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

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#71

Post by twelvedogs »

nine_k wrote: post #69
twelvedogs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i mean feel free to attack the example while letting the idea escape, anyone with 5 minutes could come up with a hundred professions where circumstance is the only prerequisite.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#72

Post by myrryr »

I think people are sometimes forced into one position or another by brain chemistry.

If you have ADHD, and can't hold a thought long enough that when it is your turn to talk comes around, then you are forced into a position of interrupting, or, that thought is lost.

Depending on how important or useful it is, you can be put in a lose/lose position.

So, how I interact with people, depends a lot on what they have going on mentally wise.

That took a long time to learn.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#73

Post by jmiskovic »

Fascinating how different online discussions are. We are still competing for eyeballs but we can speak our minds uninterrupted and chose to follow the threads of conversation at our own pace and interest. Another outlier is a group chat where recorded voice messages are used heavily. It's more of series of monologues than a dialogue. It is interesting when the channel explodes, people recording far more content than you can keep up with. Normal conversations can also get loud, but people usually break off into smaller groups instead of talking over each other in a common channel.

The discussion around this article changed my perspective a bit. I find myself quickly losing interest in conversations when interrupts occur, they strike me as rude and disrespectful. Never before saw it as cultural thing, a mechanism that the interrupted party would expect and even appreciate.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#75

Post by iamevn »

myrryr wrote: post #72

I think people are sometimes forced into one position or another by brain chemistry. If you have ADHD, and can't hold a thought long enough that when it is your turn to talk comes around, then you are forced into a position of interrupting, or, that thought is lost. Depending on how important or useful it is, you can be put in a lose/lose position. So, how I interact with people, depends a lot on what they have going…

I have a strong memory from before I realized I was ADHD of hanging out with very good friends. I simply could not get a word in when I had something to say (I'm quieter than most so even my attempts to interrupt would fail) and when the time did come that there was room for me to speak I'd completely lose whatever it was I had to say. It was an incredibly frustrating experience that, thankfully I don't experience often and I've learned some strategies for these situations at work. (Writing things down for later as they come to mind, specific sorts of body language to indicate levels of importance of what I'd like to say, posting in a side channel like a comment on a shared doc or in a shared chatroom, etc)

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#76

Post by tpoacher »

Couple of thoughts:

1. The friend was an a******.

2. I find that the vast majority of people who complain about being interrupted tend to be run-on-sentence people. Let's call them "The Uninterruptibles". It baffles me that this kind of person doesn't consider it to be rude when dominating the conversation for 20 minutes without a single entry point for dialogue, jumping into 10 different topics in that time, but is offended by the inevitable interruption when they try to jump onto the 6th topic without even a full-stop.

3. Interrupters rarely get interrupted, because they generally think in single topics and talk in full sentences. This is in fact the crux of most interruptions: completing one argument or solidifying understanding before jumping to the next. On the rare occasion that an 'interrupter' runs-on a bit themselves, they will gladly accept a clarifying interruption, and if it's important to finish the point before moving on to the next topic, they will indicate so without feigning offense.

4. This means that in the presence of an Uninterruptible, there's a high chance the other person will necessarily become an interrupter, lest they be reduced to a mere spectator. Whereas the Uninterruptible will have plenty of opportunities to reply, interject, and so forth, without ever having to interrupt, due to normal cadence and punctuated thoughts of their conversational counterpart. This makes one person stand out even more as an 'interrupter', but it's ridiculous to blame them for it. Yet this is what happens.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#77

Post by pif »

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?

Not being able to live comfortably out of your favourite hobby ca not justify any harm you cause to another person.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#78

Post by coldtea »

tpoacher wrote: post #76

Couple of thoughts: 1. The friend was an a******. 2. I find that the vast majority of people who complain about being interrupted tend to be run-on-sentence people. Let's call them "The Uninterruptibles" . It baffles me that this kind of person doesn't consider it to be rude when dominating the conversation for 20 minutes without a single entry point for dialogue, jumping into 10 different topics in that time, but is…

>1. The friend was an a***.

I think you've just missed the point - except if we're meant to judge anybody with an opposing view or practice as an asshole.

The (imaginary) friend patiently made his case, gave examples, didn't condemn his friend for being what he is, or the others, nor took it to insults and sentimentality.

>I find that the vast majority of people who complain about being interrupted tend to be run-on-sentence people. Let's call them "The Uninterruptibles".

The post article covers those people, under the "barkers" moniker, and no, they're a different category from the main one discussed (which both interrupt and enjoy being interrupted).

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#79

Post by coldtea »

WastingMyTime89 wrote: post #22

This article seems so gentle to me. I’m surprised American culture is so tolerant of people interrupting. I am from a country where the culture is a lot more formal and here interrupting is seen as extremely impolite and by the second time you do it everyone will probably think you act like a child and treat you like one.

For perspective, my country/culture is intolerant of people not interrupting - and not taking well to being interrupted themselves.

They're are seen as precocious uptight snowflakes - and their protest at interruption (not as in "let me finish", but as in protesting the notion of interruption itself as if below them) is considered impolite and in bad form. At best it's seen like, let's say, eating a slice of pizza with fork and knife in New York.

They are seen to want to monopolize the conversation, or make it not a real conversation (with interruptions, back and forth, and genuine exchange) but a series of monologues from each party.

If we're discussing, we're not there to hear a diatribe in silence. We're there to engage in conversation.

Re: The Church of Interruption (2018)

#80

Post by darkerside »

t-3 wrote: post #63
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 conve…

First, not everybody is the same. If you extrapolate behavior like that, you'll incorrectly label some people.

I'm not sure you fully grasped the article. Some people are Barkers like you describe, but others are waiting and wanting to be interrupted. It shows that you are interested and care.

Post reply on HN