21–30 of 151 posts
This falls apart when you have an interrupter who thinks they know everything, but really doesn't have a clue. They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
I don't agree that Strong Civility requires speaking only briefly. In fact, it makes me think someone who thinks that is just barely suppressing their interruption. "I'll wait until you finish...for a minute." No, taking turns speaking is its own reward, just like speeding a conversation along via interruptions is it's own reward.
I find it really rude when people are obviously just waiting their turn to say their prepared statement. It means they're not really listening to the other person, thus it's not really a conversation. Should someone keep score when that happens?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One person’s “confrontation” is another person’s “collaboration”. From the other point of view, never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact.
You've never heard of parents that might shout down any misplaced utterance, have you?
It's not the same as using short sentences - personally I don't expect/allow to be interrupted (my friends know me for that).
By ensuring your messages are understood, you also make sure you are having an actual conversation, and not a mutual brain dump (which tends to lead to having a strawman POV of each other's point).
I'm an interrupter, and so are many of my colleagues, but there are a few people in the office who are not, and they don't enjoy our meetings.
And just hazarding a guess, I suspect women transfer out of the group at the first opportunity.
I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.
This falls apart when you have an interrupter who thinks they know everything, but really doesn't have a clue. They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
Or interrupters who interrupt not to complete your thought, but to say whatever they don't want to wait their turn to say.
This falls apart when you have an interrupter who thinks they know everything, but really doesn't have a clue. They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
Or interrupters who interrupt not to complete your thought, but to say whatever they don't want to wait their turn to say.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of “thou shalt speak briefly” is that the argument is kept to a minimum required for understanding, with the expectation that a listener who does not understand will ask for clarification. The speaker does not just keep talking on and on about the same thing, waiting to be interrupted. (Note that “briefly” can sometimes be a rather extended argument, if it happens to be irreducibly complicated. The point is…
I could be wrong, but by my read none of that is supported by the text.
In a preemptive model, each process just does its thing until it gets interrupted by the scheduler, and then then that process does its thing until it gets interrupted in turn. This is the "church of interruption" model. Its the responsibility of the other (scheduler / person) to signal to you (via an interrupt) when your turn is over.
But in the cooperative multitasking model, its the responsibility of the speaker to hand the baton back. It is vulnerable to a single person / process dominating the whole space by talking / running forever. And this is totally what happens when the two cultures meet - I have a friend who is 100% church of interruption. I came back from a retreat feeling calm and peaceful. We talked on the phone for a few hours the next day and I patiently waited for him to be done before I replied - which took about 3 hours. He was vaguely confused / annoyed at me for doing that. Apparently it simply didn't occur to him that if he wanted to know my thoughts he might need to ask me for them.
In the cooperative multitasking world, the golden rule is that all programs should run for a short amount of time then yield back to the scheduler so it can run something else. Its not so cut and dry for humans - I think "speak briefly" is a lossy summary of the rule because it often makes sense for one person to do most of the talking in a conversation. But in the "strong civility" culture its the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of tracking that, and usually do so only with the blessing of the group. Taking all the air in the room is a faux pas.
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.