19 ms·

Here's why interrupt is inherently more efficient: as long as both participants are willing to yield to interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts when interruptin

Here's why interrupt is inherently more efficient: as long as both participants are willing to yield to interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts when interrupting, you have shifted the communication mode from: A) Anticipate up front what other person needs to hear and say it all B) Rapid adjustment to ideal info requirements as your model of their knowledge/interest is live-updated. But the trick people seem to miss is that interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts make the whole thing possible. When I'm talking with someone for whom this style is natural, there can be many very rapid small gestures to interrupt, which sometimes are accepted and sometimes are rejected by a small "just let me keep going, you'll see why" gesture. Each of those gestures takes a fraction of a second (and generally does not actually break flow of speech, just eye contact + a little head motion), and conversations employing them are far more enjoyable because information flow is near optimal. On the other hand, when speaking with anti-interrupt people, I often get so bored it's hard to pay attention because either 1) they left something out that I wanted to ask about so I can't follow what they are saying, or 2) I already had a thorough understanding of something they insist on giving a long explanation of.

taeric 4y ago
This feels like you are trying to explain common card game semantics of instants versus turn plays. With the twist that you are arguing that instants are the correct and more efficient mechanism. But here is the thing. Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out. And even those that are, have well agreed "cards" that can be done in different situations. To argue that all things should be "instant" playable is a tough sell.
- awillen 4y ago
  The post you're responding to this qualified it with "as long as both participants are willing to yield to interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts when interrupting" - that addresses your point. This doesn't necessarily work well in a context where people are unfamiliar, but with close friends/colleagues/family who are all on board with this conversation paradigm and familiar with each other's interruptive style, it works very well.
  - taeric 4y ago
    It really doesn't, though. For one, it is recursive. Can I interrupt a counter? What if it is already in a counter? Does it depend on why I'm interrupting? That is, this all only works if you know what "plays" each side can do, and you agree on when each one can be played. Card games with instants captures this remarkably well. In that you have a finite number of "interrupt" cards, and are often limited to how many times you can play each one.
    - westoncb 4y ago
      The rules (although I'll argue none are needed, see below) really are quite simple: yes, what I described above works recursively: there is no difference between a counter-interrupt and a counter-counter-interrupt. All of this hinges on and ends up being managed by each person giving the other a certain amount of benefit of the doubt, that any of these interrupt-related actions are being done out of a genuine desire to communicate effectively (vs someone trying to make some kind of power play). With that trust in place you don't need to know any "rules", this all emerges quite naturally.
      - taeric 4y ago
        My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well" with "I didn't realize there is a social hierarchy here that I'm massively benefiting from." Or, worse, "there could be consequences for my interrupting this person, I should keep quiet and let it go."
        awillen 4y ago
        But again, this isn't going to be the case among people who know each other well. My family and I are interrupters, and we've been at it for decades now - none of the issues you're raising would apply. In terms of knowing when/whether you can interrupt the interrupter/counter-interrupt/etc., see my other post in this thread about how the time of interrupters talking over each other is a signal to both that's constantly evolving (because the increasing time is an increasingly strong signal).
- westoncb 4y ago
  I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there. > Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out I would argue that this is not necessary: just watch younger people who are friendly with each other discuss something: what I'm describing is a natural mode of communication. AFAICT it's just overridden in certain cases when people are taught "never interrupt someone speaking" or something along those lines. But I would be curious if you could lay out the tradeoffs with instant plays in the card game semantics you mentioned.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Forming a hierarchy of leadership and follower is also fairly common among children. Probably fairly common among people, period. In that, you quickly start to form boundaries on who can interrupt what and why. And, in all cases, you almost always need someone that cannot be interrupted. The article does cover this. They have moderators that would keep things on track. Most of your interactions on a daily basis don't have moderators.
    - westoncb 4y ago
      This is an interesting additional aspect to the situation. I wouldn't deny at all that what you're describing happens, but whether it's a problem or a solution is debatable imo ;) Is it always better to have an enforced equality of priority among speakers, or do these emergent hierarchies serve as effective regulators of group communication? However, I'd also argue that in most cases these social group hierarchical roles aren't going to end up having a large influence on communication style: typically it's only if there's something pressing going on. (Or, as I've already described elsewhere, if someone is unfairly taking advantage, the negation of which is a condition for cooperative interrupting to work.)
  - nextaccountic 4y ago
    > I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there. Magic: The Gathering works like a computer (quite literally it's Turing complete). When you play a card or ability, it is put on a stack. After you're done, you need to yield - then the other player may play things on the stack too (but, they can only play "instants" - most other cards can only be played if the stack is empty). Then they must yield, and so on. (In the 90s, instants meant to interrupt other spells were called "interrupts", but this name was dropped) After everyone is done, things are popped from the stack in the reverse order they were played (like any stack). So if your opponent played something in response to what you played, their card resolves first, then yours. But if you played something in response to their response, your card resolves first, then theirs, then yours. This would be very tedious, but in fact most decks have few instants and little interaction with the stack, so most of time you play a card I will just wait it to resolve and generally wait my turn to play. And famously, no card of MtG is allowed to mention the stack in their printed text: while the concept itself is intuitive, talking about the stack is a sure way to make a card overly complicated.
Godel_unicode 4y ago
It sounds like you might just be a poor listener and are pushing that problem off onto other people.
- westoncb 4y ago
  Ironically it sounds like you didn't actually read my comment at all, but if you wouldn't mind providing a little more detail on how you derived your stance from what I said I'd be happy to take a listen.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    - westoncb 4y ago
      I have a good friend I speak with many hours a week who makes an especially interesting case for our discussion here. He is the person I know who most strongly alternates between both of these styles: when he's in a good mood, relaxed, and so on we have these great fast-paced conversations with pure information flow, frequent interrupts (and counter-interrupts and interrupt-denies). But, there are other times where we'll hang out and he's in an insistent no-interrupt mode; when this happens I spend significant lengths of time listening to him tell me about things that I know thoroughly, or waiting several minutes for him to finish speaking about something I can't follow because I needed to clarify something that was said earlier. Because I respect this person, I still take the time and listen to what he is saying because I know he's just not in a great mood or might be feeling down about himself and so on, and wants more to be listened to than to really communicate something specific. What I was describing is quite literal: it is difficult to continue paying attention to information that you are already fully aware of, or which can't be made sense of without some pre-req info. I am confident that I am not a poor listener, but I am also intimately familiar with the inefficiencies of interrupt-averseness.
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago
operator-name 4y ago
Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies.
- jayd16 4y ago
  This implies all communication is scaled which is a false assumption. Most interaction is one on one not N to many and there's no reason you need to use the same for both.
  - operator-name 4y ago
    Thus conseding interruptions aren't "inherently more efficient", and rather as the author presents different communication methods are more effective under different circumstances.
- xani__ 4y ago
  > Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies. The difference is that packet has max length and therefore can be mixed with other senders, not be infinite monologue that chokes whole traffic in the network As for interrupts, you just need to queue them instead of them causing collision. Notice the need for question and let the other side finish the sentence, as what they say next might be answer to question
shkkmo 4y ago
It is potentially more efficient, but that efficiency is dependent on mutual buy-in and understanding. It cam also be efficient to non-verbally signal a request for interrupt via hand or face gestures. The real skill is on the fly protocol identification and adaption.
taneq 4y ago
> But the trick people seem to miss is that interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts make the whole thing possible. Exactly. Interrupting when you want to talk but being unwilling to yield in return, or unwilling to let them continue if they insist, isn’t an efficient conversational technique, it’s just bulldozing. I also draw a distinction between interrupting (and then monopolising the floor) and interjecting with a quick addition before handing back to the speaker.
- westoncb 4y ago
  It's a good distinction. Unfortunately the term "interrupt" here is a bit overloaded since you definitely get some real assholes interrupting for nefarious purposes. "Cooperative overlap" often gets used to describe this non-competitive, overlapping communication style (though I think it's not quite explicit enough for an audience who spends a lot of time thinking about communication protocols etc.)
eyelidlessness 4y ago
I think you’re omitting one of the most important nuances in the article: Wait (interrupt-averse) culture works well when turns speaking have short time spans. It’s effectively built in interruption. What’s interesting about your preference—that’s what it is, none of this is objective—is how much it reinforces my own interruption aversion, and how much that reflects your preconditions. I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare. It’s not, to me, a question of efficiency but with the question posed, I find communication much more efficient when there aren’t N+1 speakers (the interruption queue being the additional participant), particularly when N queues get saturated. Granted all of this, either approach or any blend of both, takes patience and active effort when preferences don’t match. And granted my preference is also just that, it’s not objective. But I definitely have better communication with people who generally agree to yield communication space without prompting and who generally agree that not yielding automatically is a good indicator that their thoughts are more complex than fit in a tiny contained space. In contrast to your last paragraph, I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds. And… that was a lot of words, sorry about that. I yield both implicitly and explicitly.
- westoncb 4y ago
  > I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption I may be misunderstanding but in what I describe in my post above, yields are the prevailing assumption: I describe them as a critical component that makes this kind of interrupting possible. > ... and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare. I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.) > I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds. It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions, which could be because A) you planned out everything you want to say before, so regardless of the content of interruptions you still think it needs to be said, or B) you find in your experience that the content of interruptions is typically independent of what you're saying, so of course your model of What Needs To Be Said doesn't update, and you have to keep queuing things. In the case of B, you are communicating with someone who is not cooperatively interrupting to expedite communication; you are dealing with someone interrupting for their own benefit. In the case of A, you may be pre-deciding that interruptions are useless and won't affect your model of What Needs To Be Said, so you queue things up and say what you were originally going to say anyway. I don't know which case you are dealing with. I can say in my own experience though that a queue beyond 1 or 2 items is rarely necessary because cooperative interrupts tend to modify what I was going to say as my understanding of our shared informational context evolves, so things I previously was going to say are more frequently discarded rather than queued.
makeitdouble 4y ago
You point it out as the prerequisite, but having both people on the same page as to how to play the interruption game is I think non trivial. In particular, people not used to get interrupted don't structure their talk in the same ways, and that makes is difficult to ad-hoc switch from one style to the other. IMO talking in small bursts and checking on the listener to see how they receive it could be seen as the best of both worlds and work with less coordination than either style.
resonious 4y ago
I had an experience somewhat opposite to the article. I somehow ended up with a friend group and family that tended to avoid interrupting. I guess the idea was that it was rude. People who were interrupted would complain and call you out for interrupting, and I would feel guilt if I did it. Once I entered the professional world, I found that people (especially managers) would interrupt me all the time. I was a bit shocked - it felt animalistic, as though people were just not interested in having a "real" conversation. Instead of becoming bitter about it, I just tried to adapt. I figured "ok, I need to express my thought in about 3 seconds or else I'll get interrupted". This seems to have worked quite well. It's forced me to think hard about what the crux of my argument is and then get it out as fast as possible. I never really thought about it much until seeing this article, but I think being interrupted has made me a better communicator.
- skydhash 4y ago
  Being succinct goes a long way. I found that people rarely interrupts me because I try to convey my thought in a relatively dense manner. If asked one question, I answer that question in the first sentence, then the justifications and explanations. If I'm explaining something, I do the same thing with the abstract idea first, then detailing after that. I don't fear being interrupted, as that usually means I've been talking longer than needed.
- westoncb 4y ago
  Huh, that's pretty interesting. It reminds me that I had a workplace experience related to this recently I was working with a client based in another country (which made me a little less certain about customs/etiquette), and our relationship was a little similar to manager/subordinate (esp. because I had a peer in meetings which he would somewhat direct). For the first several months we were actually pretty strictly non-interrupting in conversation, but there was a transition at some point because a lot needed to be communicated and everyone involved was very interested/engaged. I think he was a bit taken aback at my first interrupts (which were e.g. to let him know I'd already heard about something he was trying to tell me), but once he saw that I also very readily yielded if he ever wanted to interject, our style of speaking morphed so that cooperative interrupting became commonplace (and our conversations became more fun :). I think in a situation like that it's inherently a bit risky because it can signal things about power dynamics, but if you actually play nicely with it, don't use it for your own benefit, just for efficiency, it can also be a way of upping trust level (specifically because it was something risky, they had to trust you some, but it turned out fine, you didn't take advantage).
throwaway_au_1 4y ago
To put your comment into the 'bigger picture', as I see it at least: if I can assume that by efficiency, you mean the rate of verbal exchange of information, then I would argue that this is often not the sole function of a conversation; for example, building rapport is often an indirect but desirable outcome. There are no doubt other outcomes and that they vary wildly by context. Though to stick with rapport: pursuing near-optimal information exchange through interruptions may (and for anti-interrupt people, probably will) come at the hefty cost of rapport which may effect future conversations. This is a super interesting topic and also cool because everyone has a slightly different take. I had not really considered that people who interrupt may do so because they actually like it and think it's beneficial. I just (probably prematurely) assumed it was a bit of a personal flaw based on how it made me feel.
- ajkjk 4y ago
  Oh I (for instance) 100% do it cause I like it. I get bored talking to people who want to take turns.
  - throwaway_au_1 4y ago
    Understandable. I don't want to give the impression that my ideal conversation involves a Talking Pillow. We're probably all imagining the far, opposite end of the spectrum when we think about it. I'm picturing my old boss who couldn't go 10 seconds without stammering his way into my sentence, which drove me nuts, but like I said in another comment, interruptions probably happen in every conversation and it's only the routine, out-of-place ones that are frustrating.
- westoncb 4y ago
  Indeed it’s pretty interesting how differently people relate to it. My main personal reason for liking it is actually enjoyment, and part of that relates to efficiency but even more importantly it’s because people interrupt in this way naturally when they are truly interested in what you’re talking about and have thoughts about it too, and those conversations are just gonna be more fun.
seer 4y ago
For me I think it depends on what is needed to be accomplished. Interrupt based communication for me is indeed natural when you’re brainstorming and want to solve a really hard problem where everybody is on board and solving it is the most important thing. Like a startup refinement session. The thing is most human interaction is not like that. People generally have their position set, and are looking for allies - the words themselves don’t matter much, its the communication of emotions that people are after. Looking for understanding, support, approval etc. In those scenarios, when communicating information would involve telling people they are actually wrong (communicating disapproval) interrupting would not be considered “nice” as solving the issue is not actually what’s driving the conversation, its the sending and receiving of emotional signals that’s important. Kinda like some game’s rendition of conversations with just some emojis. Its silly I know but I think the metaphor is actually quite apt. It took me a while to realize this, as I imagined most conversations were about finding the truth (interrupting). But when I accepted that most of the time its about seeking understanding or alies (waiting). People around me suddenly started saying I became a _much_ better person to talk to… And the thing is, _after_ people put you in the emotional ally bucket mentally for whatever you were discussing, then you can sometimes actually start interrupting each other and solving the problem together.
- xani__ 4y ago
givemeethekeys 4y ago
One gets interrupted by two kinds of people: - Those who ask for help after exhausting other avenues. These people grow more productive over time. - Those who ask for help at the first sign of trouble every time. These people take you for granted, use you as a door mat, and often make for incompetent teammates or toxic managers.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  In other words, the world is black and white and you know exactly what's going on at any time.
HWR_14 4y ago
If you're teaching someone something in a 1 on 1 situation, then yeah, interruptions might be better. And that seems to be what you're focusing on. But in other situations your observations seem not to hold.
adsweedler 4y ago
> On the other hand, when speaking with anti-interrupt people, I often get so bored it's hard to pay attention The post didn't ever explicitly say this, but part of the power of wait culture is that fact that it forces you to listen. Even when you think someone is wrong. Of course, if what the other person is saying is not worth your time, then there's no reason to be a good listener. As for an objective look at the mechanics of interrupt culture that you described, it works perfectly if everyone can agree on the relative importances. But if someone never lets you interrupt or ALWAYS interrupts, then... it just breaks down. It's almost like you're taking an economist's stance of "all humans are rational actors". If that's the case, then your arguments for interrupt culture are an nice proof detailing how - in any situation, the person that needs to talk more has the ability and permission to immediately gain the floor without listening to the other person waste time explaining an irrelevant detail or counterargument to a misunderstood point. I like the way you're thinking, and I know that you would act in good faith under this system you see and have explained so well. Together, I would converse with you like that. And just hope that one of us doesn't get frustrated that the other person keeps interrupting with boring stuff.
- westoncb 4y ago
  It being boring to me would be a rude/invalid reason to interrupt, I mean the case specifically where someone is telling/explaining/describing something to you because they think you don’t know about it. The interruption is just to let them know that you do already know about it, not to change the subject. I would find it embarrassing if someone let me going on telling them something they already know just because they thought I didn’t want to be interrupted. But thank you more generally and I’m sure we’d have a good conversation!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dasz 4y ago
    Sometimes I let people explain something I already know because they either explain it better or add more detail. Even a well described reminder is useful and interesting if told well. Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.
otikik 4y ago
I use a piece of paper and scratch one or two words in order to not forget getting back into a point but also not interrupting. Obviously this doesn’t work on all circumstances, but it works well on work zoom meetings.
renewiltord 4y ago
Hard agree. It is such a fluid conversation, with instant asides, interruptive humour with redirects back to subject, riffs off what you're saying, etc. I love it. Crucially, I want to be interrupted too. As soon as you've caught up to my thoughts and have outraced them, interrupt me and take over. West Coast America (at least, and possibly elsewhere) is pretty big on the do-not-interrupt culture, though, and I felt a little ashamed whenever I did it. But then I found not all people are like that and realized I have so much more fun with people who interrupt me and permit me to interrupt. And it feels so natural. A slightly louder tone, a hand gesture, enough to say "hang on, here comes something"; but also enough of a signifier to you to move things along. I'm with you, man.
- westoncb 4y ago
  You get it :)
MrDresden 4y ago
There are two sides to any coin. Similarly put your self in the position of someone who is more attuned to a 'wait' mode who just had a conversation with you. Only from your description above, they might walk away from it feeling you did not listen very well, rather one-sidedly just wanted to be listened to, and took the conversation all over the place. In the end they might also walk away thinking how boring and wasteful of time and energy it had been
- westoncb 4y ago
  I just adapt when I see someone doesn't do cooperative interrupting; I switch to their mode. It's not difficult to tell when people aren't into it (if nothing else, they aren't engaging with you in the same way, so it feels wrong, like you keep hitting tennis balls to them but instead of hitting them back they catch them and then walk them over). I guess to clarify, it's not that 'wait mode' people are always boring, it's just much more likely to be boring because: 1) You don't feel their engagement if they aren't interrupting you to dig deeper, clarify, respond to points etc.—that's what's fun (for me and many others anyway), when you are interacting live like that, quick back and forth. By contrast waiting and storing everything up and then trying to say it all in your turn, feels very slow and unnatural. 2) If I'm missing information and the other person keeps talking and I can't interrupt them to ask for clarification, then everything they're saying is meaningless to me, information free, boring. Same if they think I don't know about topic X, try explaining it to me, but I do know topic X, but I can't quickly let them know I already know it so we can move on, so I have to listen to an explanation of something that needs no explaining—also devoid of any new information, hence boring. But granted, sometimes a non-interrupter has very practiced speech and will string together something that's nice to listen to as long as they don't hit the above obstacles.
  - MrDresden 4y ago
    I agree with you that there isn't always value in what people say, no matter their mode. Being more of a 'wait' mode my self, I sure have had very long, slow and 'boring' conversations with other 'wait' oriented people before. In those instances I have usually suggested to change the subject matter by way of 'I'm sorry but would you mind if we shift the conversation over to x?'. Usually to great success.
xani__ 4y ago
randallsquared 4y ago
This is much worse now that so much business and technical communication is by video, since to make these gestures you have to ensure that your hands are in the frame -- if the camera is even on.
sophacles 4y ago
I find that interrupters are boring. So many pointless words to describe something that could be handled in a sentence. When I talk to such people I often find myself bored and wondering why they have such a strong desire to go into excruciating detail over the blindingly obvious, why they need to constantly reiterate and belabor some simple fact. Usually I come to the conclusion that they are hiding their inability to think well, let alone deep - they try to cover it by using lots of words to appear as if they have a lot in their head.
anotheraccount9 4y ago
Your post is complete, because I wasn't able to interrupt it. So your argument is as good as the "wait culture".

taeric 4y ago

This feels like you are trying to explain common card game semantics of instants versus turn plays. With the twist that you are arguing that instants are the correct and more efficient mechanism. But here is the thing. Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out. And even those that are, have well agreed "cards" that can be done in different situations. To argue that all things should be "instant" playable is a tough sell.

awillen 4y ago
The post you're responding to this qualified it with "as long as both participants are willing to yield to interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts when interrupting" - that addresses your point. This doesn't necessarily work well in a context where people are unfamiliar, but with close friends/colleagues/family who are all on board with this conversation paradigm and familiar with each other's interruptive style, it works very well.
- taeric 4y ago
  It really doesn't, though. For one, it is recursive. Can I interrupt a counter? What if it is already in a counter? Does it depend on why I'm interrupting? That is, this all only works if you know what "plays" each side can do, and you agree on when each one can be played. Card games with instants captures this remarkably well. In that you have a finite number of "interrupt" cards, and are often limited to how many times you can play each one.
  - westoncb 4y ago
    The rules (although I'll argue none are needed, see below) really are quite simple: yes, what I described above works recursively: there is no difference between a counter-interrupt and a counter-counter-interrupt. All of this hinges on and ends up being managed by each person giving the other a certain amount of benefit of the doubt, that any of these interrupt-related actions are being done out of a genuine desire to communicate effectively (vs someone trying to make some kind of power play). With that trust in place you don't need to know any "rules", this all emerges quite naturally.
    - taeric 4y ago
      My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well" with "I didn't realize there is a social hierarchy here that I'm massively benefiting from." Or, worse, "there could be consequences for my interrupting this person, I should keep quiet and let it go."
      - awillen 4y ago
        But again, this isn't going to be the case among people who know each other well. My family and I are interrupters, and we've been at it for decades now - none of the issues you're raising would apply. In terms of knowing when/whether you can interrupt the interrupter/counter-interrupt/etc., see my other post in this thread about how the time of interrupters talking over each other is a signal to both that's constantly evolving (because the increasing time is an increasingly strong signal).
westoncb 4y ago
I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there. > Not everyone is well versed in how those semantics play out I would argue that this is not necessary: just watch younger people who are friendly with each other discuss something: what I'm describing is a natural mode of communication. AFAICT it's just overridden in certain cases when people are taught "never interrupt someone speaking" or something along those lines. But I would be curious if you could lay out the tradeoffs with instant plays in the card game semantics you mentioned.
- taeric 4y ago
  Forming a hierarchy of leadership and follower is also fairly common among children. Probably fairly common among people, period. In that, you quickly start to form boundaries on who can interrupt what and why. And, in all cases, you almost always need someone that cannot be interrupted. The article does cover this. They have moderators that would keep things on track. Most of your interactions on a daily basis don't have moderators.
  - westoncb 4y ago
    This is an interesting additional aspect to the situation. I wouldn't deny at all that what you're describing happens, but whether it's a problem or a solution is debatable imo ;) Is it always better to have an enforced equality of priority among speakers, or do these emergent hierarchies serve as effective regulators of group communication? However, I'd also argue that in most cases these social group hierarchical roles aren't going to end up having a large influence on communication style: typically it's only if there's something pressing going on. (Or, as I've already described elsewhere, if someone is unfairly taking advantage, the negation of which is a condition for cooperative interrupting to work.)
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  > I don't know about instant/turn play semantics so can't follow the tradeoffs there. Magic: The Gathering works like a computer (quite literally it's Turing complete). When you play a card or ability, it is put on a stack. After you're done, you need to yield - then the other player may play things on the stack too (but, they can only play "instants" - most other cards can only be played if the stack is empty). Then they must yield, and so on. (In the 90s, instants meant to interrupt other spells were called "interrupts", but this name was dropped) After everyone is done, things are popped from the stack in the reverse order they were played (like any stack). So if your opponent played something in response to what you played, their card resolves first, then yours. But if you played something in response to their response, your card resolves first, then theirs, then yours. This would be very tedious, but in fact most decks have few instants and little interaction with the stack, so most of time you play a card I will just wait it to resolve and generally wait my turn to play. And famously, no card of MtG is allowed to mention the stack in their printed text: while the concept itself is intuitive, talking about the stack is a sure way to make a card overly complicated.

Godel_unicode 4y ago

It sounds like you might just be a poor listener and are pushing that problem off onto other people.

westoncb 4y ago
Ironically it sounds like you didn't actually read my comment at all, but if you wouldn't mind providing a little more detail on how you derived your stance from what I said I'd be happy to take a listen.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  - westoncb 4y ago
    I have a good friend I speak with many hours a week who makes an especially interesting case for our discussion here. He is the person I know who most strongly alternates between both of these styles: when he's in a good mood, relaxed, and so on we have these great fast-paced conversations with pure information flow, frequent interrupts (and counter-interrupts and interrupt-denies). But, there are other times where we'll hang out and he's in an insistent no-interrupt mode; when this happens I spend significant lengths of time listening to him tell me about things that I know thoroughly, or waiting several minutes for him to finish speaking about something I can't follow because I needed to clarify something that was said earlier. Because I respect this person, I still take the time and listen to what he is saying because I know he's just not in a great mood or might be feeling down about himself and so on, and wants more to be listened to than to really communicate something specific. What I was describing is quite literal: it is difficult to continue paying attention to information that you are already fully aware of, or which can't be made sense of without some pre-req info. I am confident that I am not a poor listener, but I am also intimately familiar with the inefficiencies of interrupt-averseness.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago

operator-name 4y ago

Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies.

jayd16 4y ago
This implies all communication is scaled which is a false assumption. Most interaction is one on one not N to many and there's no reason you need to use the same for both.
- operator-name 4y ago
  Thus conseding interruptions aren't "inherently more efficient", and rather as the author presents different communication methods are more effective under different circumstances.
xani__ 4y ago
> Interruptions don't scale, just as single backbone networks don't scale (CSMA-CD anyone?) and modern networking has shifted to star topologies. The difference is that packet has max length and therefore can be mixed with other senders, not be infinite monologue that chokes whole traffic in the network As for interrupts, you just need to queue them instead of them causing collision. Notice the need for question and let the other side finish the sentence, as what they say next might be answer to question

shkkmo 4y ago

It is potentially more efficient, but that efficiency is dependent on mutual buy-in and understanding. It cam also be efficient to non-verbally signal a request for interrupt via hand or face gestures. The real skill is on the fly protocol identification and adaption.

taneq 4y ago

> But the trick people seem to miss is that interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts make the whole thing possible. Exactly. Interrupting when you want to talk but being unwilling to yield in return, or unwilling to let them continue if they insist, isn’t an efficient conversational technique, it’s just bulldozing. I also draw a distinction between interrupting (and then monopolising the floor) and interjecting with a quick addition before handing back to the speaker.

westoncb 4y ago
It's a good distinction. Unfortunately the term "interrupt" here is a bit overloaded since you definitely get some real assholes interrupting for nefarious purposes. "Cooperative overlap" often gets used to describe this non-competitive, overlapping communication style (though I think it's not quite explicit enough for an audience who spends a lot of time thinking about communication protocols etc.)

eyelidlessness 4y ago

I think you’re omitting one of the most important nuances in the article: Wait (interrupt-averse) culture works well when turns speaking have short time spans. It’s effectively built in interruption. What’s interesting about your preference—that’s what it is, none of this is objective—is how much it reinforces my own interruption aversion, and how much that reflects your preconditions. I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare. It’s not, to me, a question of efficiency but with the question posed, I find communication much more efficient when there aren’t N+1 speakers (the interruption queue being the additional participant), particularly when N queues get saturated. Granted all of this, either approach or any blend of both, takes patience and active effort when preferences don’t match. And granted my preference is also just that, it’s not objective. But I definitely have better communication with people who generally agree to yield communication space without prompting and who generally agree that not yielding automatically is a good indicator that their thoughts are more complex than fit in a tiny contained space. In contrast to your last paragraph, I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds. And… that was a lot of words, sorry about that. I yield both implicitly and explicitly.

westoncb 4y ago
> I just generally prefer communicating with the yields being the prevailing assumption I may be misunderstanding but in what I describe in my post above, yields are the prevailing assumption: I describe them as a critical component that makes this kind of interrupting possible. > ... and that the interruption signals deviate to make them more rare. I'm not sure what you mean by this. (This is a point where I would've attempted an "interrupt-request" to get clarification, if we were speaking in person.) > I get frustrated until I let myself get bored when I’ve got a stack of interruption-paused thoughts that might have addressed any dozens of things said, but which I’ve lost track of entirely by the time the stack unwinds. It sounds like this may be central to why your preference is interrupt-averse: it sounds like your model of What Needs To Be Said is not updating in response to interruptions, which could be because A) you planned out everything you want to say before, so regardless of the content of interruptions you still think it needs to be said, or B) you find in your experience that the content of interruptions is typically independent of what you're saying, so of course your model of What Needs To Be Said doesn't update, and you have to keep queuing things. In the case of B, you are communicating with someone who is not cooperatively interrupting to expedite communication; you are dealing with someone interrupting for their own benefit. In the case of A, you may be pre-deciding that interruptions are useless and won't affect your model of What Needs To Be Said, so you queue things up and say what you were originally going to say anyway. I don't know which case you are dealing with. I can say in my own experience though that a queue beyond 1 or 2 items is rarely necessary because cooperative interrupts tend to modify what I was going to say as my understanding of our shared informational context evolves, so things I previously was going to say are more frequently discarded rather than queued.

makeitdouble 4y ago

You point it out as the prerequisite, but having both people on the same page as to how to play the interruption game is I think non trivial. In particular, people not used to get interrupted don't structure their talk in the same ways, and that makes is difficult to ad-hoc switch from one style to the other. IMO talking in small bursts and checking on the listener to see how they receive it could be seen as the best of both worlds and work with less coordination than either style.

resonious 4y ago

I had an experience somewhat opposite to the article. I somehow ended up with a friend group and family that tended to avoid interrupting. I guess the idea was that it was rude. People who were interrupted would complain and call you out for interrupting, and I would feel guilt if I did it. Once I entered the professional world, I found that people (especially managers) would interrupt me all the time. I was a bit shocked - it felt animalistic, as though people were just not interested in having a "real" conversation. Instead of becoming bitter about it, I just tried to adapt. I figured "ok, I need to express my thought in about 3 seconds or else I'll get interrupted". This seems to have worked quite well. It's forced me to think hard about what the crux of my argument is and then get it out as fast as possible. I never really thought about it much until seeing this article, but I think being interrupted has made me a better communicator.

skydhash 4y ago
Being succinct goes a long way. I found that people rarely interrupts me because I try to convey my thought in a relatively dense manner. If asked one question, I answer that question in the first sentence, then the justifications and explanations. If I'm explaining something, I do the same thing with the abstract idea first, then detailing after that. I don't fear being interrupted, as that usually means I've been talking longer than needed.
westoncb 4y ago
Huh, that's pretty interesting. It reminds me that I had a workplace experience related to this recently I was working with a client based in another country (which made me a little less certain about customs/etiquette), and our relationship was a little similar to manager/subordinate (esp. because I had a peer in meetings which he would somewhat direct). For the first several months we were actually pretty strictly non-interrupting in conversation, but there was a transition at some point because a lot needed to be communicated and everyone involved was very interested/engaged. I think he was a bit taken aback at my first interrupts (which were e.g. to let him know I'd already heard about something he was trying to tell me), but once he saw that I also very readily yielded if he ever wanted to interject, our style of speaking morphed so that cooperative interrupting became commonplace (and our conversations became more fun :). I think in a situation like that it's inherently a bit risky because it can signal things about power dynamics, but if you actually play nicely with it, don't use it for your own benefit, just for efficiency, it can also be a way of upping trust level (specifically because it was something risky, they had to trust you some, but it turned out fine, you didn't take advantage).

throwaway_au_1 4y ago

To put your comment into the 'bigger picture', as I see it at least: if I can assume that by efficiency, you mean the rate of verbal exchange of information, then I would argue that this is often not the sole function of a conversation; for example, building rapport is often an indirect but desirable outcome. There are no doubt other outcomes and that they vary wildly by context. Though to stick with rapport: pursuing near-optimal information exchange through interruptions may (and for anti-interrupt people, probably will) come at the hefty cost of rapport which may effect future conversations. This is a super interesting topic and also cool because everyone has a slightly different take. I had not really considered that people who interrupt may do so because they actually like it and think it's beneficial. I just (probably prematurely) assumed it was a bit of a personal flaw based on how it made me feel.

ajkjk 4y ago
Oh I (for instance) 100% do it cause I like it. I get bored talking to people who want to take turns.
- throwaway_au_1 4y ago
  Understandable. I don't want to give the impression that my ideal conversation involves a Talking Pillow. We're probably all imagining the far, opposite end of the spectrum when we think about it. I'm picturing my old boss who couldn't go 10 seconds without stammering his way into my sentence, which drove me nuts, but like I said in another comment, interruptions probably happen in every conversation and it's only the routine, out-of-place ones that are frustrating.
westoncb 4y ago
Indeed it’s pretty interesting how differently people relate to it. My main personal reason for liking it is actually enjoyment, and part of that relates to efficiency but even more importantly it’s because people interrupt in this way naturally when they are truly interested in what you’re talking about and have thoughts about it too, and those conversations are just gonna be more fun.

seer 4y ago

For me I think it depends on what is needed to be accomplished. Interrupt based communication for me is indeed natural when you’re brainstorming and want to solve a really hard problem where everybody is on board and solving it is the most important thing. Like a startup refinement session. The thing is most human interaction is not like that. People generally have their position set, and are looking for allies - the words themselves don’t matter much, its the communication of emotions that people are after. Looking for understanding, support, approval etc. In those scenarios, when communicating information would involve telling people they are actually wrong (communicating disapproval) interrupting would not be considered “nice” as solving the issue is not actually what’s driving the conversation, its the sending and receiving of emotional signals that’s important. Kinda like some game’s rendition of conversations with just some emojis. Its silly I know but I think the metaphor is actually quite apt. It took me a while to realize this, as I imagined most conversations were about finding the truth (interrupting). But when I accepted that most of the time its about seeking understanding or alies (waiting). People around me suddenly started saying I became a _much_ better person to talk to… And the thing is, _after_ people put you in the emotional ally bucket mentally for whatever you were discussing, then you can sometimes actually start interrupting each other and solving the problem together.

xani__ 4y ago

givemeethekeys 4y ago

One gets interrupted by two kinds of people: - Those who ask for help after exhausting other avenues. These people grow more productive over time. - Those who ask for help at the first sign of trouble every time. These people take you for granted, use you as a door mat, and often make for incompetent teammates or toxic managers.

beebeepka 4y ago
In other words, the world is black and white and you know exactly what's going on at any time.

HWR_14 4y ago

If you're teaching someone something in a 1 on 1 situation, then yeah, interruptions might be better. And that seems to be what you're focusing on. But in other situations your observations seem not to hold.

adsweedler 4y ago

> On the other hand, when speaking with anti-interrupt people, I often get so bored it's hard to pay attention The post didn't ever explicitly say this, but part of the power of wait culture is that fact that it forces you to listen. Even when you think someone is wrong. Of course, if what the other person is saying is not worth your time, then there's no reason to be a good listener. As for an objective look at the mechanics of interrupt culture that you described, it works perfectly if everyone can agree on the relative importances. But if someone never lets you interrupt or ALWAYS interrupts, then... it just breaks down. It's almost like you're taking an economist's stance of "all humans are rational actors". If that's the case, then your arguments for interrupt culture are an nice proof detailing how - in any situation, the person that needs to talk more has the ability and permission to immediately gain the floor without listening to the other person waste time explaining an irrelevant detail or counterargument to a misunderstood point. I like the way you're thinking, and I know that you would act in good faith under this system you see and have explained so well. Together, I would converse with you like that. And just hope that one of us doesn't get frustrated that the other person keeps interrupting with boring stuff.

westoncb 4y ago
It being boring to me would be a rude/invalid reason to interrupt, I mean the case specifically where someone is telling/explaining/describing something to you because they think you don’t know about it. The interruption is just to let them know that you do already know about it, not to change the subject. I would find it embarrassing if someone let me going on telling them something they already know just because they thought I didn’t want to be interrupted. But thank you more generally and I’m sure we’d have a good conversation!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dasz 4y ago
  Sometimes I let people explain something I already know because they either explain it better or add more detail. Even a well described reminder is useful and interesting if told well. Sometimes though it's not useful and it's them explaining poorly or, even worse, pointless simplification. They'll get interrupted fast if either of those is the case.

otikik 4y ago

I use a piece of paper and scratch one or two words in order to not forget getting back into a point but also not interrupting. Obviously this doesn’t work on all circumstances, but it works well on work zoom meetings.

renewiltord 4y ago

Hard agree. It is such a fluid conversation, with instant asides, interruptive humour with redirects back to subject, riffs off what you're saying, etc. I love it. Crucially, I want to be interrupted too. As soon as you've caught up to my thoughts and have outraced them, interrupt me and take over. West Coast America (at least, and possibly elsewhere) is pretty big on the do-not-interrupt culture, though, and I felt a little ashamed whenever I did it. But then I found not all people are like that and realized I have so much more fun with people who interrupt me and permit me to interrupt. And it feels so natural. A slightly louder tone, a hand gesture, enough to say "hang on, here comes something"; but also enough of a signifier to you to move things along. I'm with you, man.

westoncb 4y ago
You get it :)

MrDresden 4y ago

There are two sides to any coin. Similarly put your self in the position of someone who is more attuned to a 'wait' mode who just had a conversation with you. Only from your description above, they might walk away from it feeling you did not listen very well, rather one-sidedly just wanted to be listened to, and took the conversation all over the place. In the end they might also walk away thinking how boring and wasteful of time and energy it had been

westoncb 4y ago
I just adapt when I see someone doesn't do cooperative interrupting; I switch to their mode. It's not difficult to tell when people aren't into it (if nothing else, they aren't engaging with you in the same way, so it feels wrong, like you keep hitting tennis balls to them but instead of hitting them back they catch them and then walk them over). I guess to clarify, it's not that 'wait mode' people are always boring, it's just much more likely to be boring because: 1) You don't feel their engagement if they aren't interrupting you to dig deeper, clarify, respond to points etc.—that's what's fun (for me and many others anyway), when you are interacting live like that, quick back and forth. By contrast waiting and storing everything up and then trying to say it all in your turn, feels very slow and unnatural. 2) If I'm missing information and the other person keeps talking and I can't interrupt them to ask for clarification, then everything they're saying is meaningless to me, information free, boring. Same if they think I don't know about topic X, try explaining it to me, but I do know topic X, but I can't quickly let them know I already know it so we can move on, so I have to listen to an explanation of something that needs no explaining—also devoid of any new information, hence boring. But granted, sometimes a non-interrupter has very practiced speech and will string together something that's nice to listen to as long as they don't hit the above obstacles.
- MrDresden 4y ago
  I agree with you that there isn't always value in what people say, no matter their mode. Being more of a 'wait' mode my self, I sure have had very long, slow and 'boring' conversations with other 'wait' oriented people before. In those instances I have usually suggested to change the subject matter by way of 'I'm sorry but would you mind if we shift the conversation over to x?'. Usually to great success.

xani__ 4y ago

randallsquared 4y ago

This is much worse now that so much business and technical communication is by video, since to make these gestures you have to ensure that your hands are in the frame -- if the camera is even on.

sophacles 4y ago

I find that interrupters are boring. So many pointless words to describe something that could be handled in a sentence. When I talk to such people I often find myself bored and wondering why they have such a strong desire to go into excruciating detail over the blindingly obvious, why they need to constantly reiterate and belabor some simple fact. Usually I come to the conclusion that they are hiding their inability to think well, let alone deep - they try to cover it by using lots of words to appear as if they have a lot in their head.

anotheraccount9 4y ago

Your post is complete, because I wasn't able to interrupt it. So your argument is as good as the "wait culture".