Comment by theonemind
3 years ago
I speak when I think someone can use what I have to say. If they interrupt me, I just take it as judgment that they disagree and stop talking.
Possibly a post-hoc rationalization because I prefer put my energy into what I want to say, not fighting bad conversation flow control. It's just too much of a hassle.
I think there's a subtle system that interrupters use (and for context I am definitely an interrupter, though I very consciously work to not be one when I'm with non-interrupters). If I'm speaking and you interrupt, if my expectation is that your thought is more valuable than mine, I stop and let you go. If I think my thought is more valuable, I continue. In this situation, you're doing the same thing. So if we both continue to talk, each of us is signaling that we think our thought is more important, but each of us is also taking in the information that the other thinks their thought is more important. So if you're still talking after some threshold (and this is quick, so that's maybe 2-3 seconds), even though I think my thought is important, it's not 2-3 seconds of interruption important, ergo your thought is probably more important, so I cede the metaphorical baton to you.
That might sound insane to non-interrupters, and even for interrupters it's a quick, natural assessment, but if you listen to two interrupters talk for a while, especially about something they're both passionate about, you can pick up on what's happening.
That said, there are also some interrupters who just do not stop speaking once they've interrupted no matter what. They're a minority, but they drive me nuts. So it's all relative, I suppose.
Huh. It's my impression that 2-3 seconds of talking over someone else is not "quick". To me, that's a long time to keep going.
I have a similar thought pattern with who's thoughts are more valuable - but my perception is that the person butting in knows what I am saying and what they want to say, whereas I only know what I'm saying. Therefore, they are in a much better position to determine which thought is more valuable, so my best course of action is probably to pass the baton.
Honestly you might be right about the 2-3 seconds. It's one of those things that happens pretty quickly and naturally, so it's very plausible I'm judging the timing wrong.
But yeah, 100% agree with what you're saying, but the part I'd add is that if I think that they think they know what I'm saying but are likely to be wrong, that's when I'll keep talking over them as they try to interrupt. That might happen if I'm about to make a point that's counterintuitive, so they've likely misjudged where I'm going.
My mom (from whom I definitely learned to be an interrupter) and I do this to each other in more direct fashion with a "no no, shush, I haven't made my point yet," or something along those lines. But that obviously only works because it's just a normal conversational paradigm for us, and neither of us would ever get offended.
Certainly agree on there being "good" and "bad" interruptors. Being a jerk with the way you interrupt is never a good idea, and unfortunately the reputation of interruption in general as mode of communication has been sullied by such jerks.
I also agree with your analysis of us interrupters having a secret system—that's totally the case in my experience as well. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you instinctually view the act of interruption as inherently disrespectful or not.
As a habitual interrupter, this is one of my big fears when talking to non-interrupters. For me, frequent brief interruptions is how I follow along with what the other person is saying—otherwise it's almost certain I'll lose track. If I am not actively engaged in a conversation, I find it very difficult to retain anything from that conversation, so in a way, coming from me interruption is intended as a sign of respect, because it means I care about what you're saying and want to constantly check my understanding. I am always terrified that people will see it as rude or dismissive, because that's not at all how I intend it—it's just how I process new information.
Luckily, most people I interact with seem to not be put off by it, and I make an effort to make it obvious that my interjections are supposed to come across as encouraging. In situations where it's best for me to remain silent, I often struggle to keep from losing interest. My retention rate for Zoom calls is close to zero as a result!
I quit my last job for several reasons but one was my team leader's inability to go 10 seconds without interrupting myself or someone else. I'd caution anyone against romanticizing it because for some people, being unable to complete a thought without interruption is unbearable.
To expand on why this can be so frustrating for me at least:
* If I have something significant or impactful to say, and someone interrupts midway through, the effect is diminished.
* If I'm saying something which I intend to follow with a qualification, e.g. "Elegant code is a priority, but we need to actually deliver code too", and someone interrupts before I add my qualification to dispute my claim or add their own qualification, then now we have pointless conflict, and I appear silly as though my statement wasn't thought through.
* If someone interrupts to complete my thought for me, and they get it wrong, suddenly I have to navigate the social implications of gently shutting them down and possibly returning to their comment later, and I'm now focusing on that instead of the topic.
* One can engage in active listening without interjecting at every opportunity, but admittedly it takes practice to learn the cues of each person you're speaking to and when is an appropriate time to jump in. I'm sure that I've been interrupted by many people many times in my life so far, but there's only 2 that I remember as having made a habit of it. Probably because they did it regularly, never caught themselves and apologised, and frustrated me which I imagine imprinted on me in some way as emotional events tend to.
mkaic, I don't mean to liken you to these people. I obviously don't know you or the way you converse so please take these only as anecdotes about the experiences of someone on the other end of the interruption spectrum. I've also just seen another comment of yours relating to "good" and "bad" interrupters and that seems like a reasonable distinction. I think my experience is with the bad ones, and maybe the good ones just fly under the radar because it feels like a natural interaction.
I prefer wait style, but I don't mind occasional interruptions so long as they are very brief and immediately yield control back to the original talker. Like:
---
A: We just got a new shipment of XYZs, we need to --
B: Woa woa sorry, what's a XYZ again?
A: It's a type of ABC.
B: Right, okay.
A: Anyway, we need to ...
---
In that exchange, it's still implicitly A's turn even when B is speaking; B is just "borrowing" the turn and has to give it back quickly. I wouldn't find this rude; B just did it so he wouldn't be bamboozled by the unfamiliar term in the rest of the conversation. But if B had interrupted and started off down on his own topic, like how in his opinion it's a bad idea to buy XYZs and we should make our own instead, that would be rude. That's stealing A's turn, not borrowing.
Matching communication styles with your coworkers is very important. I was once in a team with mostly non-interrupters and was unhappy (but didn't really realise it). I moved cities, countries (to a more interrupty place), and teams, and my new coworkers and manager interrupt all the time. I think the flow of conversation is much better, and we get on the same page faster.
Obviously people can change communication styles over time (see the article for an example), but sometimes people prefer things a certain way. And that's fine!
If someone's obviously not an interrupter, I try to consciously pause for questions and avoid interrupting. Learning about different communication styles and trying not to dominate is crucial too.
> I just take it as judgment
> fighting bad conversation flow control
> hassle
Something to keep in mind on topics like this is that neither of these two styles is bad or wrong - they are merely different; your perfectly-valid communication style can be just as irritating and off-putting to someone else as theirs is to you.
Heads isn't better than tails, you know?