3 ms·

What that Church of Interruption axis is missing is authority vs freedom Refusing to interrupt is cowing to authority. Refusing to yield is asserting authorit

What that Church of Interruption axis is missing is authority vs freedom Refusing to interrupt is cowing to authority. Refusing to yield is asserting authority. If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
Ah yes, the “I’m not an asshole I’m just independent” argument. Refusing to interrupt is respecting the other person enough to let them say what they think, and trusting them enough that they will grant you the same respect.
- dleslie 4y ago
  Which they probably won't, if they can prevent it, most of the time. People tend not to invite discussion for the purposes of challenging their positions.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    Small-minded people, perhaps. Is it worth discussing things with them? For what it’s worth, this is a common take from interrupty people which I have found not to be the case in the long run. I suspect there’s a significant observer effect.
    - njharman 4y ago
      No it’s not worth discussing, that’s why you interrupt!
    - dleslie 4y ago
      Or perhaps there's a selection bias in the company kept. It's easy not to find cause to interrupt if there exists general agreement and temperament.
JadeNB 4y ago
> If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt. I disagree, and I think a lot of bad feeling and a lot of bad meetings come out of people assuming that the dynamic that is comfortable for them is what others always prefer, or is somehow the natural state of conversation, from which other dynamics are a flawed aberration. I hate being interrupted because of the family dynamic with which I grew up (ceaseless interruption), and so try very hard not to interrupt others. When I feel safe that my ideas will eventually be heard, I don't interrupt; and, when I feel safe that I am interacting with my peers as equals, and will neither hurt feelings nor impose authority, I will request of them that they don't interrupt me, i.e., taken together with the first point, that we have a conversational dynamic where we don't interrupt one another. (The latter is, of course, more dicey, since while I indisputably have a right not to interrupt others, but don't have a right to insist others not interrupt me. But, under the very stringent conditions of conversations with equals with the understanding that it is OK to say "no" to a request, I think that it is a reasonable thing to request.)
awestroke 4y ago
Refusing to interrupt is to stick to your ideals. Tit-for-tat does not work against interrupters, and especially against barkers

Godel_unicode 4y ago

Ah yes, the “I’m not an asshole I’m just independent” argument. Refusing to interrupt is respecting the other person enough to let them say what they think, and trusting them enough that they will grant you the same respect.

dleslie 4y ago
Which they probably won't, if they can prevent it, most of the time. People tend not to invite discussion for the purposes of challenging their positions.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  Small-minded people, perhaps. Is it worth discussing things with them? For what it’s worth, this is a common take from interrupty people which I have found not to be the case in the long run. I suspect there’s a significant observer effect.
  - njharman 4y ago
    No it’s not worth discussing, that’s why you interrupt!
  - dleslie 4y ago
    Or perhaps there's a selection bias in the company kept. It's easy not to find cause to interrupt if there exists general agreement and temperament.

JadeNB 4y ago

> If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt. I disagree, and I think a lot of bad feeling and a lot of bad meetings come out of people assuming that the dynamic that is comfortable for them is what others always prefer, or is somehow the natural state of conversation, from which other dynamics are a flawed aberration. I hate being interrupted because of the family dynamic with which I grew up (ceaseless interruption), and so try very hard not to interrupt others. When I feel safe that my ideas will eventually be heard, I don't interrupt; and, when I feel safe that I am interacting with my peers as equals, and will neither hurt feelings nor impose authority, I will request of them that they don't interrupt me, i.e., taken together with the first point, that we have a conversational dynamic where we don't interrupt one another. (The latter is, of course, more dicey, since while I indisputably have a right not to interrupt others, but don't have a right to insist others not interrupt me. But, under the very stringent conditions of conversations with equals with the understanding that it is OK to say "no" to a request, I think that it is a reasonable thing to request.)

awestroke 4y ago

Refusing to interrupt is to stick to your ideals. Tit-for-tat does not work against interrupters, and especially against barkers