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

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: The Church of Interruption

#131

Post by DoreenMichele »

closeparen wrote: post #127
DoreenMichele wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#133

Post by wool_gather »

nemo1618 wrote: post #112
novok wrote: post #35

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 someth…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#134

Post by thebiss »

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…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#135

Post by dpc_pw »

draugadrotten wrote: post #94
dpc_pw wrote: post #79

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. :)

Re: The Church of Interruption

#136

Post by lbj »

fogetti wrote: post #126
alecmg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#137

Post by wool_gather »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #43

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!

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#138

Post by crucialfelix »

sgentle wrote: post #70

I've noticed a pretty heinous conversational pattern develop out of interruption sometimes. 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 b…

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.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#139

Post by rhizome »

jeremysalwen wrote: post #11
rhizome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you shouldn't be projecting moral judgements on cultural differences.

The way people talk in work meetings is not culture.

Re: The Church of Interruption

#140

Post by rhizome »

jacobolus wrote: post #13
rhizome wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Post reply on HN