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

The Church of Interruption (2018)

sambleckley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#61

Post by BarryMilo »

amin wrote: post #21

I know the COI members will downvote this, but I do not associate with people who constantly interrupt others. Because they’re often impolite in many other ways as well. I love my life not communicating with them. And I think there’s a correlation between people who have a constant desire to assert dominance over others, and people who often interrupt. It’s like the earliest red flag for me. I know because I used to…

It's a very cultural thing I think. I see it I guess in movies but here in Canada (Montreal) it's kind of unthinkable to me, doubly so in French. Interestingly, words are much longer in French so interrupting should make more sense but it is not done, period.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#62

Post by 1ark »

amin wrote: post #21

I know the COI members will downvote this, but I do not associate with people who constantly interrupt others. Because they’re often impolite in many other ways as well. I love my life not communicating with them. And I think there’s a correlation between people who have a constant desire to assert dominance over others, and people who often interrupt. It’s like the earliest red flag for me. I know because I used to…

Reminds me of Bill Watterson:

"I wish I had more friends, but people are such jerks. If you can just get most people to leave you alone, you’re doing good. If you can find even one person you really like, you’re lucky. And if that person can also stand you, you’re really lucky."

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#63

Post by t-3 »

awillen wrote: post #3

One 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…

> But if it's reasonable for me to change my behavior, why can't we expect the non-interrupters to do their part a bit and... interrupt?

I'm not an interrupter. When I feel the need to interrupt (like when I'm being monologued at and need to bring up a point or ask for clarification), it doesn't work, because interrupters ignore interruptions and don't even listen to what other people say. The other half of the conversation is just their time to think up the next monologue. I'd rather leave than have to scream to get my point heard.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#64

Post by twelvedogs »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #38
canadev wrote: post #31

An 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?

the idea that we have perfect free will already is silly, so much of who we are and what we are allowed to do is environmental or due to circumstance. who cares if some magic dude makes people not want to murder kids when circumstance already makes a bunch of simple things like choosing to be an artist as a career impossible?

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#65

Post by 1ark »

Espressosaurus wrote: post #32
awillen wrote: post #3

One 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 issue that I don't know how to deal with is the folks that will expound at length--for minutes at a time--without yielding the floor unless they're interrupted. And sometimes not even then. I'm already on board, let's move on to the part where we solve the problem! I've attempted to make it more conditional. People I know who are meek I'll damned well hold my tongue. People I know who are Barkers I'll damned well…

I think you could ask for permission to interrupt. From what I can grasp of the example:

Get attention from the speaker, raising hand or whatever

- "Can I interrupt you for a second?"

- "Yes."

- "I think we all understand most of this... Does everyone understand?"

Look for confirmation from others

- "Could we skip to the next item/solving the problem?"

In the happy path your peers (some of them meeks) are glad someone interrupted the monologue. Of course outcomes will be different all the time. Same with tangents. "I think we have drifted a bit from the topic, or is there a point?" It's easy to get carried away. But being polite there should rarely be an issue.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#67

Post by reitanqild »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #58
canadev wrote: post #31

An 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.

Even more interesting since he used to be a determined atheist.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#68

Post by aporetics »

Nomentatus wrote: post #36

As someone who's been an interlocutor for six decades, my concern is the reverse. Yes there are people who love to dominate no matter what - and interrupt anytime. But there are far more people who think that conversation is either a monologue or an exchange of monologues - and it absolutely is not. An interjection is not an interruption, and conversation IS a contract; meaning that the subject must be of interest to…

I didn’t know that, about Greek plays. Thank you.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#69

Post by nine_k »

twelvedogs wrote: post #64
QuarterReptile wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

the idea that we have perfect free will already is silly, so much of who we are and what we are allowed to do is environmental or due to circumstance. who cares if some magic dude makes people not want to murder kids when circumstance already makes a bunch of simple things like choosing to be an artist as a career impossible?

Free will, not free lunch!

Also, since artists exist, it is possible to choose an artistic career. It's just not possible to guarantee that it would give you any comforts in life besides art.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#70

Post by nine_k »

scarier wrote: post #55
QuarterReptile wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It's postulated by the same system of faith which postulates the existence of God which is omnipotent, omniscient, and merciful.
Post reply on HN