[HN Gopher] Wait vs. Interrupt Culture
___________________________________________________________________
Wait vs. Interrupt Culture
Author : cbracketdash
Score : 57 points
Date : 2022-10-19 18:53 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (benjaminrosshoffman.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (benjaminrosshoffman.com)
| [deleted]
| ISO-morphism wrote:
| 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
| drewcoo wrote:
| 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.
| awestroke wrote:
| Refusing to interrupt is to stick to your ideals. Tit-for-tat
| does not work against interrupters, and especially against
| barkers
| JadeNB wrote:
| > 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 others 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.)
| EGreg wrote:
| 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.
| 121789 wrote:
| 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.
| trap_goes_hot wrote:
| 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.
| Rayhem wrote:
| > 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.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| JadeNB wrote:
| > 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.
| Rayhem wrote:
| > 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.
| nordsieck wrote:
| 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.
| theonemind wrote:
| 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.
| awillen wrote:
| 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.
| Karellen wrote:
| 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.
| sneak wrote:
| I interrupt because sometimes my attention span and memory can be
| measured in milliseconds.
|
| It's a bad habit in the wrong circumstances sometimes.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| 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!
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| 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).
| chrismeller wrote:
| 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.
| avmich wrote:
| It's hard to learn one style, being accustomed to another.
| anyoneworks wrote:
| 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.
| awillen wrote:
| 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.
| blobbers wrote:
| 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.
| Moissanite wrote:
| 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..."
| _jal wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-19 23:00 UTC)