4 ms·

I wonder if it's worth also observing how often men would interrupt other men, and see if the men are actually interrupting the women with a greater frequency.

by ColanR 6y ago

klyrs 6y ago
See, for example, table 1 of the study in question https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/JacobiSchweers_Online.pdf https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.or...
- ColanR 6y ago
  Indeed. However, note how small the sample size is, which makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions. Quote from p14: > Finally, we considered the possibility that seniority may be at play and that gender simply coincides with seniority. We recognized that two of the three female Justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, are more junior on the Court and that each is interrupted far more frequently than Justice Ginsburg. In addition, Table 1 provides some provisional support for the seniority hypothesis because of the most senior Justices - Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer — only Ginsburg and Breyer are interrupted at high rates. In contrast, the more junior Justices — Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito — account for the other seven high interruption rates.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    As I said, "for example" -- it's a 118-page paper that contains much more than that single table. Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.
    - ColanR 6y ago
      Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave. > not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal. > your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...
      - klyrs 6y ago
        It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
        ColanR 6y ago
        > It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.
    - 6y ago
Grakel 6y ago
Yes, men interrupt each other frequently for efficiency, and (if we like each other) we constantly insult or "mess with" each other, as an evolved system of decision checks within a team. But we're no longer on single gender hunting teams or war parties. I think it's good that life has gotten so easy that progress today means dealing with feelings related issues as a society.
- aeternum 6y ago
  You have quite a few interesting assumptions within that comment: 1) Does interrupting generally increase or decrease communication efficiency. 2) Do males interrupt more? (I believe you are right about this as I recall some studies) 3) Should we optimize for dealing with feelings rather than efficiency? For example: Will the decreased efficiency result in more lost lives due to a delayed cure for cancer or heart disease?
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
Weaker men get often interrupted, the ones who stand for themselves like the parent said, will prevail, no matter what gender. Men are more competitive and dominant, comes from nature.
- XorNot 6y ago
  The Alpha Wolf study has since been discredited, since it was based entirely on wolves in captivity and generally under some degree of external stress. Observations of wild wolves did not observe similar behavior - specifically, they observed that wolf packs are essentially communal decision making oriented with a loose meritocracy - the lead wolf is whichever one is most capable to take on the initiative for a task, and varies from activity to activity. The idea of the "dominant" wolf always being in charge turns out not to be the case, because it's only relevant when the pack believes it's in danger of a fight, in which case they send the largest wolf forward in interactions. That wolf isn't actually in charge of the pack though - it's literally just the favored fighter. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/no-such-thing-alpha-male-...

I wonder if it's worth also observing how often men would interrupt other men, and see if the men are actually interrupting the women with a greater frequency.

by ColanR 6y ago

I wonder if it's worth also observing how often men would interrupt other men, and see if the men are actually interrupting the women with a greater frequency.

klyrs 6y ago

See, for example, table 1 of the study in question https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/JacobiSchweers_Online.pdf https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.or...

ColanR 6y ago
Indeed. However, note how small the sample size is, which makes it extremely difficult to draw conclusions. Quote from p14: > Finally, we considered the possibility that seniority may be at play and that gender simply coincides with seniority. We recognized that two of the three female Justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, are more junior on the Court and that each is interrupted far more frequently than Justice Ginsburg. In addition, Table 1 provides some provisional support for the seniority hypothesis because of the most senior Justices - Ginsburg, Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer — only Ginsburg and Breyer are interrupted at high rates. In contrast, the more junior Justices — Kagan, Sotomayor, and Alito — account for the other seven high interruption rates.
- klyrs 6y ago
  As I said, "for example" -- it's a 118-page paper that contains much more than that single table. Which, by the way, summarizes a full year of oral arguments at the supreme court -- not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset. And yes, there is much nuance in the article, and they do consider and analyze confounding factors, but your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part.
  - ColanR 6y ago
    Yes, you did give an example. The quote I referenced is from the discussion in the article of the example you gave - even inside the quote it makes an explicit reference to the table you pointed me to. You're welcome to make another example, but I was specifically responding to the one you gave. That's not cherry-picking, that's a totally relevant counter-example to the one you gave. > not actually a small sample size, but a total dataset Guess I didn't articulate super well. That dataset only covers a very small number of people in a very artificial environment - top lawyers dissecting legal matters from opposite sides of almost every spectrum is hardly an environment representative of e.g. general conversation. Sure, there's a lot of observations made over a period of time, but it's observations of only 9 people, which is a really tiny group when you're trying to make any extrapolation at all to the general population, even if the circumstances had been anything approaching normal. > your cherry-picked quotation seems to indicate a lack of genuine curiosity on your part Are you trying to make a personal jab, or was that just accidental? Maybe 'interrupting' isn't the only interpersonal (systemic?) abrasion that might need fixing in society...
    - klyrs 6y ago
      It's not just a tiny group. It's the most influential group of 9 people at the very top of an egalitarian system of law. Do they represent all of us? No, not perfectly. They should represent the best of us. One reason that this study exists is that it's a deliberative body with excellent records. It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but that would require ridiculously expensive (and highly invasive) data acquisition.
      - ColanR 6y ago
        > It would be great if longitudinal studies of huge populations existed, but... That's the problem, isn't it. There's so many things we would know if only we had better data. However, until we actually have useful data, we have to simply acknowledge that there is insufficient data to say anything worth saying. To do otherwise is unscientific.
  - 6y ago

Grakel 6y ago

Yes, men interrupt each other frequently for efficiency, and (if we like each other) we constantly insult or "mess with" each other, as an evolved system of decision checks within a team. But we're no longer on single gender hunting teams or war parties. I think it's good that life has gotten so easy that progress today means dealing with feelings related issues as a society.

aeternum 6y ago
You have quite a few interesting assumptions within that comment: 1) Does interrupting generally increase or decrease communication efficiency. 2) Do males interrupt more? (I believe you are right about this as I recall some studies) 3) Should we optimize for dealing with feelings rather than efficiency? For example: Will the decreased efficiency result in more lost lives due to a delayed cure for cancer or heart disease?

9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago

Weaker men get often interrupted, the ones who stand for themselves like the parent said, will prevail, no matter what gender. Men are more competitive and dominant, comes from nature.

XorNot 6y ago
The Alpha Wolf study has since been discredited, since it was based entirely on wolves in captivity and generally under some degree of external stress. Observations of wild wolves did not observe similar behavior - specifically, they observed that wolf packs are essentially communal decision making oriented with a loose meritocracy - the lead wolf is whichever one is most capable to take on the initiative for a task, and varies from activity to activity. The idea of the "dominant" wolf always being in charge turns out not to be the case, because it's only relevant when the pack believes it's in danger of a fight, in which case they send the largest wolf forward in interactions. That wolf isn't actually in charge of the pack though - it's literally just the favored fighter. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/no-such-thing-alpha-male-...