4 ms·

Being interrupted is a pain because it can derail your train of thought. But I think many people interrupt in order to avoid derailing their own train of though

Being interrupted is a pain because it can derail your train of thought. But I think many people interrupt in order to avoid derailing their own train of thought by waiting and/or writing something down, or simply because nobody else will stop talking or pay attention to them. I've also observed "full duplex" conversations where people overlap periodically but don't seem to have any trouble continuing. And I've been in meetings and zoom calls where you can't get a word in edgewise until the meeting is over. I've tried to become more tolerant of people who seem to be interrupting to express something important in context.

thrixton 2y ago
There's also the full-duplex mode where 2 people are talking, but both seem to be engaged in a different conversation. Communication is hard, tolerance is important.
- overengineer 2y ago
  I call this bidirectional monologue
atoav 2y ago
While I understand that there are many people whose idea of a conversation seems to be: "I say mine, you say yours". With that idea every interruption is a problem. However conversations are more than that and in my experience there are multiple legitimate reasons for interruptions. E.g. if I am explaining a point that the other side already knows, it would be good that I read their nonverbal hints and realize they already know before insisting on rambling on for 15 minutes of monologue about a thing they already know. Heck, in that case it would be in my interest for them to interrupt me. And even if they don't know, they might like to say a thing as well, which is kinda a thing in conversions. Or I am missing a foundational idea or a context clue that helps the other person follow, and you find out after you went into the explaination way to deep. In that case the interruption would help me catch that early on and I could adjust accordingly. Now I am good at reading cues and knowing when it is time to give other people room to chime in. But I know many people who in a 20 minute conversation will have talked 95% of the duration and insist you keep interrupting, despite you having said 4 full sentences at max. The point I wanted to make is that with such people, the only way not to interrupt them is by accepting they are holding a monologue and you are meant to be the audience, even if you already know the thing they are telling you. In some situations this can be okay, e.g. a friend who is pouring their heart out — they might need someone to listen. But in many situations this is just aomeone talking to bolster their own ego and convincing themselves of their own importance. This borders on abusive behavior. If someone insists that in a conversation between equals their ideas are so important that the reaction of the other side doesn't matter and only one side is allowed to steer the conversation, they are forcing that on you. Not to say there aren't negative interruptions as well. E.g. someone who rarely speaks outlines their perspective and the guy who has to monologue all the time keeps interrupting, because he can't stand to listen etc. Totally hate that. But in my experience most people who complain about interruption are people who dominate conversations in terms of talking time. Our goal should be to defend those who don't complain and see the nuances of the whole thing.
- funcDropShadow 2y ago
  Couldn't have said it better.
LordGrey 2y ago
> And I've been in meetings and zoom calls where you can't get a word in edgewise until the meeting is over. This often triggers the same reaction in me as when I start to write a reply here on HN, only to delete it without posting. "Why bother? No one will care what I say." Meetings where there are no opportunities for me to contribute send the message that my contributions are not wanted. That may not be true, of course, but that is the message I receive.
oriel 2y ago
A habit I picked up from the format of one person preaching to a meeting room. Take notes, or barring that use fingers or verbal cues (or other memory palace tricks) to keyword myself to remember the multitude of things I want to bringup or am monitoring to see if they're addressed. I ended up getting a Remarkable for exactly this reason, and all my poorly scrawled notes ended up being very useful to make sure key thoughts and responses were raised at relevant times.
tpoacher 2y ago
> I've also observed "full duplex" conversations where people overlap periodically but don't seem to have any trouble continuing. And I've been in meetings and zoom calls where you can't get a word in edgewise until the meeting is over. I call these people "The Uninterruptibles". Typically they can talk for hours, while still technically on their first sentence (grammatically speaking). Eventually you have no choice but to interrupt; an opportunity they relish immensely!
tpoacher 2y ago
Also, I would argue that, if your own train of thought is at risk of being derailed by a person interrupting in order to protect their own train of thought from derailing ... then (assuming you're not aware of it and doing it intentionally) perhaps it may be worth considering if you're being partially "uninterruptible". A good communicator should communicate no more than 2-3 ideas max, before allowing a gap for counterpoints (i.e. inviting constructive "interruptions") to occur. If you've branched n times from the original argument and people are still trying to debate the root of the tree, of course they need to interrupt; otherwise they'll be stuck debating the leaf nodes, or worse, appear to be rudely ignoring all n-1 arguments in order to return to the (presumably now largely irrelevant) root node of the conversation. Meanwhile, you've managed to get n arguments in and managed to get offended at the interruption. win-win /s - sorry, not a personal attack; just a point I see often, which your comment reminded me of :)

thrixton 2y ago

There's also the full-duplex mode where 2 people are talking, but both seem to be engaged in a different conversation. Communication is hard, tolerance is important.

overengineer 2y ago
I call this bidirectional monologue

atoav 2y ago

While I understand that there are many people whose idea of a conversation seems to be: "I say mine, you say yours". With that idea every interruption is a problem. However conversations are more than that and in my experience there are multiple legitimate reasons for interruptions. E.g. if I am explaining a point that the other side already knows, it would be good that I read their nonverbal hints and realize they already know before insisting on rambling on for 15 minutes of monologue about a thing they already know. Heck, in that case it would be in my interest for them to interrupt me. And even if they don't know, they might like to say a thing as well, which is kinda a thing in conversions. Or I am missing a foundational idea or a context clue that helps the other person follow, and you find out after you went into the explaination way to deep. In that case the interruption would help me catch that early on and I could adjust accordingly. Now I am good at reading cues and knowing when it is time to give other people room to chime in. But I know many people who in a 20 minute conversation will have talked 95% of the duration and insist you keep interrupting, despite you having said 4 full sentences at max. The point I wanted to make is that with such people, the only way not to interrupt them is by accepting they are holding a monologue and you are meant to be the audience, even if you already know the thing they are telling you. In some situations this can be okay, e.g. a friend who is pouring their heart out — they might need someone to listen. But in many situations this is just aomeone talking to bolster their own ego and convincing themselves of their own importance. This borders on abusive behavior. If someone insists that in a conversation between equals their ideas are so important that the reaction of the other side doesn't matter and only one side is allowed to steer the conversation, they are forcing that on you. Not to say there aren't negative interruptions as well. E.g. someone who rarely speaks outlines their perspective and the guy who has to monologue all the time keeps interrupting, because he can't stand to listen etc. Totally hate that. But in my experience most people who complain about interruption are people who dominate conversations in terms of talking time. Our goal should be to defend those who don't complain and see the nuances of the whole thing.

funcDropShadow 2y ago
Couldn't have said it better.

LordGrey 2y ago

> And I've been in meetings and zoom calls where you can't get a word in edgewise until the meeting is over. This often triggers the same reaction in me as when I start to write a reply here on HN, only to delete it without posting. "Why bother? No one will care what I say." Meetings where there are no opportunities for me to contribute send the message that my contributions are not wanted. That may not be true, of course, but that is the message I receive.

oriel 2y ago

A habit I picked up from the format of one person preaching to a meeting room. Take notes, or barring that use fingers or verbal cues (or other memory palace tricks) to keyword myself to remember the multitude of things I want to bringup or am monitoring to see if they're addressed. I ended up getting a Remarkable for exactly this reason, and all my poorly scrawled notes ended up being very useful to make sure key thoughts and responses were raised at relevant times.

tpoacher 2y ago

> I've also observed "full duplex" conversations where people overlap periodically but don't seem to have any trouble continuing. And I've been in meetings and zoom calls where you can't get a word in edgewise until the meeting is over. I call these people "The Uninterruptibles". Typically they can talk for hours, while still technically on their first sentence (grammatically speaking). Eventually you have no choice but to interrupt; an opportunity they relish immensely!

tpoacher 2y ago

Also, I would argue that, if your own train of thought is at risk of being derailed by a person interrupting in order to protect their own train of thought from derailing ... then (assuming you're not aware of it and doing it intentionally) perhaps it may be worth considering if you're being partially "uninterruptible". A good communicator should communicate no more than 2-3 ideas max, before allowing a gap for counterpoints (i.e. inviting constructive "interruptions") to occur. If you've branched n times from the original argument and people are still trying to debate the root of the tree, of course they need to interrupt; otherwise they'll be stuck debating the leaf nodes, or worse, appear to be rudely ignoring all n-1 arguments in order to return to the (presumably now largely irrelevant) root node of the conversation. Meanwhile, you've managed to get n arguments in and managed to get offended at the interruption. win-win /s - sorry, not a personal attack; just a point I see often, which your comment reminded me of :)