9 ms·

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 c

by 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).
        taeric 4y ago
        For certain. I'm less arguing that it isn't a conversation style, than I am that it is a dangerous one. Even in families, it is easy to see this form lead to resentment between folks. Or a contest to be last person talking. In a large sense, mansplaining is similar. Echoing back and explaining things even to people that know them isn't, itself, bad. But it is very easy to portray in a negative light and should not be the assumed default. Now, I fully grant that the largest poison in all of this is the transactional view of conversation. The interrupt style is still predicated on an open transaction that will eventually commit.
      - trashtester 4y ago
        > My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well" You are right, at least for people who have poor social skills, are emotionally unstable or immature in some way, including people with autism, ADHD, dementia, children, etc. With such people arround, it may be better to have clearly defined rules for who speaks when. The same goes in situations where people come from very different background or there are very low levels of trust to start with. The better a group of people are at communicating in a cooperative manner, the fewer hard rules are needed.
- westoncb 4y ago
  That's a good addition: if the participants do not trust one another, the interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts are not going to work. As far the actual signaling goes, AFAICT it's pretty built-in (though I can imagine in other countries for instance there are likely enough differences that you'd have to take time to learn specific signals): I can go into this style of conversation immediately with strangers as long as we're at least giving each other a little benefit of the doubt.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Role play a policemen and a minority in this form of communication to see an easy way it can fall flat. Disastrously.
    - westoncb 4y ago
      It's already been said plenty of times that mutual trust is a requirement, this will be my last reply to your comments if you keep straw-manning.
      - taeric 4y ago
        It isn't a straw man, though. It literally happens all the time. Role play a woman in an office. And, I should have stated flat out I can see this style can exist. My discourse is why not to lead in with it. Pretty much anywhere.
        westoncb 4y ago
        I think I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. But in a scenario with abusive power dynamics injustice is going to play out the same regardless of preferred conversation style, an outlet will trivially be found.
        taeric 4y ago
        Ok, I grant that going full on abusive is not helpful. Such that I apologize on jumping there immediately. :( My concern is more in the ones that aren't quite as stark. Role play that you are talking to someone that doesn't feel safe enough to tell you that they don't feel perfectly safe. Now, how do you know this? If they felt safe, you could ask. But, we have established that they don't, per the role play. And this is a large part of why the conversation around "privilege" is so tough. At large, what we call "privilege" can be easily recast to more subtle dynamics of folks that are allowed to give voice without as much interruptions. Note, not none. Just fewer. (Note that there are obviously other aspects to this that don't necessarily make the recasting.)
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.

by taeric 4y ago

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).
      - taeric 4y ago
        For certain. I'm less arguing that it isn't a conversation style, than I am that it is a dangerous one. Even in families, it is easy to see this form lead to resentment between folks. Or a contest to be last person talking. In a large sense, mansplaining is similar. Echoing back and explaining things even to people that know them isn't, itself, bad. But it is very easy to portray in a negative light and should not be the assumed default. Now, I fully grant that the largest poison in all of this is the transactional view of conversation. The interrupt style is still predicated on an open transaction that will eventually commit.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      > My assertion is that it is very very easy to miss "easy rules that were emergent and are working well" You are right, at least for people who have poor social skills, are emotionally unstable or immature in some way, including people with autism, ADHD, dementia, children, etc. With such people arround, it may be better to have clearly defined rules for who speaks when. The same goes in situations where people come from very different background or there are very low levels of trust to start with. The better a group of people are at communicating in a cooperative manner, the fewer hard rules are needed.
westoncb 4y ago
That's a good addition: if the participants do not trust one another, the interrupt-denies and counter-interrupts are not going to work. As far the actual signaling goes, AFAICT it's pretty built-in (though I can imagine in other countries for instance there are likely enough differences that you'd have to take time to learn specific signals): I can go into this style of conversation immediately with strangers as long as we're at least giving each other a little benefit of the doubt.
- taeric 4y ago
  Role play a policemen and a minority in this form of communication to see an easy way it can fall flat. Disastrously.
  - westoncb 4y ago
    It's already been said plenty of times that mutual trust is a requirement, this will be my last reply to your comments if you keep straw-manning.
    - taeric 4y ago
      It isn't a straw man, though. It literally happens all the time. Role play a woman in an office. And, I should have stated flat out I can see this style can exist. My discourse is why not to lead in with it. Pretty much anywhere.
      - westoncb 4y ago
        I think I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. But in a scenario with abusive power dynamics injustice is going to play out the same regardless of preferred conversation style, an outlet will trivially be found.
        taeric 4y ago
        Ok, I grant that going full on abusive is not helpful. Such that I apologize on jumping there immediately. :( My concern is more in the ones that aren't quite as stark. Role play that you are talking to someone that doesn't feel safe enough to tell you that they don't feel perfectly safe. Now, how do you know this? If they felt safe, you could ask. But, we have established that they don't, per the role play. And this is a large part of why the conversation around "privilege" is so tough. At large, what we call "privilege" can be easily recast to more subtle dynamics of folks that are allowed to give voice without as much interruptions. Note, not none. Just fewer. (Note that there are obviously other aspects to this that don't necessarily make the recasting.)

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.