The Church of Interruption
sambleckley.com
sambleckley.com
In theory, the best way to conduct a church-of-interruption exchange of ideas is big-endian: you begin by summarising your idea and only then flesh out the details. That way if your conclusion is understood you find out as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, if your conversational partner tends to interrupt incorrectly or in bad faith, the better strategy is little-endian: you craft your idea in such a way that it can't be understood until you've finished talking, and is thus uninterruptible. In extreme cases, you can even make the sentence not parse until the final word.
Big-endian: "I don't like sand. It's coarse, rough, irritating and it gets everywhere."
Little-endian: "You know what's coarse, rough, irritating and gets everywhere? Sand. I don't like it."
Little-endian (parser pipeline stall edition): "What I don't like, because it's coarse, rough, irritating, and gets everywhere, is sand."
For me, the issue with that, is that I'm more of a "stream of consciousness" conversationalist, where I say things as they come to mind and rarely have time to parse them in the way you suggest.
Maybe it's a matter of practice.
Once I detect stream-of-consciousness, I do a warning signal, like a frown or a yawn, then I make a visual cue that I'm exiting the conversation.
The Church of Interruption and Barker conversational style just doesn't work for me. I expect to be able to speak complete thoughts and listen to complete thoughts--thoughts that have a timely conclusion.
Your message comes across a lot more clearly if you get your thoughts in order before starting to speak. This is difficult at first, because if you're not practiced the conversation will have moved on before you've got your thoughts in line, but it is a skill you can practice. Take one of your stream of consciousness statements, maybe write it down, and repeat it a dozen times, each time making it shorter and more to the point - assertive, definitive, without feeling like you have to expand on your every point. Assume that if something is unclear, the other party will ask. But also try and limit the amount of concepts in one sentence so you don't overwhelm the other party with new stuff. (assuming you're talking technology or something of course).
FTFY :)
I don't know what it means to solve expectations; I'd guess it means to meet them, but I've always understood part of the recipe for humour to be violating expectations.
I notice some jokes, especially on Facebook etc., where the punchline is far too early and it feels like they're obnoxiously drilling the joke home. It's also the same when you have someone make a reference in a comment thread, then the next person continues the reference with less subtlety.
> A: There's a thing I don't like. It's coarse, rough, and it gets...
> B: Many coarse and rough things are vitally important though, why for example there's...
There are probably some linguistic phenomena at work here: subordinate clauses in German, for example, have trailing verbs (present perfect/pluperfect conjugations also have a final verb).
"The first issue that I want to discuss is the topic of when to argue and when not--in other words, when to get into a full-fledged back-and-forth discussion, and when to refrain from it. There are many cases...in which it is not appropriate. In such cases, if it is a moral or otherwise significant issue, you could make clear that you disapprove of the person's view, so that you do not leave yourself in the position that your silence or refusal to argue implies agreement. Nevertheless, there are many cases in which, given that disclaimer by you, it simply makes no sense to engage in argument. I would summarize it like this: Assuming you want to argue--and remembering that there is no moral duty to argue--you have to decide: Is it worth it? Is it worth the strain, or do you think you will do anything for your inner clarity, or toward conversion or suggestion of a viewpoint to other people?
"Assuming that you are interested and do want to develop along these lines, I would say, in essence, argue when you believe that your opponent, however confused, is honest. He may disagree violently with you. But the question is, is he open to rational argument or not? If he is dishonest--which means that facts, arguments, and reasoning make no difference to him--then, of course, it is a waste of time. It is a waste of your breath, because you are giving arguments to someone who you believe holds that arguments are irrelevant. Moreover, if you argue with such a person, you are actually sanctioning his pretense. If he wants to engage in argument with you, that means he wants to pretend that he is a man of reason, that he has arguments for his view. If he does that while simultaneously denying reason, he is engaged in real fraud, and your refusal to comply is much more dreadful to him than any amount of refutation by you."
I'm often thinking ahead in conversations and in a company hierarchy where people some don't want to admit not knowing or not understanding, I noticed people would nod or agree, but no actions would be taken. I though about this for a while and came to the conclusion that people simply need an explanation, but don't want to admit not understanding. SO what looked like agreement was facade to hide the confusion. It took me a bit, but I learned to move away from making a statement and waiting for questions, to leading into a conclusion so that everyone has more context with which to ask questions, or feel more comfortable asking a question because "hey, I understood most of that, but he/she lost me at that point"
And since those two doofuses are pretending they already have a clue, the QA Lead feels even more like THEY should already have one and so on and so forth.
Switch that to a context where you're the Prod M Lead, and you're talking about the roadmap to the Sales team who are all nodding their heads like they totally get it even when they're not and you have a high potential for an unproductive or counterproductive situation.
To me, being willing to admit you don't understand, or even to ask questions as if you don't understand when you do, is a sign of leadership-- it signals that you really care about having everyone on the team clued in and able to apply themselves to the situation at hand.
Heck, it might even be useful to have a "designated doofus" in your meetings who is there specifically to watch for this behavior and ask "stupid" questions to ensure understanding by as many people as possible in that room.
I was raised as a 'civil' person, but learned that in some groups, you get a better result & energy as an interrupter.
Another dynamic is high overt conflict & emotions vs low overt conflict & emotions cultures. High overt will seem like they are arguing passionately about something and they will never see each other again, and 10 minutes later are having tea like it's no big deal, because the emotion level isn't really a big deal to them. The same emotional display in a non-overt culture and you can be fairly certain that the conflict is a a fairly big deal, and 10 minutes later, it won't recover.
I've seen it most bafflingly in a tech help forum I used to frequent: folks coming for help would get really miffed at requests for clarification/expansion from the people who were trying to help. Probably some of those requests should have been worded better -- less terse, a little more "friendly"? -- but I never really understood the starting point of "anything other than an answer to my post is rude" that seemed to come up over and over.
Some people don't like it. It's easier to do when you are remote with a significant time difference.
I have found email and other forms of written communication wonderful for effectively sidestepping the worst problems. I can lay everything out that I think matters in an order that communicates effectively. It's much easier to do something like that in writing than in conversation, especially when there are time constraints and you don't know them that well or otherwise don't have the best rapport.
I don't, generally, have time to write long messages, nor (often) to read them, so as soon as I see this happening I've started to point out the behaviour and set up a short meeting to resolve whatever the issues are.
I'm reminded of Amazon's supposed culture of well-written memos ahead of meetings.
Having one party who only reads the subject line before replying will sabotage any attempt at resolving an issue through email.
There are many cases where the attributes I find most intolerable in others are actually the attributes I find most intolerable in myself, and this is one. What it comes down to for me is that as a kid I was praised a lot for my intelligence so I subconsciously see intelligence as my social value, so my tendency is to always be trying to show how intelligent I am as a social proof. Among the many frustrating habits that come out of this is interrupting to show I've understood something quickly. I've gotten a lot better about this over the years, but still catch myself doing it sometimes. So I appreciate the author's compassionate view.
They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it' and when they inevitably screw up its your fault for not explaining it right.
This is a somewhat separate problem from whether someone is an interrupter or not, though conversational style can have an influence on when miscommunication is likely to happen.
> They don't let you explain critical detail about something because 'they got it they got it'
Well-meaning non-interrupters who “think they know everything but really don’t have a clue” can just as easily miss critical details, when the speaker wrongly assumes they understand something but never stops to verify that. At least the interrupter typically makes their ignorance obvious, giving others a chance to prepare some response/workaround.
* * *
In my experience it is entirely possible for both interrupters and non-interrupters to be (or not be) empathetic, perceptive, conscientious, detail-oriented, knowledgeable, humble, presumptuous, judgmental, aggressive, ...
"We're struggling to meet our deadlines so I think we should---"
"Rewrite the project."
"---Avoid rewrites and do small reactors."
So in some cases when the interrupter keeps interrupting I simply ask him/her: "Can I finish my sentence?" In this case whatever the interrupter does it's too late for him, because it becomes obvious that his way of communication is not welcome and he was not even aware of this fact (i.e. he lacks self-awareness), and learning self-awareness in a group setting this way makes wonders.
Also I guess you make small refactors instead of reactors :)
Probably the best insight that I got from group therapy was being told that I needed to learn when to shut up. So I've learned to be adaptive. And when I'm nervous, I've learned to draw people out.
A respected manager that I really looked up to once gave me very similar advice. “When you have the answer, know the solution, can understand the problem, can see other’s mistakes? Just shut up.”
Fifteen years later, I have...improved somewhat.
Also, and maybe this will seem strange, I often feel like I'm just pretending to be a "normal person".
One example is the use of pauses. To me, in casual conversation, pausing for half a second cedes the floor, and pausing for two seconds means we're done with a topic. But I had a friend who would always pause for two seconds before saying anything at all. Neither of us interrupted, but there were still constant collisions.
It's not the same as using short sentences - personally I don't expect/allow to be interrupted (my friends know me for that).
By ensuring your messages are understood, you also make sure you are having an actual conversation, and not a mutual brain dump (which tends to lead to having a strawman POV of each other's point).
I like to hear someone's thought and then digest on it. If my partner in conversation just keeps on re-explaining his or her thoughts, thinking is halted. I have to keep on filtering what is said, even if it's basically the same thing repeated, to make sure I didn't miss something. The end result is that my partner speaks three or four times as much as he or she needs to, and I am left understanding less than if the thought was said to me once with a little time to think afterward.
My former partner kept telling me I don't listen.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
To this day I am still trying to learn how to listen.
I am also very much aware I am an interrupter. I know how bad this is and even so it is still hard to stop.
I also interrupt when I am excited and enthusiastic and when I like the person I am talking to.
I think the two are connected. One is less inclined to interrupt if one is actually truly listening.
Interrupters aren't having a conversation with you. They are having a conversation with themselves and not listening, just waiting to talk.
On your point on interrupters not listening: a big point of this article is that a skillful interruption moves a conversation along by allowing swift communication of understanding, so time isn't wasted repeating shared knowledge. A poor interrupter, a Barker, is as you describe - just throwing their own mess out there. If your interruptions cause irritation, it is because they aren't properly tuned or else you're dealing with someone from the Church of Strong Civility.
Even something as simple as echoing back someone’s statements, or saying “it seems like you are feeling angry because ...” can make a large difference. Once you have shown that you understand and can name or describe the person’s feelings it is often much easier to discuss possible solutions to practical problems. But if you jump straight to offering practical advice, that is often unwelcome.
(Of course, it might sometimes literally mean “you’re not listening”, which probably needs a different remedy.)
Let me recommend the book How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk even if you never talk to kids.
Which resulted in my thinking "What, what does that even mean?".
There can be just so very many reasons why people fail to communicate. I would be leery of chalking it up to any one thing.
As the article under discussion notes, interrupters sometimes do fine with some people and sometimes have tremendous problems with others. This is probably generally true of just about any communication thing you can name.
Some are famous for interrupting often (in France for instance), whilst for others it is the opposite. It can also be related to the language, e.g. in German or Japanese the verb is at the end of the sentence. Because of that, one need at least to wait for the person to finish the sentence to understand it.
That being said, you surely find German interrupters, and French adepts of the Strong Civility, but maybe in different proportions.
Instead of politely listening and after you finish ask what does the first thing (vital to understanding the whole speech) even mean.
First you listen and really try to understand not only the what but why from the person you're having a conversation with.
Then you paraphrase what you heard back to make sure you understand and that they can hear it back and agree.
If you do these two things you'll find that most people are actually pretty reasonable and you can in turn have a reasoned and listened to response and, shockingly, a real conversation.
Actually, repeaters might have it right - not even once in memory has someone who failed to understand me said "I don't get it," after I finished talking, everyone just nods and says "mm-hmm." It would not be irrational to assume the listener didn't get it until being presented with evidence otherwise.
I don't mind if people interrupt me, as long as they stick to the subject at hand. But I hate when someone just cut's me off mid sentence and starts talking about some totally unconnected stuff. I usually see the interruption coming. They nod impatiently and I see that their mouth is already preparing the sentence, waiting for a brief pause in my flow, not hearing a single word I'm saying.
No, taking turns speaking is its own reward, just like speeding a conversation along via interruptions is it's own reward.
I have found that in practice whether speakers assume their listeners understand them is a separate question from whether they tend to interrupt or not, however.
The most efficient and effective conversations in my experience are 1:1, with two speakers who both explicitly verify that the other person understands their meaning and is using the same definitions of words, and have some kind of efficient protocol for working backwards from a misunderstanding or gap in knowledge as soon as one pops up. There has to be enough trust involved that both interlocutors are willing to quickly and freely admit when they don’t know something or don’t understand an argument.
That's not what the article proposes:
DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF STRONG CIVILITY
1. Thou shalt not interrupt.
2. Thou shalt speak briefly.
3. Thou shalt use physical cues to indicate your understanding and desire to speak.
==
That said, what's wrong with listening to someone, asking questions if you require more understanding?
Another way of looking at all this: what makes you think that what you have to say is so important that it can't wait for someone to even finish their sentence?
(Note that “briefly” can sometimes be a rather extended argument, if it happens to be irreducibly complicated. The point is that it isn’t over-elaborated, not that it must be short.)
This works if people always ask for clarification when they don’t understand, but in my experience that’s pretty rare, and often a poor assumption; while this style is eminently polite, it sometimes leads to severe miscommunication when there was a fundamental difference in definitions or premises that neither person recognized.
In a preemptive model, each process just does its thing until it gets interrupted by the scheduler, and then then that process does its thing until it gets interrupted in turn. This is the "church of interruption" model. Its the responsibility of the other (scheduler / person) to signal to you (via an interrupt) when your turn is over.
But in the cooperative multitasking model, its the responsibility of the speaker to hand the baton back. It is vulnerable to a single person / process dominating the whole space by talking / running forever. And this is totally what happens when the two cultures meet - I have a friend who is 100% church of interruption. I came back from a retreat feeling calm and peaceful. We talked on the phone for a few hours the next day and I patiently waited for him to be done before I replied - which took about 3 hours. He was vaguely confused / annoyed at me for doing that. Apparently it simply didn't occur to him that if he wanted to know my thoughts he might need to ask me for them.
In the cooperative multitasking world, the golden rule is that all programs should run for a short amount of time then yield back to the scheduler so it can run something else. Its not so cut and dry for humans - I think "speak briefly" is a lossy summary of the rule because it often makes sense for one person to do most of the talking in a conversation. But in the "strong civility" culture its the responsibility of the speaker to be aware of tracking that, and usually do so only with the blessing of the group. Taking all the air in the room is a faux pas.
Many of us resorted to talking over him until he noticed, stopped, and let us reply. Surprisingly impervious to interruption.
Combined with their lack of experience, I can imagine that would be frustrating to be around.
I wonder whether/when we would see meeting software including "karma" feature so people could just "-1" and move forward without wasting time/effort, though "-1"ing say your manager, even if anonymously ... :)
If I have something complex, I have to write it out, if only to prove my work/logic. At least text tends to last longer, spread wider, and be more useful than any conversation.
From the other point of view, never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact.
never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact
What does this mean?
The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
For people in an interruption-heavy conversation culture, someone who sits back and doesn’t say anything because there is never a long pause where no one else is talking – or who doesn’t jump in and say something when the interrupter starts saying explaining something they already know, leaving the interrupter to waste their time – seems cold and distant. The non-interrupter’s silence feels judgmental and antisocial. The interrupter will often interpret the non-interrupter’s behavior as an indication that that he/she does not like the interrupter or does not want to be part of the conversation.
Often this impression of standoffishness is inaccurate, a result of cultural misunderstanding. Just like the non-interrupter’s impression that the interrupter is confrontational or rude is inaccurate, also a misunderstanding.
* * *
There are many similar kinds of cultural differences which can lead to misunderstandings.
When someone from a culture where each person gets a personal plate to eat from meets someone from a culture where everyone eats from a communal plate, each person can interpret the other’s behavior as rudeness.
When someone from a culture without much physical contact meets someone from a culture where people greet each-other with hugs or kisses, again, each can interpret the opposite behavior as rudeness.
THAT'S THE CONFRONTATION.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
Yes it is. That's the confrontation, again.
The rest of your comment doesn't really make a point, just value judgement on your preference for interrupting. Someone being a loudmouth or a boor is a cultural difference or "just rude," while someone who prefers not to participate in everybody talking over each other (a predictable condition) is cold, distant, judgemental, antisocial, and just plain does not want to be part of the conversation.
This is an antagonistic and bad-faith perspective.
I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.
As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men.
You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors.
FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly.
Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
Men interrupt men more than women do.
Men interrupt women more than women do.
Men interrupt more than women.
I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out.
I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc.
Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases.
It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.
Bob replies to topic two and starts to segue to topic three.
Carol has something important to say about topic one.
What is Carol supposed to do? Let the entire chain play out, then transition back to topic one when there's an opening? I know people can be bitter about interruption, but in my experience you get a prompt and decisive smackdown for trying to backtrack, especially when pressed for time. It seems important to get your point in while it's relevant. Interruption of the form, "hey, before we move on, can we talk about X" seems to be the way do that.
How would you handle this situation?
I'm especially interested in this, because interruption and other conversational "traffic control" flow much less naturally on international video conferences, and our remote meetings tend to be stressful and chaotic messes. Short of a formal, parliamentarian moderator, it's not clear how to make these better.
In a large group meeting it might help to have a semi-formal agenda and make sure each item is finished before moving on. Getting everyone to read prepared written documents might also help.
Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one. Doing this you immediately relinquish control of the conversation, and when appropriate say your thoughts.
Otherwise, just let it go. Is it going to kill you to not say it?
I read a good summary once of analysing the thought process:
- Does this need to be said?
- Does this need to be said by me?
- Does this need to be said by me now?
Which are good questions to ask when interrupting the flow of a conversation.
Especially if the topic at hand is a new territory with a lot of unknown unknowns. If no-one ever explicitly says that "OK, we covered topic one and now we move on to topic two. Is there anyone who wants to add comments?", then the conversation was not very civil, was not yet over, and whoever organized the meeting was an amateur, and let the worst thing happen: Alice and Bob change topics for no reason, instead of stopping them short.
About all we can assume from the scenario are the power dynamics. Alice spoke first which says it's either her meeting or she is the ranking person there - not Carol.
If it was a meeting to address the potential critical failure of a system that Carol is the most knowledgeable about, then yes, she should speak up. It could be potentially negligent to not do so, but most meetings are not that.
It means a decision will be made without Carol's information that she'll have to live with, potentially hampering her ability to deliver something she's accountable for. If her manager finds out she knew something important and held onto it out of politeness, that'll come up in the leadership/collaboration section of her next review. If her manager doesn't know that she knew, it'll look like a hard skills problem.
>Best thing to do is wait until the end and circle back with a question that leads into discussing topic one.
Maybe this is a quirk of my meeting culture, but the success rate here is approximately zero.
>Does this need to be said by me?
This is a good one keep in mind, I do sometimes find that the point I've been hanging onto eventually gets said by someone else, and it's really satisfying.
Is this a power dynamic, time limitation or an adherence to not backtrack?
I basically moderate an in person meeting once a month (though my title is chair, not moderator). I'm supposed to keep things on topic, curtail problematic behavior and try to get us out of there on time. I also take written notes.
How you do that depends on a variety of factors, including the personalities involved.
So I would think about recurrent problematic patterns and try to resolve those.
Is the problem that Alice is prone to being long winded and talking about many things?
Is the problem that Bob routinely jumps in to say something about X, then just takes over the conversation, going wherever he so desires?
Etc.
So, some things that might help:
1. A written agenda for the meetings. You discuss topic A. Everyone gets their say. You check if everyone has said their piece before you move on to topic B.
2. You lay some ground rules that address specific problems you've noticed. Don't single anyone out, even if it's primarily one person guilty of doing it. Just write up a policy saying "We will not be doing x. We will do a, b and c."
3. Name a specific person who is supposed to keep the meeting on track. Part of that role includes helping make sure everyone gets to participate in a satisfactory manner.
4. Plan time at the end of the meeting for random comments, people returning to a point from earlier, etc.
We typically go through the agenda and then talk a bit more generally afterwards. As long as it doesn't go too far afield or get too contentious, I'm tolerant of meandering topics for the last part of the meeting.
If it gets contentious and it's not really germaine, I try to say something like "This is getting really deep in the weeds about a thing we have no control over." and redirect conversation back to pertinent topics.
And if the speaker/chair ignores you, it makes them look rude.
But there’s obviously a big difference between interrupting someone in the middle of a large formal work meeting in front of an assortment of colleagues vs. interrupting someone in the middle of a small collaborative technical discussion in a closely-knit team. The former is often more about demonstrating perceived social superiority rather than guiding a conversation, and such behavior is boorish.
I'm not sure I'm all that against interrupters, and I think I can handle them and can sort of be one myself, but it is surely exhausting.
I invented conversation queues for me and my friends. Whenever someone is inspired to tangent onto a new topic, they interrupt only long enough to point at me and say a word or two, which I write down. The next time there's a lull in conversation, I announce the next topic in the queue and cross it off, and the person who inserted it gets to expound.
It seems to work really well, and the list can get quite long with a few hours over coffee or beer.
Both are annoying, but people who complete others’ sentences are IMO worse: it’s a way of showing that you don’t care what the other person thinks, especially when the interrupter guesses wrong and the speaker has to out-talk them in order to get their actual words in.