Comment by EGreg
3 years ago
It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder. That way you signal that you have something to retort and they should wrap it up. Think of it like a continuous curve between 0 and 1, rather than a jump to exactly 0 or 1.
In general, in debates where you don’t interrupt, people can just gish gallop all over the place.
And furthermore, verbal conversations aren’t the best way to solve things. Better to break what you say into written claims, and each one can have a community upvote arguments for and against the claim, hyperlinking to other claims.
Most conversations on social networks are totally useless wastes of time where people pretend they know more than they do, and repeat the same thing 3000 other people said in other similar conversations. And nothing gets solved anyway because they have no power to do so LMAO
The older I got the more I realized how much of a waste of time most activities are, unless you are enjoying yourself or building something over time, or raising children. Having a conversation about politics has just as much effect as having one about astronomy, and you may as well just read wikipedia, to get a far more balanced and broad view.
> It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder.
I think absolute pronouncements of what is better or what is worse will always be wrong for someone. For me, I am perfectly capable of waiting a moment after speaking to see if someone wants to respond, and hate having to shout over someone who is interrupting me "a little". But of course it's as unreasonable for me to expect other people always to adapt to my preferences as it is for other people to expect me always to adapt to theirs.
Interrupting "a little" also doesn't work if you have an interrupt-ee who expects just to talk louder, and an interrupt-er who does not intend to be put off: that can, and in my experience usually does, just lead to each of them talking a little louder in turn, until they are both practically shouting, often without noticing that they're doing so.
> But of course it's as unreasonable for me to expect other people always to adapt to my preferences as it is for other people to expect me always to adapt to theirs.
I'm actually not quite so sure about this. Admittedly, as a lifelong member of the waiters, I find "interrupt culture" incredibly frustrating. But I also think there's a framework by which we can establish interrupt culture as ostensibly more rude, even if that's the custom you're used to and expect. Consider children at recess, all wanting to use the same toy. The children could
1. take the toy from whoever is using now when they want it, or
2. use the toy for a short while before returning it so someone else can use it.
You could cast the second a little differently,
3. use the toy until they're done with it before returning it
Assuming the kids can't simply prevent each other from playing and there's some moderation effect to ensure other kids can play at the next recess, both of the "wait culture" analogies seem less rude than the "interrupt culture" one. Of course, the toy represents the shared conversational resource. "The stage," if you will.
I think the societal trick is, then, not to "learn to adjust to wait/interrupt culture if you're used to interrupt/wait culture", but to encourage more mindfulness about using the shared resource and returning it if others want it.
> I'm actually not quite so sure about this. Admittedly, as a lifelong member of the waiters, I find "interrupt culture" incredibly frustrating. But I also think there's a framework by which we can establish interrupt culture as ostensibly more rude, even if that's the custom you're used to and expect.
I think you can definitely make this argument, and it will establish, conveniently, that everyone should do things our way. But then interrupters can make an argument about how, if only we could all agree to do things their way, then things would be so efficient, and no-one would need to waste time waiting for someone else to finish up a sentence whose content they've already guessed, or that they can already tell will be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, or … well, whatever the argument is. Of course, I find your argument more persuasive than the interrupters’; but … well, I would, wouldn't I? If it just so happens that the answer to a vexing societal question is for people to realize that I'm right and do things my way, then I have to become suspicious of whether I'm really arguing as logically as I think I am.
1 reply →
That's funny that he used that word, because waiters repeatedly come and interrupt our dinner to ask how we are doing :-P
Why can't they just have an app or a button to summon them like on an airplane? LOL
1 reply →
> It’s much better to start to interrupt a little and if the person feels they need to continue they will acknowledge that you started and continue talking a bit louder.
One of my friend groups has established a nose touch as a similar (though perhaps less...rude) signal. If you have a point you'd like to make while someone else is speaking, touch your finger to your nose and keep it there. The speaking party is expected to relinquish the conversation soon so the nose toucher can speak their point while it's still relevant.
> One of my friend groups has established a nose touch as a similar (though perhaps less...rude) signal. If you have a point you'd like to make while someone else is speaking, touch your finger to your nose and keep it there. The speaking party is expected to relinquish the conversation soon so the nose toucher can speak their point while it's still relevant.
This is a great idea, although of course it relies on agreement and understanding (of the meaning of the gesture). Which you have in a friend group, but can't necessarily be relied upon in, say, a meeting with a large group.
Do it a couple of times in any group setting and people will begin to understand and possibly adopt it.
There isn't a one true way when it comes to humans - which is a good thing. It would be a shame if the human experience were to be condensed into a standard operating procedure on how humans should talk/debate/converse with other humans.
your first point is true and works well if you have a good team or company culture. you have to know when it's not effective, though. some people or groups will try and dominate conversations and if you don't adjust and interrupt (usually loudly), you'll never be heard.