There are different types of conversations. If it's "I am willing to dedicate my time to your needs", interrupting contradicts this promise, as you know best what your needs are, maybe it's just to be heard. But if it's "I can't get back to work till we are finished", it's your responsibility to not detain me longer than necessary and that includes being Ok with me interrupting to hurry things along. We need situational awareness, not making a church of either style of talking.
The Church of Interruption (2018)
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#52Serial Offender, fallen off the wagon many times over the decades. I've seen some amazing pushback. A researcher who bellowed "I HAVE NOT FINISHED" so loud, it was like the MTV man-in-a-chair reaction from everyone else. I wasn't the guilty party that time but I could have been. It's often said people believe women do most interrupting when the stats are very good 75% or more in mixed dialogue, is men's speaking time…
This. is exactly how I feel about comments that start with or consist entirely of “This.”
Guilty! but now seen, cannot unsee. A new verbal/written slip I have to try and un-learn to say.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
RE: "correct" In some Asian vernacular Englishes (e.g. Indian, Singaporean), this is means "yes, right" / "I agree". I used to experience your reaction to people saying "correct" to me while I talk (i.e. "fuck you") but since then, my understanding has increased, and I interpret it to mean "yes, right" / "I agree". Additionally, it may be that people who say this aren't native speakers of an Asian vernacular English,…
Non-native speaker here. Don't "correct" and "right" have the same meaning? Do most American/European native speakers feel so strongly about using "correct" in a conversation to show agreement?
Thinking about how people use the words. I think "right" or "thats right" is a declaration of belief in correctness, but "correct" includes "marking" people, or declaring as the adjudicator something is right or wrong. "I agree" is the more mutual expression.
If we had "rightness" in more common use, as an act of adjudication, akin to marking homework (which is either correct or incorrect?) then the distinction might be smaller. It is a fine distinction, and I can see for vernacular english this may be a lost battle: indeed who am I to say this is "incorrect" usage of English in the Indian, or Singaporean, or even American community?
Correct is unfortunate because of its dual use: both to signal agreement, and to confer aprobation on something, as when Teachers reward pupils. "Thats Correct Harry, 5 points to Gryffindor"
English isn't alone in these problems: A spanish speaker went to some lengths to explain distiction between Amor and Quero to me. You wouldn't use one with your sister, when you would with your girlfriend.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
RE: "correct" In some Asian vernacular Englishes (e.g. Indian, Singaporean), this is means "yes, right" / "I agree". I used to experience your reaction to people saying "correct" to me while I talk (i.e. "fuck you") but since then, my understanding has increased, and I interpret it to mean "yes, right" / "I agree". Additionally, it may be that people who say this aren't native speakers of an Asian vernacular English,…
Non-native speaker here. Don't "correct" and "right" have the same meaning? Do most American/European native speakers feel so strongly about using "correct" in a conversation to show agreement?
My attempt to explain:
Words have definitions. But also have connotations - a secondary meaning/implication/feeling. Connotations usually come from where these words are often used. Like formal vs informal speaking. Pub language is not often used during a pitch at a board meeting.
The word "Correct" is usually used by teachers or authority figures to judge the work of their students or subordinates. "Correct" works if the other person is contractually obliged to supply you with something to meet parameters.
The word "Right" (applied to validation) is more casually used by most everyone talking to their peers.
But many conversations are educational/clarifying and entered into by both parties voluntarily. In this context, "Correct" can seem an awful lot like they are trying to elevate themselves to be your superior or teacher, thus demeaning you to student/subordinate level. And so, many will opt to simply abort such a conversation if they don't have to continue.
For my part though, while this still irritates me, I see a person's use of "Correct" to be them validating their own mental model against what you've said. It is extreme shorthand for "No argument, we are in perfect agreeance on that point."
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#55An interesting article. Something interesting maybe none or few you will likely experience: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous meetings, presumably any 12-step meeting. Say what you will about the 12 steps, and the belief of god that is associated with them. Feel free to disagree with the dogma. As a member I openly do that from time to time. The real beauty of these meetings is that when so…
>I do not believe in an all powerful and loving god because there is simply too much needless suffering in the world I'm suspect that's not the only reason, but I'll ask just in case: how much can suffering be reduced without the abrogation of free will?
Why are you so sure that free will exists?
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#56An interesting article. Something interesting maybe none or few you will likely experience: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous meetings, presumably any 12-step meeting. Say what you will about the 12 steps, and the belief of god that is associated with them. Feel free to disagree with the dogma. As a member I openly do that from time to time. The real beauty of these meetings is that when so…
>I do not believe in an all powerful and loving god Correct me if I'm wrong, but AA just requires you to believe in some kind of higher power, does it not? Saint Anselm's interpretation of God is not required. I don't know if you could stretch it all the way to Einstein's God, but you could probably get away with Zeus.
I've heard people say their HP is "blue". I've also heard "G.O.D.": "Group of Drunks". So I think you can stretch it as much as necessary.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#57One thing that always bothers me about this is that interrupters are often seen as bad, while non-interrupters are seen as good. You hear this a lot in the context of engineering meetings - there's Tommy the interrupter who always shouts his thoughts, while Grace the quiet one has lots of intelligent things to say but never gets a chance because people are talking over her. It's always portrayed as the interrupter's…
There are easy, non-offensive, non-interrupting methods of communicating while another person is talking. Signal yes/no, dissent, agreement? Thumbs up or down, Nod or shake head. Applause? Deaf people's clap (raise both hands, oscillate quickly around z-axis). Want to say something? Raise one hand. Want the speaker to get on with it? Circular motion with the tip of the index finger around the y-axis. Strongly disagre…
> Want the speaker to get on with it? Circular motion with the tip of the index finger around the y-axis.
If someone did this to me I'd find it pretty offensive, much more so than being interrupted. Unless that person was explicitly asked to help keep time beforehand.
Details aside, all of these examples are basically substitutes for 1-3 words. Hardly anyone is interrupting to say just a word or two, and such interruptions aren't really disruptive anyway.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#58An interesting article. Something interesting maybe none or few you will likely experience: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous meetings, presumably any 12-step meeting. Say what you will about the 12 steps, and the belief of god that is associated with them. Feel free to disagree with the dogma. As a member I openly do that from time to time. The real beauty of these meetings is that when so…
Ever read the problem of pain by c s lewis? Interesting perspective on the existence of suffering from someone who believes in the Christian God.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#59An interesting article. Something interesting maybe none or few you will likely experience: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous meetings, presumably any 12-step meeting. Say what you will about the 12 steps, and the belief of god that is associated with them. Feel free to disagree with the dogma. As a member I openly do that from time to time. The real beauty of these meetings is that when so…
>I do not believe in an all powerful and loving god because there is simply too much needless suffering in the world I'm suspect that's not the only reason, but I'll ask just in case: how much can suffering be reduced without the abrogation of free will?
A lot... the only suffering that would require abrogation of free will is the one we do to each other.
Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)
#60One thing that always bothers me about this is that interrupters are often seen as bad, while non-interrupters are seen as good. You hear this a lot in the context of engineering meetings - there's Tommy the interrupter who always shouts his thoughts, while Grace the quiet one has lots of intelligent things to say but never gets a chance because people are talking over her. It's always portrayed as the interrupter's…
The reality is that Grace is smart but that doesn't mean everyone else in the room is wrong. To interject and argue a "better" perspective requires a certain level of arrogance that not everyone has. People like Grace, who don't have this arrogance, will instead just let the louder more arrogant people run the show because at the end of the day it probably doesn't matter. Moreover, this arrogance can easily mark you…
> To interject and argue a "better" perspective requires a certain level of arrogance that not everyone has.
That's one way of looking at it. Another perspective would be "we're all here trying to solve this problem that we're talking about, so obviously if someone has a solution they think would work, they'd say it. No one is, so I'll offer my thoughts since it's better than nothing"