Comment by js2
3 years ago
I'm first-born and was very much an interrupter growing up. I try to be cognizant of it these days because I value my marriage. (Fortunately my spouse has the patience of Job and we've been together over three decades.) :-)
My second-born brother perceived my interruptions as aggression/dominance and eventually started out-interrupting me. I find it hard to have a conversation with him on any topic that we even slightly disagree.
My third-born sister is just a very loud and gregarious person.
My fourth-born sister, being the youngest, found it very difficult to get a word in edge-wise among the four of us. She grew up to be very aggressive in her speaking when she has a point she wants to make, but is also a very patient listener. Just don't dare interrupt her when she has something to say.
Anyway, I found this paper from a few years back about interruptions among SCOTUS justices pretty interesting:
"Female Supreme Court Justices Are Interrupted More by Male Justices and Advocates" (2017)
https://hbr.org/2017/04/female-supreme-court-justices-are-in...
Which led to the court changing its oral argument rules:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/oct/15/us-supreme-court...
Conversational styles and gender:
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/05/02/exploring-interruption-...
I'm noticing there's no mention of how long speakers would continue without voluntarily allowing someone else to speak before being interrupted.
The paper linked from the HBR article has examples where the justices get interrupted literally in the middle of their questions:
> Antonin Scalia: No. He reached the conclusion because--
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: And that’s completely supported by the proffer.
> Antonin Scalia:--He reached the conclusion because he--
> William H. Rehnquist:--No two voices at the same time. Justice Scalia is asking you a question.
> Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.: Excuse me.
Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor:
> Bert W. Rein: His estimate was that a very small number, and it--it’s in his opinion. It’s--it’s not only by percentage, but it’s by number, and that number is insignificant relative--
> Sonia Sotomayor: Do you think--do you think that change has to happen overnight? And do you think it’s--
> Antonin Scalia: Excuse me. Can I--can I hear what you were about to say? What are those numbers? I was really curious to hear those numbers.
> Bert W. Rein: He assumed, at the outside, that any of the admits that were actually African-American or Hispanic outside the Top Ten, he said let me take that assumption and see what it would add
So I don't think it's the case that the justices are getting interrupted in the middle of long-winded questions. In any case the paper examines interruptions with respect to gender, seniority, and ideology and has a lot more detail than what's in the article.
> Scalia talking right over the top of Sotomayor
This example you provided is actually Scalia stopping Sotomayor from interrupting the first speaker and asking them to continue.
Perhaps there are better examples, however your framing and the framing of the article is not held up by the evidence provided (here, and there).
1 reply →