5 ms·

I can't find the study, but men interrupt women much more than they interrupt men. Also, women interrupt other women more than they interrupt men as well.

MadSax 9y ago
There was a study of the video already?
ethbro 9y ago
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_men_interrupt_women_more_in_tech_workplaces_but_high_ranking_women.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_m... Men are 3x as likely to interrupt women. Women will interrupt women, but rarely men. Informal study, but decent sample size.
- tclancy 9y ago
  It's funny that you linked to that as I was about to dig up a more recent episode, http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/05/john_mcwhorter_with_deborah_tannen_on_the_language_of_women_s_friendships.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0.... Which is in no way to diminish the fact men talk over women but to point out the idea of different conversational styles and how they can each frustrate the other.
- tutufan 9y ago
  "Informal study"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
- devmunchies 9y ago
  If men are 3x as likely to interrupt women, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies?
  - orbitingpluto 9y ago
    If men are 3x as likely to engage in violent behaviour, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies? /sarcasm
    - devmunchies 9y ago
      Interrupting somebody else isn't physically hurting anybody. This is a real argument that affects lots of people. Don't dilute it with your sarcastic strawmans.
      - orbitingpluto 9y ago
        I was countering one strawman argument with another. Please realize that the bar to meet here isn't violence, it's professional and courtesy.
        devmunchies 9y ago
        When did I advocate violence? I was trying to take a step back by suggesting that there may be no sexism involved here. Its a valid point.
        orbitingpluto 9y ago
        You didn't. I don't think you did. It was just a reverse moving goalposts argument to suggest that both propositions were wrong. But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man. Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory. This story overwhelmingly demonstrates how absurd sexism can get. In any case it is perfectly acceptable to shame someone when they are being rude and excluding someone one from contributing. Especially when that someone is an expert. The reason why I think she did not take any affront is because she already understands the subject matter. She's motivated not only in understanding herself, but in determining and helping others to comprehend. She can't actually engage in a proper discussion until she realizes that her counterpart also understands the material. When things get complicated, you have to continually establish a common basis for discussion which requires fostering patience.
- Sacho 9y ago
  I don't think this informal study presents as strong of an argument as you may think it does. As the author themselves admitted, seniority was strongly correlated with rate of interruption, but they didn't control for that in their overall gender comparison. The top three out of four interrupters were women. As it turns out, that particular set of people had a lower number of women in positions of seniority. Is that not a plausible explanation, or at least a confounding factor that you would like to eliminate, before you declare that men interrupt x3 as much?
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Do you have another, more rigorous study?
aaronchall 9y ago
You gotta find the meta study that aggregates the verification studies (and discounts the first due to publication bias.)

MadSax 9y ago

There was a study of the video already?

ethbro 9y ago

http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_men_interrupt_women_more_in_tech_workplaces_but_high_ranking_women.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/07/23/study_m... Men are 3x as likely to interrupt women. Women will interrupt women, but rarely men. Informal study, but decent sample size.

tclancy 9y ago
It's funny that you linked to that as I was about to dig up a more recent episode, http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/05/john_mcwhorter_with_deborah_tannen_on_the_language_of_women_s_friendships.html http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2017/0.... Which is in no way to diminish the fact men talk over women but to point out the idea of different conversational styles and how they can each frustrate the other.
tutufan 9y ago
"Informal study"? Isn't that an oxymoron?
devmunchies 9y ago
If men are 3x as likely to interrupt women, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies?
- orbitingpluto 9y ago
  If men are 3x as likely to engage in violent behaviour, is it sexism or simply a biological tendency? And if it is a biological tendency, is it not sexist to shame men for their more assertive tendencies? /sarcasm
  - devmunchies 9y ago
    Interrupting somebody else isn't physically hurting anybody. This is a real argument that affects lots of people. Don't dilute it with your sarcastic strawmans.
    - orbitingpluto 9y ago
      I was countering one strawman argument with another. Please realize that the bar to meet here isn't violence, it's professional and courtesy.
      - devmunchies 9y ago
        When did I advocate violence? I was trying to take a step back by suggesting that there may be no sexism involved here. Its a valid point.
        orbitingpluto 9y ago
        You didn't. I don't think you did. It was just a reverse moving goalposts argument to suggest that both propositions were wrong. But "if men are 3x as likely to interrupt women" is literally an example of sexism... the likelihood of interrupting a woman over interrupting a man. Sexism IS a biological tendency. There is no rational basis for it when scientists are contributing to something as esoteric as string theory. This story overwhelmingly demonstrates how absurd sexism can get. In any case it is perfectly acceptable to shame someone when they are being rude and excluding someone one from contributing. Especially when that someone is an expert. The reason why I think she did not take any affront is because she already understands the subject matter. She's motivated not only in understanding herself, but in determining and helping others to comprehend. She can't actually engage in a proper discussion until she realizes that her counterpart also understands the material. When things get complicated, you have to continually establish a common basis for discussion which requires fostering patience.
Sacho 9y ago
I don't think this informal study presents as strong of an argument as you may think it does. As the author themselves admitted, seniority was strongly correlated with rate of interruption, but they didn't control for that in their overall gender comparison. The top three out of four interrupters were women. As it turns out, that particular set of people had a lower number of women in positions of seniority. Is that not a plausible explanation, or at least a confounding factor that you would like to eliminate, before you declare that men interrupt x3 as much?
- ethbro 9y ago
  Do you have another, more rigorous study?

aaronchall 9y ago

You gotta find the meta study that aggregates the verification studies (and discounts the first due to publication bias.)