4 ms·

On the topic of "interruption", I think that "it depends". Sam Bleckley wrote a really good essay on this behavior[0] that pretty much explains how my wife and

On the topic of "interruption", I think that "it depends". Sam Bleckley wrote a really good essay on this behavior[0] that pretty much explains how my wife and I interact with each other. We interrupt each other constantly to move the conversation along faster and to express our current state of understanding. I have learned that this often comes across as "rude", but I feel like it's perhaps a difference of style between east coast (and maybe just NY/NJ) and the rest of the US. The Holy Creedo of The Church of Interruption: 1. Thou shalt interrupt when thou understand’st. 2. Thou shalt speak until I interrupt. 3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate when I ought continue talking. > “I’m talking about how you behave when we’re talking. When you understand whatever it is I’m trying to say, you don’t wait around for me to finish my sentence, you—” > “Interrupt. Sure. It’s the easiest way to make sure I understand what you mean.” > “That’s very insightful. You’re right; if you finish my statement in a way I agree with, I know that you understand. And, if I accept your summary, we both know you’ve got it. It’s very efficient.” [0] https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html

Bluestein 2y ago
Must admit I thought the same thing on "interruption". It can be a "positive". Or, at least, it downright did not seem to me like it would warrant being put on such a list ... PS. Cue in, relevant (?) all the work nowaday's being done on conversational AI and "interruption".- PSS. It - indeed - could be "regional", definitely cultural.-
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  I think interruption comes in at least two modalities: 1. To stop the flow of conversation. This is definitely rude. A manager shutting you down, for example. 2. To facilitate the faster flow of conversation. This is The Church of Interruption; the point of the interrupt is to move the conversation to the next point with less waste. Some folks when they are speaking perceive these as one and the same, but they are actually quite different. In fact, to one who aligns with The Church of Interruption, drawing out a talking point feels rude -- as if the conversation partner were giving a speech and the rest of us are merely here to listen. My wife is Caucasian (Polish/Italian) and I'm Asian (Taiwanese) and definitely both of us fall into the latter. I think the high density of Italian, Indian, and Asian immigrants here in NY/NJ might have something to do with it as well!
JohnFen 2y ago
I absolutely recognize and can adapt to interacting with people who use interruption as a normal part of conversational flow, but I find it exhausting and prefer to avoid such interaction when I can. It's certainly a cultural or habit thing, and one that I was not exposed to until I was an adult. I think because of that, when I'm interacting with people who use the technique I can no longer actually focus on the substance of the conversation because I'm always having to decipher the mechanics of it. By that I mean I have to pay conscious attention to the conversational flow in order to determine when I should interrupt and why the other person is interrupting. At first it was pretty disconcerting, though, because if you weren't raised with that sort of conversational approach then it does come off as being rude or, worse, dismissive.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  I think as long as the flow is positive (you're not being shut down), it can help to shift perspective and see it alternatively that your conversational partner is highly engaged in the discussion.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    I do see it that way. It's not a matter of perspective, it's just that interacting in that way requires me to split my attention between what we're talking about and the protocol we're using to talk with. That modality is not one that I encounter often, so it's a little like trying to speak with someone using a language I'm not fluent in. I have to pay attention to the language itself as much as what we're using the language to convey. That's why I find it exhausting. Unless the conversation is really critical to have, I'm more likely to disengage with it to a degree and just let the other do all the talking. Which is not always a bad thing.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      > Which is not always a bad thing. Not at all. Actually, a learned skill rather.-
  - deleted 2y ago

Bluestein 2y ago

Must admit I thought the same thing on "interruption". It can be a "positive". Or, at least, it downright did not seem to me like it would warrant being put on such a list ... PS. Cue in, relevant (?) all the work nowaday's being done on conversational AI and "interruption".- PSS. It - indeed - could be "regional", definitely cultural.-

CharlieDigital 2y ago
I think interruption comes in at least two modalities: 1. To stop the flow of conversation. This is definitely rude. A manager shutting you down, for example. 2. To facilitate the faster flow of conversation. This is The Church of Interruption; the point of the interrupt is to move the conversation to the next point with less waste. Some folks when they are speaking perceive these as one and the same, but they are actually quite different. In fact, to one who aligns with The Church of Interruption, drawing out a talking point feels rude -- as if the conversation partner were giving a speech and the rest of us are merely here to listen. My wife is Caucasian (Polish/Italian) and I'm Asian (Taiwanese) and definitely both of us fall into the latter. I think the high density of Italian, Indian, and Asian immigrants here in NY/NJ might have something to do with it as well!

JohnFen 2y ago

I absolutely recognize and can adapt to interacting with people who use interruption as a normal part of conversational flow, but I find it exhausting and prefer to avoid such interaction when I can. It's certainly a cultural or habit thing, and one that I was not exposed to until I was an adult. I think because of that, when I'm interacting with people who use the technique I can no longer actually focus on the substance of the conversation because I'm always having to decipher the mechanics of it. By that I mean I have to pay conscious attention to the conversational flow in order to determine when I should interrupt and why the other person is interrupting. At first it was pretty disconcerting, though, because if you weren't raised with that sort of conversational approach then it does come off as being rude or, worse, dismissive.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
I think as long as the flow is positive (you're not being shut down), it can help to shift perspective and see it alternatively that your conversational partner is highly engaged in the discussion.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  I do see it that way. It's not a matter of perspective, it's just that interacting in that way requires me to split my attention between what we're talking about and the protocol we're using to talk with. That modality is not one that I encounter often, so it's a little like trying to speak with someone using a language I'm not fluent in. I have to pay attention to the language itself as much as what we're using the language to convey. That's why I find it exhausting. Unless the conversation is really critical to have, I'm more likely to disengage with it to a degree and just let the other do all the talking. Which is not always a bad thing.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    > Which is not always a bad thing. Not at all. Actually, a learned skill rather.-
- deleted 2y ago