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...
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.
Many of my awkward conversations are strictly because this distinction wasn't respected. Thanks for teaching me something new.
I suspect that a large part of the problem was that Canadians tend to disagree rather obliquely.
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.
> Alcohol was included.
Of course, alcohol too.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/389530.Chimpanzee_Politi...
Was the “minor conflict” resolved by one of the people acquiescing due to not wanting to risk further damage?
I also suspect that there were more than one reason for the fight, but you'd never know by asking.
Until then, I feel perfectly free to speak my mind, and I do not accept strangers socially policing me. Why should I? They're the ones who have an issue, not me.
Both styles are acceptable, but don't let others tell you what the room reads. You are an adult, and perfectly capable of choosing for yourself what is appropriate communication. Whether you're someone who is naturally withdrawn or not makes no difference, you should always be able to feel comfortable being yourself. If you can't, your number one goal should be to permanently remove yourself from whichever situations restricts you from that, whatever way you can while maintaining your integrity.
Don't let others scare you into thinking you'll never make it work, cause you absolutely will. Where there's a will there's a way, and I don't know a single person who moved out of home, for example, then regretted it but ended up homeless because they cut ties. I'm sure you can find me an example or two, but in the vast majority of cases, the people who are the worst off in society are those who relied on someone who was toxic for them, not those who cut ties and failed to adequately provide for themselves.
Your body is capable of more than you know, and will even naturally prioritise things for you in the way they should be. Modern society allows you to be an individual at the cost of the community we used to have. That sucks, but as a hacker, you should accept things as they are, and take advantage of what you can in the broken systems that surround us. Even in your own life. Things are what they are, and you can feel about them however you want to. The only way to make them different is to use what's in front of you.
However, your version seems a little extreme. The article may seem to articulate the other extreme - like you should always contort yourself into the shape that others want, but I don't think the author was suggesting that. Seemed to me they were just pointing out that conversations are most fun when both/all parties take an interest in each other, and it's nice when someone takes a genuine interest in what you're talking about, so let's do that for each other.
The poster is clearly believes that there is something intrinsic and essential to their one personality that involves how they interrupt people, rather than realizing it is simply a choice they have made that has effects and consequences like any other choice.
They want and expect those consequences to be different than they are and they are anchored in that delusion.
Of course the things I do are a choice. Everything is. I chose to restrain myself for a good 10-11 years and it was utterly miserable. Why would I desire relationships I do not need on the condition that I do what I do not want? Makes no sense.
I don't expect anything from anyone aside from treating me with the same respect I treat them. If I am not welcome somewhere, I have no problem leaving. Being myself alone is far preferable to being someone else with a bunch of people who will never be closer than acquaintances.
Perhaps you will come to terms with this in time to live some portion of your life with a different approach.
I'm not suggesting you should throw away what works for you, but if you only do the things that are already working, you might miss out on something you would have enjoyed.
A Buddhist does not simply accept abuse and is not a passive actor. On the contrary, accomplished practitioners brim with vigor, courage and their own personality.
You've designed a life where you are comfortable but at the potential expense of anyone you encounter. That is not an accomplished life. That is a life of poisoned self-indulgence.
I tend not to do this just to keep the peace, but It absolutely infuriates me when im interrupted and id love to be able to just re-interrupt people
All I've come to realise is that I don't need to let anyone I'm not close to police me. It's nonsensical. If I am breaking no laws, and simply sating my desires, then what business is it of a stranger what I do? What do I care if it makes them feel bad? While I am a generous person, it's important to remember that offense is taken, not given.
The only people who actually feel bad about someone who's interesting enough to capture the spotlight keeping it on, are those who feel so insecure in themselves and their own accomplishments, they are unable to let others have theirs. I understand that, and I sympathise. That's why I used to go along with what I was told. I too thought that was the right thing to do.
In my experience, I have had more positive social interactions in the past ~3 months I've been speaking my mind than the past 8 years I've lived as a "proper person" in this city. My strategy is improving my social success, not decreasing it. I simply do not accept the assertion that it is better to be reticent than assertive. It does not fit with what I've observed about who seems happy with their lives, and who feels helpless, anxious, and weak.
After I broke bad during childhood due to emotional neglect, my mother reacted by buying me things and letting me mostly do what I wanted with my days in order to shut me up, and so I did. I raised myself on the internet and I know it inside out. At 15 we moved, and I decided I was going to try to be a "real" adult from now on.
That was when the REAL problems started. Hell truly is other people. Attempting to contort yourself into some strange dependencies you're somehow "supposed" to have on other people, and attachments you never formed is unnatural and painful, both for you and your victim. Though I did my best to grin and bear it, I was never happy. Though I easily accomplished anything I set out to do on the "proper" path, it brought me no joy.
Today, I am a 26 year old engineer working in a truly innovative, economically sound startup, where I am well-respected and feel fully competent. It bores me to tears, and any attempts to force me into "standups" and "OKR"s makes me want to stand up and kms.
Being "socially succesful" is no longer a goal of mine, because it's just straight up boring. People who restrain themselves from speaking their mind bore me, and people who attempt to restrain me from speaking mine infuriate me.
If that philosophy means fewer people want to interact with me, I consider that a great success.
The other cultural conversation difference is in empathizing with the speaker by sharing your own experience, which in the US is often interpreted as making the conversation about yourself and triggers a negative reaction, whereas in other cultures people take turns in sharing related experiences to move the conversation along.
This comment is itself an example of the above. Some people in the US can converse in this style, but most will feel like the spotlight was stolen from them and that the stage was not given back via a question, so they disengage by saying 'cool' or a polite "that's fascinating", and the overall sentiment they get from such interactions is negative.
If you're like me, you want to stop interrupting, remember what point you were going to make, wait for the person to finish speaking, then IF the topic is still relevant, bring up that point in the form of a question; if the point is no longer relevant because the topic has been changed, just drop it and move on with the conversation, otherwise you can bring it up but realize that you will indirectly assign importance to it by bringing the conversation back to that point. Focus less on what you can say in a conversation, and more on the content you heard.
If this were a verbal conversation, notice that even if I give the stage back at this point to the 'parent', I already 1) talked about myself, 2) changed topics by mentioning a related, but different topic and 3) failed to ask any questions about the actual content that was presented to me.
The conversation is pretty much dead/mildly frustrating for them. The fact that I started by expressing agreement is OK, but at this point will most likely feel superficial to the listener. If you don't ask a question to give the stage back, you will leave them confused, and if you do ask a question - what is it going to be about? Probably about your own story ("e.g. do you agree? Have you experienced that?") or if you circle back to their content it will highlight how badly you've derailed the conversation ("so anyway, which cultures in your experience expect you to take the stage?").
This style can work with some folks in the US, but I'd say it's best to be very aware of it if you decide to go down this path. Generally, listening and asking questions, until they ask you a question, is the more familiar conversation style.
Having lived in the middle (Chicago), East coast (NYC) and West coast (SF Bay area), I'm curious if this explanation is generally consistent across them.
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.
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.
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. :-)
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.
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.
I’d argue conference calls that are audio-only (and thus full duplex, using actual phones) are actually far superior.
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).
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.
Raising a finger in a moment when the current speaker notices, is a more decent variant.
But I also stood with my hand literaly raised for quite some time and waited until the agitated speaker(s) stopped and finally listened to what I had to say. Or not and I simply left, but that is not always possible.
You kind of have to talk over everyone else for a few seconds until they give up? I’ve found that’s the only way I can ever say anything in certain groups but it still feels wrong.