6 ms·

And just hazarding a guess, I suspect women transfer out of the group at the first opportunity.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kranner 7y ago
Is there any reason to think women are less likely to be interrupters than men? I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/women-sexism-work-huffington-kamala-harris.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/busi...
  - singron 7y ago
    I've definitely witnessed this, but I think these are two separate phenomena of "interruption". The COI refers to a case where I interrupt because I understand and I don't require additional elaboration. The way I've often seen women interrupted is more like the interrupter wasn't really listening to the speaker at all and is just arbitrarily taking control of the conversation.
    - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
      I'd read your point as splitting hairs. In either case, the interruption has happened because of the belief that the speaker is not contributing new, valuable information to the conversation.
      - c1ccccc1 7y ago
        On the contrary, I would say that it makes a large difference whether someone interrupts me because they have understood the idea I was trying to communicate, or because they never cared about that idea in the first place.
- freddie_mercury 7y ago
  The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut. As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men. You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors. FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592732/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
  - kranner 7y ago
    I'm well aware of the phenomenon but it is not the kind of interruption I'm talking about. To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly. Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
    - freddie_mercury 7y ago
      I think you are misunderstanding the research. It shows exactly what you are talking about; the link discusses just one recent subset of the phenomenon. Men interrupt men more than women do. Men interrupt women more than women do. Men interrupt more than women.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'm a female interrupter. I have two adult sons. We have lively conversations. I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out. I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc. Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases. It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.
closeparen 7y ago
Alice makes a multipart statement about topics one and two. Bob replies to topic two and starts to segue to topic three. Carol has something important to say about topic one. What is Carol supposed to do? Let the entire chain play out, then transition back to topic one when there's an opening? I know people can be bitter about interruption, but in my experience you get a prompt and decisive smackdown for trying to backtrack, especially when pressed for time. It seems important to get your point in while it's relevant. Interruption of the form, "hey, before we move on, can we talk about X" seems to be the way do that. How would you handle this situation? I'm especially interested in this, because interruption and other conversational "traffic control" flow much less naturally on international video conferences, and our remote meetings tend to be stressful and chaotic messes. Short of a formal, parliamentarian moderator, it's not clear how to make these better.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  There is a big difference between large group meetings and face-to-face conversations between 2–3 people. In a large group meeting it might help to have a semi-formal agenda and make sure each item is finished before moving on. Getting everyone to read prepared written documents might also help.
  - dbcurtis 7y ago
    Yes, this. Agenda with a “last call” before taking up next topic.
- dwd 7y ago
  Carol has to let it go. Worst thing to do is interrupt the current flow. She will come across as a "Barker" like she had sat there not listening to what Alice or Bob had to say and was just thinking about what she wanted to say about topic one the whole time. Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one. Doing this you immediately relinquish control of the conversation, and when appropriate say your thoughts. Otherwise, just let it go. Is it going to kill you to not say it? I read a good summary once of analysing the thought process: - Does this need to be said? - Does this need to be said by me? - Does this need to be said by me now? Which are good questions to ask when interrupting the flow of a conversation.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Why would you guess that?
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  Because license to interrupt often gets applied unequally WRT gender. Smart women go where their career isn’t impacted by boorish behavior.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    Interrupting in conversation is not inherently “boorish”, or inherently male. But there’s obviously a big difference between interrupting someone in the middle of a large formal work meeting in front of an assortment of colleagues vs. interrupting someone in the middle of a small collaborative technical discussion in a closely-knit team. The former is often more about demonstrating perceived social superiority rather than guiding a conversation, and such behavior is boorish.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Is there any reason to think women are less likely to be interrupters than men? I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dbcurtis 7y ago
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/women-sexism-work-huffington-kamala-harris.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/busi...
- singron 7y ago
  I've definitely witnessed this, but I think these are two separate phenomena of "interruption". The COI refers to a case where I interrupt because I understand and I don't require additional elaboration. The way I've often seen women interrupted is more like the interrupter wasn't really listening to the speaker at all and is just arbitrarily taking control of the conversation.
  - noobiemcfoob 7y ago
    I'd read your point as splitting hairs. In either case, the interruption has happened because of the belief that the speaker is not contributing new, valuable information to the conversation.
    - c1ccccc1 7y ago
      On the contrary, I would say that it makes a large difference whether someone interrupts me because they have understood the idea I was trying to communicate, or because they never cared about that idea in the first place.
freddie_mercury 7y ago
The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut. As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men. You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors. FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/592732/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
- kranner 7y ago
  I'm well aware of the phenomenon but it is not the kind of interruption I'm talking about. To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly. Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
  - freddie_mercury 7y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding the research. It shows exactly what you are talking about; the link discusses just one recent subset of the phenomenon. Men interrupt men more than women do. Men interrupt women more than women do. Men interrupt more than women.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
I'm a female interrupter. I have two adult sons. We have lively conversations. I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out. I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc. Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases. It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.

closeparen 7y ago

Alice makes a multipart statement about topics one and two. Bob replies to topic two and starts to segue to topic three. Carol has something important to say about topic one. What is Carol supposed to do? Let the entire chain play out, then transition back to topic one when there's an opening? I know people can be bitter about interruption, but in my experience you get a prompt and decisive smackdown for trying to backtrack, especially when pressed for time. It seems important to get your point in while it's relevant. Interruption of the form, "hey, before we move on, can we talk about X" seems to be the way do that. How would you handle this situation? I'm especially interested in this, because interruption and other conversational "traffic control" flow much less naturally on international video conferences, and our remote meetings tend to be stressful and chaotic messes. Short of a formal, parliamentarian moderator, it's not clear how to make these better.

jacobolus 7y ago
There is a big difference between large group meetings and face-to-face conversations between 2–3 people. In a large group meeting it might help to have a semi-formal agenda and make sure each item is finished before moving on. Getting everyone to read prepared written documents might also help.
- dbcurtis 7y ago
  Yes, this. Agenda with a “last call” before taking up next topic.
dwd 7y ago
Carol has to let it go. Worst thing to do is interrupt the current flow. She will come across as a "Barker" like she had sat there not listening to what Alice or Bob had to say and was just thinking about what she wanted to say about topic one the whole time. Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one. Doing this you immediately relinquish control of the conversation, and when appropriate say your thoughts. Otherwise, just let it go. Is it going to kill you to not say it? I read a good summary once of analysing the thought process: - Does this need to be said? - Does this need to be said by me? - Does this need to be said by me now? Which are good questions to ask when interrupting the flow of a conversation.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Why would you guess that?

dbcurtis 7y ago
Because license to interrupt often gets applied unequally WRT gender. Smart women go where their career isn’t impacted by boorish behavior.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  Interrupting in conversation is not inherently “boorish”, or inherently male. But there’s obviously a big difference between interrupting someone in the middle of a large formal work meeting in front of an assortment of colleagues vs. interrupting someone in the middle of a small collaborative technical discussion in a closely-knit team. The former is often more about demonstrating perceived social superiority rather than guiding a conversation, and such behavior is boorish.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]