Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Church of Interruption

sambleckley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: The Church of Interruption

#31

Post by jacobolus »

dustinls wrote: post #14

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.

> 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, ...

Re: The Church of Interruption

#32

Post by noobiemcfoob »

jacobolus wrote: post #23
noobiemcfoob wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#33

Post by wtallis »

trhway wrote: post #22
drewcoo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#34

Post by andrewstuart »

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#35

Post by novok »

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#36

Post by noobiemcfoob »

andrewstuart wrote: post #34

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…

"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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#37

Post by Swizec »

jacobolus wrote: post #4
rhizome wrote: post #2

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.

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 understan…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#39

Post by jacobolus »

noobiemcfoob wrote: post #32
jacobolus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#40

Post by pryce »

rhizome wrote: post #10
jacobolus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I could be wrong, but by my read none of that is supported by the text.

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.
Post reply on HN