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

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: The Church of Interruption

#51

Post by noobiemcfoob »

singron wrote: post #47
dbcurtis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/busi...

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#53

Post by jacobolus »

closeparen wrote: post #44
dbcurtis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#54

Post by noobiemcfoob »

jacobolus wrote: post #39
noobiemcfoob wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#55

Post by knzhou »

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#56

Post by soneca »

GitRHero wrote: post #20

Wow, what a trip to see this name at the top of HN. The author was a good friend of mine in high school, and one of my favorite people I've ever known. If you're reading this, Sam, I hope you're doing well.

Made me curious: was he an interruptor in high school?

Re: The Church of Interruption

#57

Post by dbcurtis »

jacobolus wrote: post #53
closeparen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

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.

Yes, this. Agenda with a “last call” before taking up next topic.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#58

Post by forgingahead »

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#59

Post by switchbak »

noobiemcfoob wrote: post #42
Swizec wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 talk…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#60

Post by freddie_mercury »

kranner wrote: post #25
dbcurtis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just hazarding a guess, I suspect women transfer out of the group at the first opportunity.

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.

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...

Post reply on HN