Comment by seer

For me I think it depends on what is needed to be accomplished.

Interrupt based communication for me is indeed natural when you’re brainstorming and want to solve a really hard problem where everybody is on board and solving it is the most important thing. Like a startup refinement session.

The thing is most human interaction is not like that.

People generally have their position set, and are looking for allies - the words themselves don’t matter much, its the communication of emotions that people are after. Looking for understanding, support, approval etc.

In those scenarios, when communicating information would involve telling people they are actually wrong (communicating disapproval) interrupting would not be considered “nice” as solving the issue is not actually what’s driving the conversation, its the sending and receiving of emotional signals that’s important.

Kinda like some game’s rendition of conversations with just some emojis. Its silly I know but I think the metaphor is actually quite apt.

It took me a while to realize this, as I imagined most conversations were about finding the truth (interrupting). But when I accepted that most of the time its about seeking understanding or alies (waiting). People around me suddenly started saying I became a _much_ better person to talk to… And the thing is, _after_ people put you in the emotional ally bucket mentally for whatever you were discussing, then you can sometimes actually start interrupting each other and solving the problem together.