6 ms·

Seems there is lots of discussion already about "Don't interrupt" I will add another POV: You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will nev

by agolio 4y ago

Seems there is lots of discussion already about "Don't interrupt" I will add another POV: You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will never talk at all. That's what regularly happens to me at least, I need to learn to speak up a bit more...

jraph 4y ago
Same here. I lost countless occasions to express an idea or a joke because I didn't manage to speak and the topic shifted enough that the idea became off-topic when I could speak. But I usually don't think I'm more relevant than the person who managed to speak before me or don't have the energy to impose, so I just listen.
- BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
  In a group of 3 or more (especially more) people, there is probably no way to avoid this happening to at least some of the participants multiple times. There simply isn't enough time to get every word in before things get tiresome and people need to re-arrange.
  - bittercynic 4y ago
    It took until I was well into adulthood to come to that realization. I've come to enjoy the feeling of having had a good idea to contribute, but seeing that the situation doesn't call for my input, and just letting the moment pass. It's fun to have ideas, and it's fun to figure out whether or not it is the right moment to make your contribution.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will never talk at all." It depends on the group of course, but when it is made up of people, who also want to listen - you don't have to interupt someone. It is enough to use your body language to signal, that you have something to say and there will cone a natural pause for your turn. And this is something, you can actually train. Your pose, your standing, your face expression, your gestic, etc.
- hammock 4y ago
  Good luck with that on a zoom call
  - borski 4y ago
    Zoom calls are their own brand of awful, and they are almost-by-definition not conducive to productive conversation. I’d argue conference calls that are audio-only (and thus full duplex, using actual phones) are actually far superior.
    - xur17 4y ago
      Google Meet has the concept of "raising your hand" by clicking a button, which we've used in meetings at work with a fair amount of success. I've also had luck by literally raising my hand on the video (one of the reasons video is actually quite useful for conference calls). And raising your hand doesn't have to be like when you were in school, it can be as subtle as very slightly raising a finger or 2 (body language).
      - a4isms 4y ago
        Zoom has the “raise your hand feature,” and it manages a queue of people who have raised their hands so that they can speak in order. We use this at work, it is especially great for large meetings which otherwise can devolve into chaos. A small but interesting feature is that each participant can turn on an option where if the software thinks they are physically raising their hand, it behaves as if they clicked the “raise hand” button. I like it. I don’t use Google Meet, perhaps it has similar functionality.
      - borski 4y ago
        You’re right, it doesn’t have to be obvious - but if you do it like you did in school, others will usually chuckle and you’ll lighten the mood in the room a bit. I’m a bit of a “funny guy” and so that always works for me, but YMMV of course.
- borski 4y ago
altdataseller 4y ago
Yes, and I feel there should be 2 separate rulebooks, depending on whether you are talking 1-on-1 with someone, or in a group
abalashov 4y ago
Yeah, I agree with that. It really depends on what you're interrupting with. The devil is in the details and the substance, IMHO. A long time ago, I read a convincing take--it might have been in some kind of pop psychology tractate along the lines of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus"--that likened ideal interruption mannerisms to snatching the ball from a teammate in basketball. If you take the ball from a teammate and then turn around and use it to make a 3-point shot from mid-court, nobody's got a problem with that, and they'll happily let you do it again. (That's a "good point"). If you take it and fumble it into the crowd, different story. I don't know if that's something one can literally deploy, or if it's just pithy verbiage that sounds good. But it tends to be how I (aspirationally) do the interrupting and how I register others' interruptions. Whether it's annoying really depends on what the merit of what was actually said once they preempted the prior conversational execution path. :-)
munificent 4y ago
This is one of those things where there is huge cultural variation, but everyone subconsciously assumes their culture's point on the continuum is the "correct" one and gives advice based on that. Some cultures lean towards people being expected to take the stage in a conversation and interruption is a valid and accepted way of communicating "I have something of value now". Other lean towards people being expected to give the stage and silence is a valid and accepted way of communicating "Do you have something of value now?" Either style is fine, but you gotta read the room and adjust your style to fit the other people in your conversation.
- de_nied 4y ago
  This is a very simple, but not obvious, statement. I think your comment clicked something for me. I always noticed the two types of conversations you pointed out, but for some reason I never made the connection to categorize it like this. Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.
- rerdavies 4y ago
  Speaking of huge cultural variation... an experience I had working with Russian contractors: they didn't realize that we disagreed with their plan because we hadn't yelled at them. No idea whether that's a general Russian cultural principle or not, but we did get better at disagreeing, when necessary, after that. I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.
  - fredrikholm 4y ago
    Having worked with a lot of Russians/former Sovjets, I can see this happening. They're often serious in most endeavours ("work hard play hard", "smiling is for leisure time" etc), and this extends to disagreements IME. There was one incident where two (white collar adults) had a fist fight over a seemingly minor issue. I was mortified (Swede), but they were fine? As in the fight settled it, and they were now pals again. Alcohol was included.
darrenkopp 4y ago
I think the rule "Don't interrupt" still holds, but is more nuanced. If you just cut someone off while they are talking and start saying whatever you had been wanting to say that whole time, I'd consider that interrupting them. However, I don't consider it interrupting if I am saying something complementary to what they are currently saying that is brief but is signaling that I want to say something. For example I'd give an auditory cue that I want to say something by saying more words than I normally would just to signal that I'm actively listening such as instead of just saying "mmmhmmm" I'd say "Yeah something similar happened to me" and then give them time to finish up their thought and begin speaking myself OR allow them to move the conversation over to me explicitly. Depending on the speaker, if they don't pick up on that cue or continue to just ramble on, I repeat and intensify that to the point where I may actually interrupt them so that I can speak, but at that point it's not necessarily a negative behavior, it's just neutral. My interruption negates their negative behavior of orrating rather than conversing.
bilsbie 4y ago
This is my biggest conversational struggle lately. I can’t seem to figure it out.

by agolio 4y ago

jraph 4y ago

Same here. I lost countless occasions to express an idea or a joke because I didn't manage to speak and the topic shifted enough that the idea became off-topic when I could speak. But I usually don't think I'm more relevant than the person who managed to speak before me or don't have the energy to impose, so I just listen.

BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
In a group of 3 or more (especially more) people, there is probably no way to avoid this happening to at least some of the participants multiple times. There simply isn't enough time to get every word in before things get tiresome and people need to re-arrange.
- bittercynic 4y ago
  It took until I was well into adulthood to come to that realization. I've come to enjoy the feeling of having had a good idea to contribute, but seeing that the situation doesn't call for my input, and just letting the moment pass. It's fun to have ideas, and it's fun to figure out whether or not it is the right moment to make your contribution.

hutzlibu 4y ago

"You kind of have to interrupt in group conversations or you will never talk at all." It depends on the group of course, but when it is made up of people, who also want to listen - you don't have to interupt someone. It is enough to use your body language to signal, that you have something to say and there will cone a natural pause for your turn. And this is something, you can actually train. Your pose, your standing, your face expression, your gestic, etc.

hammock 4y ago
Good luck with that on a zoom call
- borski 4y ago
  Zoom calls are their own brand of awful, and they are almost-by-definition not conducive to productive conversation. I’d argue conference calls that are audio-only (and thus full duplex, using actual phones) are actually far superior.
  - xur17 4y ago
    Google Meet has the concept of "raising your hand" by clicking a button, which we've used in meetings at work with a fair amount of success. I've also had luck by literally raising my hand on the video (one of the reasons video is actually quite useful for conference calls). And raising your hand doesn't have to be like when you were in school, it can be as subtle as very slightly raising a finger or 2 (body language).
    - a4isms 4y ago
      Zoom has the “raise your hand feature,” and it manages a queue of people who have raised their hands so that they can speak in order. We use this at work, it is especially great for large meetings which otherwise can devolve into chaos. A small but interesting feature is that each participant can turn on an option where if the software thinks they are physically raising their hand, it behaves as if they clicked the “raise hand” button. I like it. I don’t use Google Meet, perhaps it has similar functionality.
    - borski 4y ago
      You’re right, it doesn’t have to be obvious - but if you do it like you did in school, others will usually chuckle and you’ll lighten the mood in the room a bit. I’m a bit of a “funny guy” and so that always works for me, but YMMV of course.
borski 4y ago

altdataseller 4y ago

Yes, and I feel there should be 2 separate rulebooks, depending on whether you are talking 1-on-1 with someone, or in a group

abalashov 4y ago

Yeah, I agree with that. It really depends on what you're interrupting with. The devil is in the details and the substance, IMHO. A long time ago, I read a convincing take--it might have been in some kind of pop psychology tractate along the lines of "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus"--that likened ideal interruption mannerisms to snatching the ball from a teammate in basketball. If you take the ball from a teammate and then turn around and use it to make a 3-point shot from mid-court, nobody's got a problem with that, and they'll happily let you do it again. (That's a "good point"). If you take it and fumble it into the crowd, different story. I don't know if that's something one can literally deploy, or if it's just pithy verbiage that sounds good. But it tends to be how I (aspirationally) do the interrupting and how I register others' interruptions. Whether it's annoying really depends on what the merit of what was actually said once they preempted the prior conversational execution path. :-)

munificent 4y ago

This is one of those things where there is huge cultural variation, but everyone subconsciously assumes their culture's point on the continuum is the "correct" one and gives advice based on that. Some cultures lean towards people being expected to take the stage in a conversation and interruption is a valid and accepted way of communicating "I have something of value now". Other lean towards people being expected to give the stage and silence is a valid and accepted way of communicating "Do you have something of value now?" Either style is fine, but you gotta read the room and adjust your style to fit the other people in your conversation.

de_nied 4y ago
This is a very simple, but not obvious, statement. I think your comment clicked something for me. I always noticed the two types of conversations you pointed out, but for some reason I never made the connection to categorize it like this. Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.
rerdavies 4y ago
Speaking of huge cultural variation... an experience I had working with Russian contractors: they didn't realize that we disagreed with their plan because we hadn't yelled at them. No idea whether that's a general Russian cultural principle or not, but we did get better at disagreeing, when necessary, after that. I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.
- fredrikholm 4y ago
  Having worked with a lot of Russians/former Sovjets, I can see this happening. They're often serious in most endeavours ("work hard play hard", "smiling is for leisure time" etc), and this extends to disagreements IME. There was one incident where two (white collar adults) had a fist fight over a seemingly minor issue. I was mortified (Swede), but they were fine? As in the fight settled it, and they were now pals again. Alcohol was included.

darrenkopp 4y ago

I think the rule "Don't interrupt" still holds, but is more nuanced. If you just cut someone off while they are talking and start saying whatever you had been wanting to say that whole time, I'd consider that interrupting them. However, I don't consider it interrupting if I am saying something complementary to what they are currently saying that is brief but is signaling that I want to say something. For example I'd give an auditory cue that I want to say something by saying more words than I normally would just to signal that I'm actively listening such as instead of just saying "mmmhmmm" I'd say "Yeah something similar happened to me" and then give them time to finish up their thought and begin speaking myself OR allow them to move the conversation over to me explicitly. Depending on the speaker, if they don't pick up on that cue or continue to just ramble on, I repeat and intensify that to the point where I may actually interrupt them so that I can speak, but at that point it's not necessarily a negative behavior, it's just neutral. My interruption negates their negative behavior of orrating rather than conversing.

bilsbie 4y ago

This is my biggest conversational struggle lately. I can’t seem to figure it out.