3 ms·

Because you’re the aggressor. It’s as simple as that. If you’re hanging out with buddies who like to playfully shove, that’s fine, but it’s on you if you don’t

Because you’re the aggressor. It’s as simple as that. If you’re hanging out with buddies who like to playfully shove, that’s fine, but it’s on you if you don’t respect someone who doesn’t want to be shoved. You’re welcome to not hangout with people who don’t like being shoved, but that’s on you.

robocat 4y ago
Your completely ignored their point and then responded violently towards awillen. There is more to polite conversation than just interruptions.
- jackblemming 4y ago
  Perhaps I’ve seen too many quiet engineers rudely interrupted to be objective. Many of them happen to be women as well. The self proclaimed interrupters become surprisingly polite when speaking to the CEO. What an interesting phenomenon ;)
  - samvher 4y ago
    If anything I expect people higher up in the hierarchy to be less sensitive about being interrupted, and more on board with optimizing information flow. On the other hand, with people who are more junior/less confident you are more at risk of discouraging them from sharing useful information if you interrupt too often, so it can be counterproductive. One thing that I find tends to help is interrupting with questions rather than statements as that sort of keeps the ball in the other person’s court.
  - darkerside 4y ago
    I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to treat senior leaders differently from peers. More on topic, if we're talking about a business context here, and I think we are, it's important to consider the actual implications. If the team that is willing to shove and be shoved is more effective than the other team, it seems reasonable to expect those who join the team to get their shoving gloves on, fast, if they want to contribute at a high level. Lots of assumptions baked in there, and I'm not saying it's the only valid way to run a good business, by any stretch.
  - robocat 4y ago
    What is your point of repeating the obvious? You basically accused awillen of being that type of engineer, even though awillen wrote against being that type of interruptive arsehole. awillen is asking “how do we convert people to church of interruption”, they are not saying to interrupt. Your reply to my comment is tangential, without connecting to the point I made (perhaps because my own comment was rude: I do reread the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html regularly and I try to follow them . . .).
rgoulter 4y ago
Different cultural styles sometimes conflict. I liked Deborah Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand". She describes this pro-interruption style as "competitive", whereas pro-taking-turns is "collaborative". Of course, if you have some people whose ruleset is "compete/joust", and some whose ruleset is "collaborate/defer", there'll be tension. Overall, Tannen reckoned that those who get the short end of the stick would benefit from different cultural styles being acknowledged, and why it might lead to conflict.

robocat 4y ago

Your completely ignored their point and then responded violently towards awillen. There is more to polite conversation than just interruptions.

jackblemming 4y ago
Perhaps I’ve seen too many quiet engineers rudely interrupted to be objective. Many of them happen to be women as well. The self proclaimed interrupters become surprisingly polite when speaking to the CEO. What an interesting phenomenon ;)
- samvher 4y ago
  If anything I expect people higher up in the hierarchy to be less sensitive about being interrupted, and more on board with optimizing information flow. On the other hand, with people who are more junior/less confident you are more at risk of discouraging them from sharing useful information if you interrupt too often, so it can be counterproductive. One thing that I find tends to help is interrupting with questions rather than statements as that sort of keeps the ball in the other person’s court.
- darkerside 4y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to treat senior leaders differently from peers. More on topic, if we're talking about a business context here, and I think we are, it's important to consider the actual implications. If the team that is willing to shove and be shoved is more effective than the other team, it seems reasonable to expect those who join the team to get their shoving gloves on, fast, if they want to contribute at a high level. Lots of assumptions baked in there, and I'm not saying it's the only valid way to run a good business, by any stretch.
- robocat 4y ago
  What is your point of repeating the obvious? You basically accused awillen of being that type of engineer, even though awillen wrote against being that type of interruptive arsehole. awillen is asking “how do we convert people to church of interruption”, they are not saying to interrupt. Your reply to my comment is tangential, without connecting to the point I made (perhaps because my own comment was rude: I do reread the https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html regularly and I try to follow them . . .).

rgoulter 4y ago

Different cultural styles sometimes conflict. I liked Deborah Tannen's "You Just Don't Understand". She describes this pro-interruption style as "competitive", whereas pro-taking-turns is "collaborative". Of course, if you have some people whose ruleset is "compete/joust", and some whose ruleset is "collaborate/defer", there'll be tension. Overall, Tannen reckoned that those who get the short end of the stick would benefit from different cultural styles being acknowledged, and why it might lead to conflict.