5 ms·

No. What I miss is telephone conversations without anyone constantly interrupting each other because we automatically interpret even tiny delays as pauses invit

No. What I miss is telephone conversations without anyone constantly interrupting each other because we automatically interpret even tiny delays as pauses inviting us to speak.

klibertp 9y ago
That seems more like a matter of culture though? It's not that hard to wait several seconds before starting to speak, right?
- interfixus 9y ago
  Unright. That is not how humans talk to each other.
  - klibertp 9y ago
    Two things: 1. I'm not sure if people are universally incapable of talking like that, ie. with a bit of self-restraint and without cutting in at every opportunity. I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that this is related to the culture of people involved. As an example (or an anecdote) I work remotely full-time and participate in a lot of conference calls, yet I was interrupted just a couple of times. Never twice by the same person, though. 2. People are able to talk (and communicate) in so many different circumstances and environments, like over the radio, on a boat during a storm, on paper, with a flashlight and Morse code... that I don't think it's that hard for them to assimilate yet another protocol to follow when talking. It really shouldn't be impossible, I think. I really strongly suspect it's a matter of culture. I was taught, from a very young age, that interrupting someone when they're speaking is simply rude, and that if you respect someone enough to talk to them, you should also respect them enough to let them say whatever they wished to say. It's also true for many of my acquaintances, at least those from my generation and older. People who talk too much, too often and are unable to let others finish what they're saying are regarded as hyperactive, perhaps with ADHD, or really bad marketers, sect recruiters and such. This is still just an anecdote, but it at least shows that it's possible for groups of people to use a different mode of talking. An honest question: listening what the person has to say from start to finish is so tightly correlated (in my mind) with respect for that person, that I never considered that you can get interrupted, possibly many times in a row, and not feel offended. What do you think about this notion? Do you think that it's a speaker fault if he's out of words for a few seconds, and is responsible for maintaining a steady stream of speech from start to finish? In other words, how do you justify people cutting in? Or is that simply a non-issue to you?
    - gatmne 9y ago
      Your argument sounds awfully like a "you're holding it wrong" argument. Demanding that people adapt to newer technology with more restrictions than previous iterations of the technology is a tall order that many will not entertain. Rude people with poor manners is orthogonal to this issue.
      - klibertp 9y ago
        > Demanding that people adapt to newer technology with more restrictions than previous iterations of the technology is a tall order that many will not entertain. After thinking it through while writing a sibling post, I now think that it's very probable to depend on a country. I think people from (to give an example I'm familiar with) most Warsaw Pact countries may be able to tolerate doing this much better than people in countries accustomed to high-quality products and services. Or it may be just a kind of bubble I live in or something, I'm not entirely sure :)
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      I think you're asking the wrong questions. If there's a pause in speech that reaches a culturally- and situationally-defined length of time, that's basically a signal that someone is done talking, especially if what they've said seems to constitute a complete thought. Imagine that they start talking toward the middle of that pause-period, but the 1/2 second delay on the line stretches the silence past the time where it would be reasonable for you to respond...so you start your response, just in time for the rest of their response to start, then stop 1 second later, when they hear that you started talking. It's not a matter of rudeness or a lack of consideration, it's a misunderstanding partially brought about by the technology in use. Conversation is a fluent flow. It isn't always quick, but it's often constant. There's a rhythm. Break the rhythm, and you're breaking the expectations of your conversational partner. > An honest question: listening what the person has to say from start to finish is so tightly correlated (in my mind) with respect for that person, that I never considered that you can get interrupted, possibly many times in a row, and not feel offended. What do you think about this notion? I was taught that avoiding interruption was a sign of respect, as well. Do you actually get offended if someone interrupts you without meaning to? > Do you think that it's a speaker fault if he's out of words for a few seconds, and is responsible for maintaining a steady stream of speech from start to finish? Usually being the one at a loss for words myself, my answer is "yes". If you don't make some signal that you're working on formulating a response, you can reasonably expect someone else to jump in and fill the space. I don't feel that it's something that needs justified; one can't really "justify" social norms.

No. What I miss is telephone conversations without anyone constantly interrupting each other because we automatically interpret even tiny delays as pauses inviting us to speak.

klibertp 9y ago

That seems more like a matter of culture though? It's not that hard to wait several seconds before starting to speak, right?

interfixus 9y ago
Unright. That is not how humans talk to each other.
- klibertp 9y ago
  Two things: 1. I'm not sure if people are universally incapable of talking like that, ie. with a bit of self-restraint and without cutting in at every opportunity. I'm not sure, but I strongly suspect that this is related to the culture of people involved. As an example (or an anecdote) I work remotely full-time and participate in a lot of conference calls, yet I was interrupted just a couple of times. Never twice by the same person, though. 2. People are able to talk (and communicate) in so many different circumstances and environments, like over the radio, on a boat during a storm, on paper, with a flashlight and Morse code... that I don't think it's that hard for them to assimilate yet another protocol to follow when talking. It really shouldn't be impossible, I think. I really strongly suspect it's a matter of culture. I was taught, from a very young age, that interrupting someone when they're speaking is simply rude, and that if you respect someone enough to talk to them, you should also respect them enough to let them say whatever they wished to say. It's also true for many of my acquaintances, at least those from my generation and older. People who talk too much, too often and are unable to let others finish what they're saying are regarded as hyperactive, perhaps with ADHD, or really bad marketers, sect recruiters and such. This is still just an anecdote, but it at least shows that it's possible for groups of people to use a different mode of talking. An honest question: listening what the person has to say from start to finish is so tightly correlated (in my mind) with respect for that person, that I never considered that you can get interrupted, possibly many times in a row, and not feel offended. What do you think about this notion? Do you think that it's a speaker fault if he's out of words for a few seconds, and is responsible for maintaining a steady stream of speech from start to finish? In other words, how do you justify people cutting in? Or is that simply a non-issue to you?
  - gatmne 9y ago
    Your argument sounds awfully like a "you're holding it wrong" argument. Demanding that people adapt to newer technology with more restrictions than previous iterations of the technology is a tall order that many will not entertain. Rude people with poor manners is orthogonal to this issue.
    - klibertp 9y ago
      > Demanding that people adapt to newer technology with more restrictions than previous iterations of the technology is a tall order that many will not entertain. After thinking it through while writing a sibling post, I now think that it's very probable to depend on a country. I think people from (to give an example I'm familiar with) most Warsaw Pact countries may be able to tolerate doing this much better than people in countries accustomed to high-quality products and services. Or it may be just a kind of bubble I live in or something, I'm not entirely sure :)
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    I think you're asking the wrong questions. If there's a pause in speech that reaches a culturally- and situationally-defined length of time, that's basically a signal that someone is done talking, especially if what they've said seems to constitute a complete thought. Imagine that they start talking toward the middle of that pause-period, but the 1/2 second delay on the line stretches the silence past the time where it would be reasonable for you to respond...so you start your response, just in time for the rest of their response to start, then stop 1 second later, when they hear that you started talking. It's not a matter of rudeness or a lack of consideration, it's a misunderstanding partially brought about by the technology in use. Conversation is a fluent flow. It isn't always quick, but it's often constant. There's a rhythm. Break the rhythm, and you're breaking the expectations of your conversational partner. > An honest question: listening what the person has to say from start to finish is so tightly correlated (in my mind) with respect for that person, that I never considered that you can get interrupted, possibly many times in a row, and not feel offended. What do you think about this notion? I was taught that avoiding interruption was a sign of respect, as well. Do you actually get offended if someone interrupts you without meaning to? > Do you think that it's a speaker fault if he's out of words for a few seconds, and is responsible for maintaining a steady stream of speech from start to finish? Usually being the one at a loss for words myself, my answer is "yes". If you don't make some signal that you're working on formulating a response, you can reasonably expect someone else to jump in and fill the space. I don't feel that it's something that needs justified; one can't really "justify" social norms.