The Church of Interruption
sambleckley.com
The Church of Interruption
1–10 of 151 posts
Re: The Church of Interruption
#2I 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.
Re: The Church of Interruption
#3I'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.
Re: The Church of Interruption
#4I 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.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. Some people will keep elaborating some point until told to stop, whereas others will assume the other person understood without any explicit evidence that is true.
I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understand them is a separate question from whether they tend to interrupt or not, however.
The most efficient and effective conversations in my experience are 1:1, with two speakers who both explicitly verify that the other person understands their meaning and is using the same definitions of words, and have some kind of efficient protocol for working backwards from a misunderstanding or gap in knowledge as soon as one pops up. There has to be enough trust involved that both interlocutors are willing to quickly and freely admit when they don’t know something or don’t understand an argument.
Re: The Church of Interruption
#5I 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.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. Some people will keep elaborating some point until told to stop, whereas others will assume the other person understood without any explicit evidence that is true. I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understan…
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message.
That's not what the article proposes:
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY
1. Thou shalt not interrupt.
2. Thou shalt speak briefly.
3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak.
==
That said, what's wrong with listening to someone, asking questions if you require more understanding?
Another way of looking at all this: what makes you think that what you have to say is so important that it can't wait for someone to even finish their sentence?
Re: The Church of Interruption
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. Some people will keep elaborating some point until told to stop, whereas others will assume the other person understood without any explicit evidence that is true. I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understan…
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. That's not what the article proposes: DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY 1. Thou shalt not interrupt. 2. Thou shalt speak briefly. 3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak. == That said, what's…
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 that it isn’t over-elaborated, not that it must be short.)
This works if people always ask for clarification when they don’t understand, but in my experience that’s pretty rare, and often a poor assumption; while this style is eminently polite, it sometimes leads to severe miscommunication when there was a fundamental difference in definitions or premises that neither person recognized.
Re: The Church of Interruption
#7This also supports that: if person A has the expectation "they'll interrupt/reply once they understand" and B has the expectation "let the speaker finish", this leads to A rambling. (A has no indication that things were understood).
Re: The Church of Interruption
#8I'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.
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.
Re: The Church of Interruption
#9I 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?
Re: The Church of Interruption
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s less about speaking briefly per se, and more about assuming that the other person understands what you are saying, and saying no more than necessary to convey the message. That's not what the article proposes: DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY 1. Thou shalt not interrupt. 2. Thou shalt speak briefly. 3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak. == That said, what's…
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.