
And bad things happen when the high/low wires get crossed. A high-overt arguing with a low-overt often leads to confusion and resentment, because the exchange was no big deal to the high-overt, but a hostile act to the low-overt.
Yeah, this can unfortunately happen with almost any communication style mismatch. The best advice anyone can follow is just, start from an assumption of good faith.
I've seen it most bafflingly in a tech help forum I used to frequent: folks coming for help would get really miffed at requests for clarification/expansion from the people who were trying to help. Probably some of those requests should have been worded better -- less terse, a little more "friendly"? -- but I never really understood the starting point of "anything other than an answer to my post is rude" that seemed to come up over and over.
I've seen it most bafflingly in a tech help forum I used to frequent: folks coming for help would get really miffed at requests for clarification/expansion from the people who were trying to help. Probably some of those requests should have been worded better -- less terse, a little more "friendly"? -- but I never really understood the starting point of "anything other than an answer to my post is rude" that seemed to come up over and over.
Haha, true. And I've had it where we would only dare do this over "safe" topics, like some branching strategy or library implementation detail or whatever. But we would never do the high-overt thing about politics or family life or something "real". :)
I'm a Meek and one of the strategies I have developed for dealing with more interrupt-based communicators is to rely on an asynchronous, written medium. Be it slack, a shared google drive doc, whatever. "Hey, can we have a meeting to discuss X" will often be answered by "here's my written opinion on X and the different options I see. If you still think we need to meet, here's my availability". If this doesn't remove the meeting completely, it allows you to prepare and state your opinion in advance.
Some people don't like it. It's easier to do when you are remote with a significant time difference.
Some people don't like it. It's easier to do when you are remote with a significant time difference.
I'm prone to interrupting people. It's worse if I'm not feeling heard, if I really feel they are missing a lot of important information and for a few other reasons.
I have found email and other forms of written communication wonderful for effectively sidestepping the worst problems. I can lay everything out that I think matters in an order that communicates effectively. It's much easier to do something like that in writing than in conversation, especially when there are time constraints and you don't know them that well or otherwise don't have the best rapport.
I have found email and other forms of written communication wonderful for effectively sidestepping the worst problems. I can lay everything out that I think matters in an order that communicates effectively. It's much easier to do something like that in writing than in conversation, especially when there are time constraints and you don't know them that well or otherwise don't have the best rapport.
This is a valid approach, but it does have a problem: it can lead to long back and forth messaging/email exchanges, including lengthy messages.
I don't, generally, have time to write long messages, nor (often) to read them, so as soon as I see this happening I've started to point out the behaviour and set up a short meeting to resolve whatever the issues are.
I don't, generally, have time to write long messages, nor (often) to read them, so as soon as I see this happening I've started to point out the behaviour and set up a short meeting to resolve whatever the issues are.
Maybe those short meetings loose some of the nuance of the longer written discussion and lead to worse decisions.
I'm reminded of Amazon's supposed culture of well-written memos ahead of meetings.
I'm reminded of Amazon's supposed culture of well-written memos ahead of meetings.
There is no guarantee that a short meeting will resolve something that has already been the subject of a long discussion, though I will grant that long discussions are often the result of at least one party not paying attention to what the other is saying, and only the intervention of a third party can break that deadlock.
Having one party who only reads the subject line before replying will sabotage any attempt at resolving an issue through email.
Having one party who only reads the subject line before replying will sabotage any attempt at resolving an issue through email.
This is a very compassionate take. I generally find that anything sufficiently complex can't be communicated with constant interruption, which limits communicating with interrupters to the point that I don't care to do it. I like to think I can handle myself in social situations where there's an interrupter present, but if someone interrupts me frequently I'll usually not go out of my way to interact with that person.
There are many cases where the attributes I find most intolerable in others are actually the attributes I find most intolerable in myself, and this is one. What it comes down to for me is that as a kid I was praised a lot for my intelligence so I subconsciously see intelligence as my social value, so my tendency is to always be trying to show how intelligent I am as a social proof. Among the many frustrating habits that come out of this is interrupting to show I've understood something quickly. I've gotten a lot better about this over the years, but still catch myself doing it sometimes. So I appreciate the author's compassionate view.
There are many cases where the attributes I find most intolerable in others are actually the attributes I find most intolerable in myself, and this is one. What it comes down to for me is that as a kid I was praised a lot for my intelligence so I subconsciously see intelligence as my social value, so my tendency is to always be trying to show how intelligent I am as a social proof. Among the many frustrating habits that come out of this is interrupting to show I've understood something quickly. I've gotten a lot better about this over the years, but still catch myself doing it sometimes. So I appreciate the author's compassionate view.
This falls apart when you have an interrupter who thinks they know everything, but really doesn't have a clue.
They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
> thinks they know everything, but really doesn't have a clue
This is a somewhat separate problem from whether someone is an interrupter or not, though conversational style can have an influence on when miscommunication is likely to happen.
> They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it'
Well-meaning non-interrupters who “think they know everything but really don’t have a clue” can just as easily miss critical details, when the speaker wrongly assumes they understand something but never stops to verify that. At least the interrupter typically makes their ignorance obvious, giving others a chance to prepare some response/workaround.
* * *
In my experience it is entirely possible for both interrupters and non-interrupters to be (or not be) empathetic, perceptive, conscientious, detail-oriented, knowledgeable, humble, presumptuous, judgmental, aggressive, ...
This is a somewhat separate problem from whether someone is an interrupter or not, though conversational style can have an influence on when miscommunication is likely to happen.
> They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it'
Well-meaning non-interrupters who “think they know everything but really don’t have a clue” can just as easily miss critical details, when the speaker wrongly assumes they understand something but never stops to verify that. At least the interrupter typically makes their ignorance obvious, giving others a chance to prepare some response/workaround.
* * *
In my experience it is entirely possible for both interrupters and non-interrupters to be (or not be) empathetic, perceptive, conscientious, detail-oriented, knowledgeable, humble, presumptuous, judgmental, aggressive, ...
It seems like it would be a separate problem, but in my experience, the two are linked. The person who is interrupting is interrupting because they're highly confident in their own viewpoint. We like to think that confidence must necessarily be correlated with how true our view is, but that isn't the case. There are some people who are equally confident of all of their views, no matter how much or how little evidence they have for those views. It's those people who interrupt, even though they don't have a clue.
You're describing a barker not an interrupter. A barker will insist on continuing their own rant to their own end, so they cannot be corrected. The interrupter will let themselves be interrupted in turn, so they can always be corrected.
^ This.
In my family, the quickest way to find out if you're wrong is to assert something that's false. It may not surprise you to find out that both of my parents were once programmers.
Or interrupters who interrupt not to complete your thought, but to say whatever they don't want to wait their turn to say.
That seems to fall under "Barkers"
The distinction between interrupters and barkers is more of a slippery slope than a sharp divide.
You could say that about the distinctions between most groups of humans. There's almost always overlap/normal distribution
[deleted]
This doesn't fall apart, as they're providing feedback about exactly how they're misunderstanding you.
I have a colleague who regularly interrupts me to say the complete opposite of what I want to say. I'm, of course, in the church of strong civility, so I always continue after the rude interruption. You'll often hear something like:
"We're struggling to meet our deadlines so I think we should---"
"Rewrite the project."
"---Avoid rewrites and do small reactors."
"We're struggling to meet our deadlines so I think we should---"
"Rewrite the project."
"---Avoid rewrites and do small reactors."
I like your approach and in general I do the same. But some interrupters just never learn.
So in some cases when the interrupter keeps interrupting I simply ask him/her: "Can I finish my sentence?" In this case whatever the interrupter does it's too late for him, because it becomes obvious that his way of communication is not welcome and he was not even aware of this fact (i.e. he lacks self-awareness), and learning self-awareness in a group setting this way makes wonders.
Also I guess you make small refactors instead of reactors :)
So in some cases when the interrupter keeps interrupting I simply ask him/her: "Can I finish my sentence?" In this case whatever the interrupter does it's too late for him, because it becomes obvious that his way of communication is not welcome and he was not even aware of this fact (i.e. he lacks self-awareness), and learning self-awareness in a group setting this way makes wonders.
Also I guess you make small refactors instead of reactors :)
I'm an interrupter, by nature. And I also have a tendency to talk when I'm nervous. As TFA says, I'm fine with other interrupters. We have great conversations. We start finishing each others thoughts. But otherwise, not so great.
Probably the best insight that I got from group therapy was being told that I needed to learn when to shut up. So I've learned to be adaptive. And when I'm nervous, I've learned to draw people out.
Probably the best insight that I got from group therapy was being told that I needed to learn when to shut up. So I've learned to be adaptive. And when I'm nervous, I've learned to draw people out.
> the best insight that I got from group therapy was being told that I needed to learn when to shut up.
A respected manager that I really looked up to once gave me very similar advice. “When you have the answer, know the solution, can understand the problem, can see other’s mistakes? Just shut up.”
Fifteen years later, I have...improved somewhat.
A respected manager that I really looked up to once gave me very similar advice. “When you have the answer, know the solution, can understand the problem, can see other’s mistakes? Just shut up.”
Fifteen years later, I have...improved somewhat.
Do you ever stop thinking about what you're about to say and instead focus on how your audience is reacting to what you just said? I find watching peoples' faces and any cues that reveal their emotion helps me gauge whether or not I'm having a "not so great" conversation, which allows me to be less interrupt-y and more of a listener.
Yes, I do that constantly. I tried direct sales for a while, and one of my long-term jobs involved public speaking. So I've had some training.
Also, and maybe this will seem strange, I often feel like I'm just pretending to be a "normal person".
Also, and maybe this will seem strange, I often feel like I'm just pretending to be a "normal person".
This also supports that: if person A has the expectation "they'll interrupt/reply once they understand" and B has the expectation "let the speaker finish", this leads to A rambling. (A has no indication that things were understood).
I think in a lot of situations there needs to be one of the parties that steers the conversation a bit - interrupt themselves or the other party if they're going on a tangent. It takes some time and practice but it will pay off in the end.
I am an interrupter living in a land of strong civility. Self-awareness will bring you a bit of the way to fitting in, but I am always known as an interrupter. Tbh, i haven't changed entirely, because we have a startup, and my opinion is that strong civility is not always the most effective communication pattern when stuff needs to get done now. Strong civility works great where you have longer term plans and people who stick to them and resources. Startups don't have much of that.
Beyond just interrupting or not, there are norms in conservational turn taking that vary between languages, cultures, and individuals, which are well studied by linguists.
One example is the use of pauses. To me, in casual conversation, pausing for half a second cedes the floor, and pausing for two seconds means we're done with a topic. But I had a friend who would always pause for two seconds before saying anything at all. Neither of us interrupted, but there were still constant collisions.
One example is the use of pauses. To me, in casual conversation, pausing for half a second cedes the floor, and pausing for two seconds means we're done with a topic. But I had a friend who would always pause for two seconds before saying anything at all. Neither of us interrupted, but there were still constant collisions.
Sounds like every bloody "interviewer" in the West now -- interrupting people whilst they're speaking, loudly assuming the worst possible characterisation of what was said (or flatly misrepresenting what was said), and going off on a tangent to promote their own agenda/viewpoint to anyone unfortunate enough trying to follow along.
Pro tip: as you speak, after each message (sentence, couple of sentences) make sure your interlocutor understood that part - verbally or not.
It's not the same as using short sentences - personally I don't expect/allow to be interrupted (my friends know me for that).
By ensuring your messages are understood, you also make sure you are having an actual conversation, and not a mutual brain dump (which tends to lead to having a strawman POV of each other's point).
It's not the same as using short sentences - personally I don't expect/allow to be interrupted (my friends know me for that).
By ensuring your messages are understood, you also make sure you are having an actual conversation, and not a mutual brain dump (which tends to lead to having a strawman POV of each other's point).
“...if I don’t signal my understanding in the same way you do – you’ll just keep talking, imagining I don’t get it.”
I like to hear someone's thought and then digest on it. If my partner in conversation just keeps on re-explaining his or her thoughts, thinking is halted. I have to keep on filtering what is said, even if it's basically the same thing repeated, to make sure I didn't miss something. The end result is that my partner speaks three or four times as much as he or she needs to, and I am left understanding less than if the thought was said to me once with a little time to think afterward.
I like to hear someone's thought and then digest on it. If my partner in conversation just keeps on re-explaining his or her thoughts, thinking is halted. I have to keep on filtering what is said, even if it's basically the same thing repeated, to make sure I didn't miss something. The end result is that my partner speaks three or four times as much as he or she needs to, and I am left understanding less than if the thought was said to me once with a little time to think afterward.
I feel like I'm getting worse at communicating as I get older.
My former partner kept telling me I don't listen.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
To this day I am still trying to learn how to listen.
I am also very much aware I am an interrupter. I know how bad this is and even so it is still hard to stop.
I also interrupt when I am excited and enthusiastic and when I like the person I am talking to.
I think the two are connected. One is less inclined to interrupt if one is actually truly listening.
Interrupters aren't having a conversation with you. They are having a conversation with themselves and not listening, just waiting to talk.
My former partner kept telling me I don't listen.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
To this day I am still trying to learn how to listen.
I am also very much aware I am an interrupter. I know how bad this is and even so it is still hard to stop.
I also interrupt when I am excited and enthusiastic and when I like the person I am talking to.
I think the two are connected. One is less inclined to interrupt if one is actually truly listening.
Interrupters aren't having a conversation with you. They are having a conversation with themselves and not listening, just waiting to talk.
“You’re not listening” often means something like “I am feeling some strong emotion (anger, frustration, sadness, ...) but you are not validating my feelings, and that lack of validation itself feels like rejection.”
Even something as simple as echoing back someone’s statements, or saying “it seems like you are feeling angry because ...” can make a large difference. Once you have shown that you understand and can name or describe the person’s feelings it is often much easier to discuss possible solutions to practical problems. But if you jump straight to offering practical advice, that is often unwelcome.
(Of course, it might sometimes literally mean “you’re not listening”, which probably needs a different remedy.)
Let me recommend the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk even if you never talk to kids.
Even something as simple as echoing back someone’s statements, or saying “it seems like you are feeling angry because ...” can make a large difference. Once you have shown that you understand and can name or describe the person’s feelings it is often much easier to discuss possible solutions to practical problems. But if you jump straight to offering practical advice, that is often unwelcome.
(Of course, it might sometimes literally mean “you’re not listening”, which probably needs a different remedy.)
Let me recommend the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk even if you never talk to kids.
"You're not listening" depends on the context. In a calm conversation...well I've never heard it in a calm conversation. In a heated conversation, it can be you misunderstand or just as likely they're poorly communicating and growing resentful at not being understood.
On your point on interrupters not listening: a big point of this article is that a skillful interruption moves a conversation along by allowing swift communication of understanding, so time isn't wasted repeating shared knowledge. A poor interrupter, a Barker, is as you describe - just throwing their own mess out there. If your interruptions cause irritation, it is because they aren't properly tuned or else you're dealing with someone from the Church of Strong Civility.
On your point on interrupters not listening: a big point of this article is that a skillful interruption moves a conversation along by allowing swift communication of understanding, so time isn't wasted repeating shared knowledge. A poor interrupter, a Barker, is as you describe - just throwing their own mess out there. If your interruptions cause irritation, it is because they aren't properly tuned or else you're dealing with someone from the Church of Strong Civility.
Quite often when people accuse each other of not listening, it's that they aren't actually saying what they think they are saying, and then getting pissy because the other party didn't telepathically pick up on what they actually meant.
[deleted]
My former partner kept telling me I don't listen.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
There can be just so very many reasons why people fail to communicate. I would be leery of chalking it up to any one thing.
As the article under discussion notes, interrupters sometimes do fine with some people and sometimes have tremendous problems with others. This is probably generally true of just about any communication thing you can name.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
There can be just so very many reasons why people fail to communicate. I would be leery of chalking it up to any one thing.
As the article under discussion notes, interrupters sometimes do fine with some people and sometimes have tremendous problems with others. This is probably generally true of just about any communication thing you can name.
I believe that there is also cultural factor.
Some are famous for interrupting often (in France for instance), whilst for others it is the opposite. It can also be related to the language, e.g. in German or Japanese the verb is at the end of the sentence. Because of that, one need at least to wait for the person to finish the sentence to understand it.
That being said, you surely find German interrupters, and French adepts of the Strong Civility, but maybe in different proportions.
Some are famous for interrupting often (in France for instance), whilst for others it is the opposite. It can also be related to the language, e.g. in German or Japanese the verb is at the end of the sentence. Because of that, one need at least to wait for the person to finish the sentence to understand it.
That being said, you surely find German interrupters, and French adepts of the Strong Civility, but maybe in different proportions.
I'll be honest, I disengage from interrupters almost immediately. They consistently miss the point in their eager to hear their own shallow thoughts. Its boring.
But at least they show early that they missed the point and let you catch it early and explain better.
Instead of politely listening and after you finish ask what does the first thing (vital to understanding the whole speech) even mean.
Instead of politely listening and after you finish ask what does the first thing (vital to understanding the whole speech) even mean.
So basically they are forcing the speaker to explain the same thing as they would have continued anyway, plus they even force the same speakers to fix the interrupters' mistakes in their thinking. Why is that good?
You're exactly on point, and your 1:1 exchange here demonstrates the principle of shallow thoughts perfectly.
[deleted]
I'm more interested in the Cult of Listening.
First you listen and really try to understand not only the what but why from the person you're having a conversation with.
Then you paraphrase what you heard back to make sure you understand and that they can hear it back and agree.
If you do these two things you'll find that most people are actually pretty reasonable and you can in turn have a reasoned and listened to response and, shockingly, a real conversation.
First you listen and really try to understand not only the what but why from the person you're having a conversation with.
Then you paraphrase what you heard back to make sure you understand and that they can hear it back and agree.
If you do these two things you'll find that most people are actually pretty reasonable and you can in turn have a reasoned and listened to response and, shockingly, a real conversation.
That's a really important skill to have really; in software development there's a huge ego culture going on, people having their own opinions and clinging to them. But the path to maturity and / or seniority involves opening up to other people's opinions, truly understanding them instead of just pushing your own through. Active listening (which is what you're describing there) is a huge part of it. You can't argue with someone if you're not willing to listen in the first place.
Some people keep talking for a long time unless interrupted. They might even go in an infinite loop, reconfirming what they already said! For such people, while normally meek I force myself to interrupt!
That's good because the cultural norm of automatically repeating comes from the expectation that the other person will interrupt once they have something to say.
Actually, repeaters might have it right - not even once in memory has someone who failed to understand me said "I don't get it," after I finished talking, everyone just nods and says "mm-hmm." It would not be irrational to assume the listener didn't get it until being presented with evidence otherwise.
Actually, repeaters might have it right - not even once in memory has someone who failed to understand me said "I don't get it," after I finished talking, everyone just nods and says "mm-hmm." It would not be irrational to assume the listener didn't get it until being presented with evidence otherwise.
Yup, and it's absolutely fine to do so - however, you also need them to understand what they're doing themselves, give them some advice on how to communicate more effectively. As another commenter pointed out, some people talk a lot because they're nervous, because they are afraid if they stop talking they won't get another say in a matter. They need coaching, reassurance, etc as well.
Absolutely. I should also mention I don’t get angry with them, I appreciate they have a different style of communication.
I think, paradoxically, that this is actually a failure mode of "the meek" -- rambling when nervous, basically. Or at least of a person who is missing cues from their interlocutor about the status of the conversation.
I often feel the urge to interrupt, just to get thing moving faster, but I don't want to be the smart-ass who is always interrupting with "I know, I know". So often times I pretend that the presented information is new to me and give the other person a chance to shine. It's not always easy and here and there I blurt out "I know", because I feel that they must be thinking that I'm dumb, or because I don't want to give them the pleasure of being the first person who enlightened me about this thing. But there is some upside to playing dumb: after he has finished talking, you can comment about the subject with some unexpected wisdom, as if you just came up with it.
I don't mind if people interrupt me, as long as they stick to the subject at hand. But I hate when someone just cut's me off mid sentence and starts talking about some totally unconnected stuff. I usually see the interruption coming. They nod impatiently and I see that their mouth is already preparing the sentence, waiting for a brief pause in my flow, not hearing a single word I'm saying.
I don't mind if people interrupt me, as long as they stick to the subject at hand. But I hate when someone just cut's me off mid sentence and starts talking about some totally unconnected stuff. I usually see the interruption coming. They nod impatiently and I see that their mouth is already preparing the sentence, waiting for a brief pause in my flow, not hearing a single word I'm saying.
I don't agree that Strong Civility requires speaking only briefly. In fact, it makes me think someone who thinks that is just barely suppressing their interruption. "I'll wait until you finish...for a minute."
No, taking turns speaking is its own reward, just like speeding a conversation along via interruptions is it's own reward.
No, taking turns speaking is its own reward, just like speeding a conversation along via interruptions is it's own reward.
I find myself speaking briefly, only because I'm expecting to get interrupted. It happens every time. Some people have said I'm very Zen by how quickly I can get a point across in few words. I tell them "it's the only way." I leave out the part about being constantly interrupted. Being a Zen woman in tech, I figured that went without saying.
If I have something complex, I have to write it out, if only to prove my work/logic. At least text tends to last longer, spread wider, and be more useful than any conversation.
If I have something complex, I have to write it out, if only to prove my work/logic. At least text tends to last longer, spread wider, and be more useful than any conversation.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. Some people will keep elaborating some point until told to stop, whereas others will assume the other person understood without any explicit evidence that is true.
I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understand them is a separate question from whether they tend to interrupt or not, however.
The most efficient and effective conversations in my experience are 1:1, with two speakers who both explicitly verify that the other person understands their meaning and is using the same definitions of words, and have some kind of efficient protocol for working backwards from a misunderstanding or gap in knowledge as soon as one pops up. There has to be enough trust involved that both interlocutors are willing to quickly and freely admit when they don’t know something or don’t understand an argument.
I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understand them is a separate question from whether they tend to interrupt or not, however.
The most efficient and effective conversations in my experience are 1:1, with two speakers who both explicitly verify that the other person understands their meaning and is using the same definitions of words, and have some kind of efficient protocol for working backwards from a misunderstanding or gap in knowledge as soon as one pops up. There has to be enough trust involved that both interlocutors are willing to quickly and freely admit when they don’t know something or don’t understand an argument.
I had a team mate once who would go on and on and on explaining the same point over and over and elaborating a million different ways and it was extremely frustrating because not once would there ever be a break in his speech to give others the chance to ask questions (so he'd explain what we actually didn't understand) or to reply and move the conversation along. It was quite frustrating.
Many of us resorted to talking over him until he noticed, stopped, and let us reply. Surprisingly impervious to interruption.
Many of us resorted to talking over him until he noticed, stopped, and let us reply. Surprisingly impervious to interruption.
I had a similar coworker. Worse still because they were a junior who couldn't yield the floor to anyone, regardless of seniority. Their eyes would become a little bewildered as anyone talked over them (read as 'everyone') and they never seemed to grasp what was happening. This piece gives me a better model for understanding them; just a lost soul deep in the church of civility to the point of affliction.
Aren't you saying they're someone who won't yield until they've said their peace? That doesn't sound like the church of civility to me, but more like the rarer "interrupts, but doesn't want to be interrupted" (Barker) style.
Combined with their lack of experience, I can imagine that would be frustrating to be around.
Combined with their lack of experience, I can imagine that would be frustrating to be around.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message.
That's not what the article proposes:
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY
1. Thou shalt not interrupt.
2. Thou shalt speak briefly.
3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak.
==
That said, what's wrong with listening to someone, asking questions if you require more understanding?
Another way of looking at all this: what makes you think that what you have to say is so important that it can't wait for someone to even finish their sentence?
That's not what the article proposes:
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY
1. Thou shalt not interrupt.
2. Thou shalt speak briefly.
3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak.
==
That said, what's wrong with listening to someone, asking questions if you require more understanding?
Another way of looking at all this: what makes you think that what you have to say is so important that it can't wait for someone to even finish their sentence?
The point of “thou shalt speak briefly” is that the argument is kept to a minimum required for understanding, with the expectation that a listener who does not understand will ask for clarification. The speaker does not just keep talking on and on about the same thing, waiting to be interrupted.
(Note that “briefly” can sometimes be a rather extended argument, if it happens to be irreducibly complicated. The point is that it isn’t over-elaborated, not that it must be short.)
This works if people always ask for clarification when they don’t understand, but in my experience that’s pretty rare, and often a poor assumption; while this style is eminently polite, it sometimes leads to severe miscommunication when there was a fundamental difference in definitions or premises that neither person recognized.
(Note that “briefly” can sometimes be a rather extended argument, if it happens to be irreducibly complicated. The point is that it isn’t over-elaborated, not that it must be short.)
This works if people always ask for clarification when they don’t understand, but in my experience that’s pretty rare, and often a poor assumption; while this style is eminently polite, it sometimes leads to severe miscommunication when there was a fundamental difference in definitions or premises that neither person recognized.
I could be wrong, but by my read none of that is supported by the text.
The text doesn't go into detail, but I think the GP is right. You can model this as cooperative vs preemptive multithreading.
In a preemptive model, each process just does its thing until it gets interrupted by the scheduler, and then then that process does its thing until it gets interrupted in turn. This is the "church of interruption" model. Its the responsibility of the other (scheduler / person) to signal to you (via an interrupt) when your turn is over.
But in the cooperative multitasking model, its the responsibility of the speaker to hand the baton back. It is vulnerable to a single person / process dominating the whole space by talking / running forever. And this is totally what happens when the two cultures meet - I have a friend who is 100% church of interruption. I came back from a retreat feeling calm and peaceful. We talked on the phone for a few hours the next day and I patiently waited for him to be done before I replied - which took about 3 hours. He was vaguely confused / annoyed at me for doing that. Apparently it simply didn't occur to him that if he wanted to know my thoughts he might need to ask me for them.
In the cooperative multitasking world, the golden rule is that all programs should run for a short amount of time then yield back to the scheduler so it can run something else. Its not so cut and dry for humans - I think "speak briefly" is a lossy summary of the rule because it often makes sense for one person to do most of the talking in a conversation. But in the "strong civility" culture its the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of tracking that, and usually do so only with the blessing of the group. Taking all the air in the room is a faux pas.
In a preemptive model, each process just does its thing until it gets interrupted by the scheduler, and then then that process does its thing until it gets interrupted in turn. This is the "church of interruption" model. Its the responsibility of the other (scheduler / person) to signal to you (via an interrupt) when your turn is over.
But in the cooperative multitasking model, its the responsibility of the speaker to hand the baton back. It is vulnerable to a single person / process dominating the whole space by talking / running forever. And this is totally what happens when the two cultures meet - I have a friend who is 100% church of interruption. I came back from a retreat feeling calm and peaceful. We talked on the phone for a few hours the next day and I patiently waited for him to be done before I replied - which took about 3 hours. He was vaguely confused / annoyed at me for doing that. Apparently it simply didn't occur to him that if he wanted to know my thoughts he might need to ask me for them.
In the cooperative multitasking world, the golden rule is that all programs should run for a short amount of time then yield back to the scheduler so it can run something else. Its not so cut and dry for humans - I think "speak briefly" is a lossy summary of the rule because it often makes sense for one person to do most of the talking in a conversation. But in the "strong civility" culture its the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of tracking that, and usually do so only with the blessing of the group. Taking all the air in the room is a faux pas.
It's only implied, but surely the idea is that "CSC" oriented people expect conversations to swap speaker-listener roles through the current speaker yielding rather than through an assertion by the current listener.
I find it really rude when people are obviously just waiting their turn to say their prepared statement. It means they're not really listening to the other person, thus it's not really a conversation. Should someone keep score when that happens?
So when those people are supposed to express their position? Prepared statement is another way to say that some thinking was put into it vs. just blurting out the first thing that comes into mind. So, the former is rude while the latter is respectful?
A prepared statement may or may not be well thought out, but even if it is, ignoring the current context and not directly addressing the other party's arguments or concerns means you're hijacking the thread of conversation and implicitly dismissing the other party's statements.
if you wanna the other participants to drop everything in their heads, drop their arguments and concerns and start addressing yours you better put some work into it to make the arguments and concerns relevant and engaging. Not doing it or failing to do it and crying out "rude! highjacking!" instead is kind of rude and disrespectful to the other participants i think.
I wonder whether/when we would see meeting software including "karma" feature so people could just "-1" and move forward without wasting time/effort, though "-1"ing say your manager, even if anonymously ... :)
I wonder whether/when we would see meeting software including "karma" feature so people could just "-1" and move forward without wasting time/effort, though "-1"ing say your manager, even if anonymously ... :)
I'm an interrupter, and so are many of my colleagues, but there are a few people in the office who are not, and they don't enjoy our meetings.
And just hazarding a guess, I suspect women transfer out of the group at the first opportunity.
Alice makes a multipart statement about topics one and two.
Bob replies to topic two and starts to segue to topic three.
Carol has something important to say about topic one.
What is Carol supposed to do? Let the entire chain play out, then transition back to topic one when there's an opening? I know people can be bitter about interruption, but in my experience you get a prompt and decisive smackdown for trying to backtrack, especially when pressed for time. It seems important to get your point in while it's relevant. Interruption of the form, "hey, before we move on, can we talk about X" seems to be the way do that.
How would you handle this situation?
I'm especially interested in this, because interruption and other conversational "traffic control" flow much less naturally on international video conferences, and our remote meetings tend to be stressful and chaotic messes. Short of a formal, parliamentarian moderator, it's not clear how to make these better.
Bob replies to topic two and starts to segue to topic three.
Carol has something important to say about topic one.
What is Carol supposed to do? Let the entire chain play out, then transition back to topic one when there's an opening? I know people can be bitter about interruption, but in my experience you get a prompt and decisive smackdown for trying to backtrack, especially when pressed for time. It seems important to get your point in while it's relevant. Interruption of the form, "hey, before we move on, can we talk about X" seems to be the way do that.
How would you handle this situation?
I'm especially interested in this, because interruption and other conversational "traffic control" flow much less naturally on international video conferences, and our remote meetings tend to be stressful and chaotic messes. Short of a formal, parliamentarian moderator, it's not clear how to make these better.
I think I would try to impose some structure and possibly have an actual moderator.
I basically moderate an in person meeting once a month (though my title is chair, not moderator). I'm supposed to keep things on topic, curtail problematic behavior and try to get us out of there on time. I also take written notes.
How you do that depends on a variety of factors, including the personalities involved.
So I would think about recurrent problematic patterns and try to resolve those.
Is the problem that Alice is prone to being long winded and talking about many things?
Is the problem that Bob routinely jumps in to say something about X, then just takes over the conversation, going wherever he so desires?
Etc.
So, some things that might help:
1. A written agenda for the meetings. You discuss topic A. Everyone gets their say. You check if everyone has said their piece before you move on to topic B.
2. You lay some ground rules that address specific problems you've noticed. Don't single anyone out, even if it's primarily one person guilty of doing it. Just write up a policy saying "We will not be doing x. We will do a, b and c."
3. Name a specific person who is supposed to keep the meeting on track. Part of that role includes helping make sure everyone gets to participate in a satisfactory manner.
4. Plan time at the end of the meeting for random comments, people returning to a point from earlier, etc.
I basically moderate an in person meeting once a month (though my title is chair, not moderator). I'm supposed to keep things on topic, curtail problematic behavior and try to get us out of there on time. I also take written notes.
How you do that depends on a variety of factors, including the personalities involved.
So I would think about recurrent problematic patterns and try to resolve those.
Is the problem that Alice is prone to being long winded and talking about many things?
Is the problem that Bob routinely jumps in to say something about X, then just takes over the conversation, going wherever he so desires?
Etc.
So, some things that might help:
1. A written agenda for the meetings. You discuss topic A. Everyone gets their say. You check if everyone has said their piece before you move on to topic B.
2. You lay some ground rules that address specific problems you've noticed. Don't single anyone out, even if it's primarily one person guilty of doing it. Just write up a policy saying "We will not be doing x. We will do a, b and c."
3. Name a specific person who is supposed to keep the meeting on track. Part of that role includes helping make sure everyone gets to participate in a satisfactory manner.
4. Plan time at the end of the meeting for random comments, people returning to a point from earlier, etc.
This is great. We have written agendas but they're usually, "we will be discussing these three documents in this order" not an itemized list of concerns. The itemized list is dynamic depending on what comes up in the conversation. Do you try to solicit more granularity from participants beforehand to build into the agenda, or how does that work?
People who want topics added to the list can email me beforehand.
We typically go through the agenda and then talk a bit more generally afterwards. As long as it doesn't go too far afield or get too contentious, I'm tolerant of meandering topics for the last part of the meeting.
If it gets contentious and it's not really germaine, I try to say something like "This is getting really deep in the weeds about a thing we have no control over." and redirect conversation back to pertinent topics.
We typically go through the agenda and then talk a bit more generally afterwards. As long as it doesn't go too far afield or get too contentious, I'm tolerant of meandering topics for the last part of the meeting.
If it gets contentious and it's not really germaine, I try to say something like "This is getting really deep in the weeds about a thing we have no control over." and redirect conversation back to pertinent topics.
There is a big difference between large group meetings and face-to-face conversations between 2–3 people.
In a large group meeting it might help to have a semi-formal agenda and make sure each item is finished before moving on. Getting everyone to read prepared written documents might also help.
In a large group meeting it might help to have a semi-formal agenda and make sure each item is finished before moving on. Getting everyone to read prepared written documents might also help.
Yes, this. Agenda with a “last call” before taking up next topic.
Carol has to let it go. Worst thing to do is interrupt the current flow. She will come across as a "Barker" like she had sat there not listening to what Alice or Bob had to say and was just thinking about what she wanted to say about topic one the whole time.
Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one. Doing this you immediately relinquish control of the conversation, and when appropriate say your thoughts.
Otherwise, just let it go. Is it going to kill you to not say it?
I read a good summary once of analysing the thought process:
- Does this need to be said?
- Does this need to be said by me?
- Does this need to be said by me now?
Which are good questions to ask when interrupting the flow of a conversation.
Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one. Doing this you immediately relinquish control of the conversation, and when appropriate say your thoughts.
Otherwise, just let it go. Is it going to kill you to not say it?
I read a good summary once of analysing the thought process:
- Does this need to be said?
- Does this need to be said by me?
- Does this need to be said by me now?
Which are good questions to ask when interrupting the flow of a conversation.
Your view is extremely simplistic and just doesn't reflect the sophistication of any abstract and complex conversation.
Especially if the topic at hand is a new territory with a lot of unknown unknowns. If no-one ever explicitly says that "OK, we covered topic one and now we move on to topic two. Is there anyone who wants to add comments?", then the conversation was not very civil, was not yet over, and whoever organized the meeting was an amateur, and let the worst thing happen: Alice and Bob change topics for no reason, instead of stopping them short.
Especially if the topic at hand is a new territory with a lot of unknown unknowns. If no-one ever explicitly says that "OK, we covered topic one and now we move on to topic two. Is there anyone who wants to add comments?", then the conversation was not very civil, was not yet over, and whoever organized the meeting was an amateur, and let the worst thing happen: Alice and Bob change topics for no reason, instead of stopping them short.
You're reading a lot into what was a fairly simple scenario with no mention of what the topics were. It came across as being an informal meeting with no agenda, moderator or stated outcomes.
About all we can assume from the scenario are the power dynamics. Alice spoke first which says it's either her meeting or she is the ranking person there - not Carol.
If it was a meeting to address the potential critical failure of a system that Carol is the most knowledgeable about, then yes, she should speak up. It could be potentially negligent to not do so, but most meetings are not that.
About all we can assume from the scenario are the power dynamics. Alice spoke first which says it's either her meeting or she is the ranking person there - not Carol.
If it was a meeting to address the potential critical failure of a system that Carol is the most knowledgeable about, then yes, she should speak up. It could be potentially negligent to not do so, but most meetings are not that.
>Is it going to kill you to not say it?
It means a decision will be made without Carol's information that she'll have to live with, potentially hampering her ability to deliver something she's accountable for. If her manager finds out she knew something important and held onto it out of politeness, that'll come up in the leadership/collaboration section of her next review. If her manager doesn't know that she knew, it'll look like a hard skills problem.
>Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one.
Maybe this is a quirk of my meeting culture, but the success rate here is approximately zero.
>Does this need to be said by me?
This is a good one keep in mind, I do sometimes find that the point I've been hanging onto eventually gets said by someone else, and it's really satisfying.
It means a decision will be made without Carol's information that she'll have to live with, potentially hampering her ability to deliver something she's accountable for. If her manager finds out she knew something important and held onto it out of politeness, that'll come up in the leadership/collaboration section of her next review. If her manager doesn't know that she knew, it'll look like a hard skills problem.
>Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one.
Maybe this is a quirk of my meeting culture, but the success rate here is approximately zero.
>Does this need to be said by me?
This is a good one keep in mind, I do sometimes find that the point I've been hanging onto eventually gets said by someone else, and it's really satisfying.
> Maybe this is a quirk of my meeting culture, but the success rate here is approximately zero.
Is this a power dynamic, time limitation or an adherence to not backtrack?
Is this a power dynamic, time limitation or an adherence to not backtrack?
I find when talking with computer people, just saying "if I could move a few layers back up the stack" let's you backtrack to problem 1 if you want. This only works if you have people who understand the idea of the conversation as a stack.
I've had a group of colleagues where we would at a point say "ok, pop, pop, pop". That meant this same thing.
I find the response is always, "we have limited time and we need to move on."
Carol needs to raise her hand when Bob moves to topic 3. A raised hand signal seems to transcend cultures, and it lets the speakers and all listeners know you have something important to say but you're being polite and letting them finish.
And if the speaker/chair ignores you, it makes them look rude.
And if the speaker/chair ignores you, it makes them look rude.
Is there any reason to think women are less likely to be interrupters than men?
I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.
I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.
I'm a female interrupter. I have two adult sons. We have lively conversations.
I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out.
I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc.
Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases.
It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.
I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out.
I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc.
Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases.
It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.
I've definitely witnessed this, but I think these are two separate phenomena of "interruption". The COI refers to a case where I interrupt because I understand and I don't require additional elaboration. The way I've often seen women interrupted is more like the interrupter wasn't really listening to the speaker at all and is just arbitrarily taking control of the conversation.
I'd read your point as splitting hairs. In either case, the interruption has happened because of the belief that the speaker is not contributing new, valuable information to the conversation.
On the contrary, I would say that it makes a large difference whether someone interrupts me because they have understood the idea I was trying to communicate, or because they never cared about that idea in the first place.
The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut.
As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men.
You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors.
FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men.
You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors.
FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
I'm well aware of the phenomenon but it is not the kind of interruption I'm talking about.
To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly.
Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly.
Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
I think you are misunderstanding the research. It shows exactly what you are talking about; the link discusses just one recent subset of the phenomenon.
Men interrupt men more than women do.
Men interrupt women more than women do.
Men interrupt more than women.
Men interrupt men more than women do.
Men interrupt women more than women do.
Men interrupt more than women.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Why would you guess that?
Because license to interrupt often gets applied unequally WRT gender. Smart women go where their career isn’t impacted by boorish behavior.
Interrupting in conversation is not inherently “boorish”, or inherently male.
But there’s obviously a big difference between interrupting someone in the middle of a large formal work meeting in front of an assortment of colleagues vs. interrupting someone in the middle of a small collaborative technical discussion in a closely-knit team. The former is often more about demonstrating perceived social superiority rather than guiding a conversation, and such behavior is boorish.
But there’s obviously a big difference between interrupting someone in the middle of a large formal work meeting in front of an assortment of colleagues vs. interrupting someone in the middle of a small collaborative technical discussion in a closely-knit team. The former is often more about demonstrating perceived social superiority rather than guiding a conversation, and such behavior is boorish.
[deleted]
Maybe because it's a fundamentally confrontational way to interact, and that having one's livelihood tied to abilities to climb out of a crab bucket might seem unfair and excessive.
One person’s “confrontation” is another person’s “collaboration”.
From the other point of view, never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact.
From the other point of view, never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact.
I don't know how collaboration is implicated, but regardless that's not the form of confrontation I'm talking about. It's confrontational because interrupters and Barkers (from the story) have to either be overpowered vocally, or asked specifically to allow for the thoughts of others ("Can I finish?").
never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact
What does this mean?
never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact
What does this mean?
No, “interrupters” do not have to be “overpowered”. They just have to be interrupted, which is something they are expecting, and will stop talking to accommodate.
The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
For people in an interruption-heavy conversation culture, someone who sits back and doesn’t say anything because there is never a long pause where no one else is talking – or who doesn’t jump in and say something when the interrupter starts saying explaining something they already know, leaving the interrupter to waste their time – seems cold and distant. The non-interrupter’s silence feels judgmental and antisocial. The interrupter will often interpret the non-interrupter’s behavior as an indication that that he/she does not like the interrupter or does not want to be part of the conversation.
Often this impression of standoffishness is inaccurate, a result of cultural misunderstanding. Just like the non-interrupter’s impression that the interrupter is confrontational or rude is inaccurate, also a misunderstanding.
* * *
There are many similar kinds of cultural differences which can lead to misunderstandings.
When someone from a culture where each person gets a personal plate to eat from meets someone from a culture where everyone eats from a communal plate, each person can interpret the other’s behavior as rudeness.
When someone from a culture without much physical contact meets someone from a culture where people greet each-other with hugs or kisses, again, each can interpret the opposite behavior as rudeness.
The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
For people in an interruption-heavy conversation culture, someone who sits back and doesn’t say anything because there is never a long pause where no one else is talking – or who doesn’t jump in and say something when the interrupter starts saying explaining something they already know, leaving the interrupter to waste their time – seems cold and distant. The non-interrupter’s silence feels judgmental and antisocial. The interrupter will often interpret the non-interrupter’s behavior as an indication that that he/she does not like the interrupter or does not want to be part of the conversation.
Often this impression of standoffishness is inaccurate, a result of cultural misunderstanding. Just like the non-interrupter’s impression that the interrupter is confrontational or rude is inaccurate, also a misunderstanding.
* * *
There are many similar kinds of cultural differences which can lead to misunderstandings.
When someone from a culture where each person gets a personal plate to eat from meets someone from a culture where everyone eats from a communal plate, each person can interpret the other’s behavior as rudeness.
When someone from a culture without much physical contact meets someone from a culture where people greet each-other with hugs or kisses, again, each can interpret the opposite behavior as rudeness.
They just have to be interrupted
THAT'S THE CONFRONTATION.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
Yes it is. That's the confrontation, again.
The rest of your comment doesn't really make a point, just value judgement on your preference for interrupting. Someone being a loudmouth or a boor is a cultural difference or "just rude," while someone who prefers not to participate in everybody talking over each other (a predictable condition) is cold, distant, judgemental, antisocial, and just plain does not want to be part of the conversation.
This is an antagonistic and bad-faith perspective.
THAT'S THE CONFRONTATION.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
Yes it is. That's the confrontation, again.
The rest of your comment doesn't really make a point, just value judgement on your preference for interrupting. Someone being a loudmouth or a boor is a cultural difference or "just rude," while someone who prefers not to participate in everybody talking over each other (a predictable condition) is cold, distant, judgemental, antisocial, and just plain does not want to be part of the conversation.
This is an antagonistic and bad-faith perspective.
You've never heard of parents that might shout down any misplaced utterance, have you?
I don’t understand what you are getting at. Can you elaborate?
I'd expect there are more cultures and households out there
than not that punish any form of interruption to the point where its members would see it not just as confrontation but as a sin. To take a view that casts these people as standoffish is dismissive.
I am not calling these people standoffish. I am showing the previous commenter (by constructing an opposite dismissal) that such judgments are misplaced.
From the civility side, interrupting is at best confrontational but more likely a social sin. From the interruption side, failing to interrupt is standoffish. The reaction of each side to the other is unbalanced, but the severity of civility's backlash is easy to understand.
Maybe you shouldn't be projecting moral judgements on cultural differences.
The way people talk in work meetings is not culture.
[deleted]
This is beautifully written.
The use of dialogue to illustrate the point was great.
One suspects the author is a big fan of Gödel Escher Bach.
When talking, I feel like a CPU waiting for DRAM reads all the time. "Gee... why is this going so slow?!" Anything that can speed things up is appreciated. Talk fast, interrupt me, let me interrupt, fill the gaps, ask what you don't understand, point what I got wrong, and lets complete this data transmission as soon as possible.
Interrupting when talking is simply the human equivalent of XON/XOFF flow control in RS232. Some humans are not capable of such software flow control and need the human RTS / CTS handshake which is probably body language.
And then other humans simply don't have flow control enabled. At all.
I love this metaphor. :)
Most annoying to me, from the top of my head, is when you are trying to find a word to say, and your interlocutor finishes your sentence with a word which is sort of fits in, but not the one you had in mind.
I'm not sure I'm all that against interrupters, and I think I can handle them and can sort of be one myself, but it is surely exhausting.
I'm not sure I'm all that against interrupters, and I think I can handle them and can sort of be one myself, but it is surely exhausting.
Excited conversations between geeks tend to ramble a lot with a lot of interruptions, and while everyone's having fun, many conversational threads get abandoned as people get drawn into the new topic and forget what they were planning to say.
I invented conversation queues for me and my friends. Whenever someone is inspired to tangent onto a new topic, they interrupt only long enough to point at me and say a word or two, which I write down. The next time there's a lull in conversation, I announce the next topic in the queue and cross it off, and the person who inserted it gets to expound.
It seems to work really well, and the list can get quite long with a few hours over coffee or beer.
I invented conversation queues for me and my friends. Whenever someone is inspired to tangent onto a new topic, they interrupt only long enough to point at me and say a word or two, which I write down. The next time there's a lull in conversation, I announce the next topic in the queue and cross it off, and the person who inserted it gets to expound.
It seems to work really well, and the list can get quite long with a few hours over coffee or beer.
I’ve noticed this can happen in Slack. I see someone is typing - and because I assume it’s a full duplex channel, I start typing too while I wait for their answer. And they stop typing. When I delete what I began to type, they resume.
[deleted]
The article talks about interrupters, but I think it confuses two types of them: People who interrupt to say their piece, and people who interrupt to complete the other person’s sentence.
Both are annoying, but people who complete others’ sentences are IMO worse: it’s a way of showing that you don’t care what the other person thinks, especially when the interrupter guesses wrong and the speaker has to out-talk them in order to get their actual words in.
Both are annoying, but people who complete others’ sentences are IMO worse: it’s a way of showing that you don’t care what the other person thinks, especially when the interrupter guesses wrong and the speaker has to out-talk them in order to get their actual words in.
That's definitely a distinction to make. The person completing the sentence will feel - or emit the feeling - that they get what you mean already but the speaker is being too slow. In a case like that it's important for the speaker to be assertive and raise their hand, mention the other person's behaviour and finish the sentence themselves. Like a sharp callout of the other person's behaviour, a meta-statement about what is happening. Just pointing it out is already enough for a lot of people. That will cost some extra energy though, because you're not just talking about subject x, but you're also mindful of your own and others' behaviour in a conversation.
Or everyone could just stop being a little bitch about everything 24/7.
In theory, the best way to conduct a church-of-interruption exchange of ideas is big-endian: you begin by summarising your idea and only then flesh out the details. That way if your conclusion is understood you find out as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, if your conversational partner tends to interrupt incorrectly or in bad faith, the better strategy is little-endian: you craft your idea in such a way that it can't be understood until you've finished talking, and is thus uninterruptible. In extreme cases, you can even make the sentence not parse until the final word.
Big-endian: "I don't like sand. It's coarse, rough, irritating and it gets everywhere."
Little-endian: "You know what's coarse, rough, irritating and gets everywhere? Sand. I don't like it."
Little-endian (parser pipeline stall edition): "What I don't like, because it's coarse, rough, irritating, and gets everywhere, is sand."