![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttps://www.bustle.com/p/how-to-stop-interrupting-people-be-a-better-listener-in-3-days-18760543
Link does not mean endorsement! There’s a _lot_ about this article that is deeply problematic. The embedded assumption of the entire article is that being a better listener = not interrupting / not talking (at all). You might _think_ that’s not what it’s about, but it gets _really_ clear in a couple spots.
“ Another helpful trick is the 80/20 rule of communication. "It’s 80% listening to the people you are speaking with, and 20% speaking," Saranga says. "Once you feel yourself crossing the 20% mark, it’s time to slow down and give others a chance to speak."”
Why should a one-on-one conversation involve 1 person doing 4 times as much talking as the other?
Bustle is a magazine primarily aimed at women. This feels like a problem. The general rule taught to people on the autism spectrum who struggle with dominating the conversation (or not participating at all) is look at the size of the group and then aim to be talking about 1/n of the time. If Saranga is used to conversations that involve 5ish people, then 80/20 makes sense. Otherwise, no it really does not. It _especially_ does not make sense if a woman is in a het relationship, or relating to a man in a work or other context, and the man is telling her she is interrupting too much and she should talk less. This article would make that situation way, way worse.
(Yes, I did read the paragraph after, but it does not give the goal ratio. At all.)
“ Whether it's a friend who has a lot to get off their chest, or a coworker who is sharing their ideas, try to listen first. As Alpert says, you can always ask questions later.”
No, you actually can’t necessarily ask questions later. I have a friend who at one point would just set the phone down and go about her business because her brother would literally talk without interruption for an hour or more. When he was done, he’d say bye and hang up without _any_ possibility of back and forth. That’s worse than anything I’ve ever had to deal with (because I won’t put up with that level of nonsense) and arguably connected to some underlying mental health struggles (it sounds like manic because it is).
“ To stay motivated and keep up the good work, "consider your conversations as experiments to see how they are different and how your relationships may change when you interrupt less often," Cook says. "See if people respond to you differently and if they start to open up more fully when they’re interacting with you."
When you practice listening — instead of accidentally interrupting all the time — you'll likely notice that all your conversations are a heck of a lot more interesting, and that you connect with folks on much a deeper level. And that's well worth the effort.”
This is true! If you listen to people and reflect back what they are saying, people _will_ feel _very_ connected to you on a deep level! I cannot _even_ tell you how much people will open up if you engage in active, reflective listening and literally don’t bring up any of your problems at all. And you might well realize just how much you dislike them as people.
Let’s go find some other advice about interrupting, because this is absolutely shit. There is _nothing_ in it about cultural norms, age or gender dynamics, or racism. All of which would seem to be very relevant in a discussion of whether/when to interrupt, how and how often. Which is kinda what I’m looking for.
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2020/october/women-interrupted-debate.html
Link does not mean endorsement!
This is in response to a Presidential debate, so not exactly a context of general utility. It _does_ at least in passing remark upon gender issues and barely mentions racial issues.
““If being ignored, talked over or repeatedly interrupted, a person should begin by saying something positive — perhaps by acknowledging the merits of the interrupter’s position,” Wolfe said. “They should then note shared goals that aren’t being met and offer a solution. For instance, the person could say ‘we could be having a better discussion. Let’s take care not to interrupt or share more thoughts until everyone has had a chance to speak.’””
Where to begin.
The person being talked over /interrupted is supposed to fix the problem. Yay. Because, you know, that’s going to work with the other person interrupting and then insisting on being allowed to talk uninterrupted themselves. But sure. Given that the problem occurs with my kids, it probably _is_ my job to “fix” this. Plenty of times I don’t _want_ to be in the conversation. The conversation arrived at me, and I sat and listened and reflected until I was bloody sick of it and just wanted it to be over. My interruptions are largely efforts to redirect to other topics, or to propose alternative perspectives on the situation. Altho, to be fair, usually things wrap up pretty quick when I get exasperated, say, look this is not a good way to think about it, shut up and listen to me for a minute. I explain how it looks from the other person’s perspective, the kid gets a stunned look and say, oh I had not realized. And I’m like, yeah, well, no one explained it to me either, and I’m sorry that the world sucks and human relationships are so difficult. I don’t generally share either my child’s perspective (altho I usually can vividly remember once seeing it that way, too!) OR the other person’s perspective (because JFC it’s so fucking obvious that my child misunderstood your idiomatic language quit using tired metaphors and references that the kids don’t get and think they get and then there is mad chaos).
Where was I?
Oh, right. Look, if you are being repeatedly talked over in a context where there is someone who is supposed to be moderating the convo, get their attention and make them fix it. If there _is not_ someone supposed to be moderating the convo, figure out a way to loom over the person who is dominating (make them sit while you stand, stand on a chair if they won’t sit down) and really get _into_ their face and be vicious about it while avoiding language that could be a criminal threat. In an ideal situation, they’ll get physical, and they won’t be a part of your work or whatever life any more. Second best, they submit. When people are dominating, you leave, or dominate them harder. This whole, you’re right about this part will be viewed as an invitation to re-interrupt you. It’s not like any actual work is getting done when a bunch of guys are engaging in a dick measuring competition anyway.
https://conflictremedy.com/culture-clash-in-conversations-at-work/
I might actually endorse this one, altho I will point out it starts by saying no one like to be interrupted and then goes on to lay out in great detail that she actually feels happiest, most comfortable and most productive when her conversational partner shares her interruption style.
https://englishwithkim.com/interrupting-politely-interjecting/
This is _hilariously_ awesome and awful at the same time. There’s so much going on. First, a lot of what is being described is actually really useful, presumably to the people who are new to the culture BUT ALSO it is really nice to have this laid out in detail for people on the autism spectrum. Love That!
Also, it is _apparently_ _never_ _polite_ to interrupt to tell someone that they cannot be talking like that at least not around you / in this environment. The odds of someone having made it this far and not being able to imagine examples of that are slim, but I will include a few anyway:
Do not use racist language here.
Do not use sexist language here.
Do not use transphobic language here.
Do not use homophobic language here.
Do not engage in Holocaust denial here.
Do not trivialize [insert horrifying thing] here.
Do not engage in religious proselytizing here.
Do not body shame here.
Do not discuss dead bodies here.
Do not discuss medical procedures in detail here.
Do not talk about that-person’s-recent-ex here.
Do not use [offending word] here.
Do not talk about sex in graphic detail here.
Do not repeat Fox News talking points here, not even for purposes of humor.
Some of these, really, you can just tell them rudely as you are escorting them out the door and if they collect some damage on the way, so be it. You don’t need to always be polite. But for some of these — like, f bombs are fun, but not in front of the toddlers they are repeating everything at day care and I cannot afford for them to be kicked out of another one — it would be nice to have some advice on how to convey the conversational limitation clearly, succinctly, politely and without waiting for the other person to give you an opening.
I’m going to have to think about this. My search strings clearly suck.
ETA:
https://www.lianedavey.com/is-interrupting-rude/
This offers an interesting me vs. them metric for deciding whether the interruption is rude. The presumption — and this is fair, because she’s a consultant to c-suite types — is that the context is work, and people are presenting information with like a slide deck or whatever. (Honestly, right here you can see the merits of writing down a proposal and having everyone read it at the beginning of the meeting.) You are not supposed to ask a good question during slide 4 that will be answered on slide 9. But if slide 4 _prompts_ the question, and you don’t know that it will be answered on slide 9. . . And if you _do_ know it will be answered on slide 9, why are you in this presentation? Who is this presentation for, anyway?
The interruptions that _enhance_ communication are little better. Basically, if the person talking is talking too fast for you to absorb, or if you cannot hear them clearly, or you are zoning out and missed something, it _enhances_ communication to ask for a repeat. Which seems reasonable! But then again, what about all the other people in the room who will zone out when the repetition bores them to absolute tears and then they’ll miss the next bit.
This _sounds_ like a clear metric, but it isn’t one at all.
Link does not mean endorsement! There’s a _lot_ about this article that is deeply problematic. The embedded assumption of the entire article is that being a better listener = not interrupting / not talking (at all). You might _think_ that’s not what it’s about, but it gets _really_ clear in a couple spots.
“ Another helpful trick is the 80/20 rule of communication. "It’s 80% listening to the people you are speaking with, and 20% speaking," Saranga says. "Once you feel yourself crossing the 20% mark, it’s time to slow down and give others a chance to speak."”
Why should a one-on-one conversation involve 1 person doing 4 times as much talking as the other?
Bustle is a magazine primarily aimed at women. This feels like a problem. The general rule taught to people on the autism spectrum who struggle with dominating the conversation (or not participating at all) is look at the size of the group and then aim to be talking about 1/n of the time. If Saranga is used to conversations that involve 5ish people, then 80/20 makes sense. Otherwise, no it really does not. It _especially_ does not make sense if a woman is in a het relationship, or relating to a man in a work or other context, and the man is telling her she is interrupting too much and she should talk less. This article would make that situation way, way worse.
(Yes, I did read the paragraph after, but it does not give the goal ratio. At all.)
“ Whether it's a friend who has a lot to get off their chest, or a coworker who is sharing their ideas, try to listen first. As Alpert says, you can always ask questions later.”
No, you actually can’t necessarily ask questions later. I have a friend who at one point would just set the phone down and go about her business because her brother would literally talk without interruption for an hour or more. When he was done, he’d say bye and hang up without _any_ possibility of back and forth. That’s worse than anything I’ve ever had to deal with (because I won’t put up with that level of nonsense) and arguably connected to some underlying mental health struggles (it sounds like manic because it is).
“ To stay motivated and keep up the good work, "consider your conversations as experiments to see how they are different and how your relationships may change when you interrupt less often," Cook says. "See if people respond to you differently and if they start to open up more fully when they’re interacting with you."
When you practice listening — instead of accidentally interrupting all the time — you'll likely notice that all your conversations are a heck of a lot more interesting, and that you connect with folks on much a deeper level. And that's well worth the effort.”
This is true! If you listen to people and reflect back what they are saying, people _will_ feel _very_ connected to you on a deep level! I cannot _even_ tell you how much people will open up if you engage in active, reflective listening and literally don’t bring up any of your problems at all. And you might well realize just how much you dislike them as people.
Let’s go find some other advice about interrupting, because this is absolutely shit. There is _nothing_ in it about cultural norms, age or gender dynamics, or racism. All of which would seem to be very relevant in a discussion of whether/when to interrupt, how and how often. Which is kinda what I’m looking for.
https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2020/october/women-interrupted-debate.html
Link does not mean endorsement!
This is in response to a Presidential debate, so not exactly a context of general utility. It _does_ at least in passing remark upon gender issues and barely mentions racial issues.
““If being ignored, talked over or repeatedly interrupted, a person should begin by saying something positive — perhaps by acknowledging the merits of the interrupter’s position,” Wolfe said. “They should then note shared goals that aren’t being met and offer a solution. For instance, the person could say ‘we could be having a better discussion. Let’s take care not to interrupt or share more thoughts until everyone has had a chance to speak.’””
Where to begin.
The person being talked over /interrupted is supposed to fix the problem. Yay. Because, you know, that’s going to work with the other person interrupting and then insisting on being allowed to talk uninterrupted themselves. But sure. Given that the problem occurs with my kids, it probably _is_ my job to “fix” this. Plenty of times I don’t _want_ to be in the conversation. The conversation arrived at me, and I sat and listened and reflected until I was bloody sick of it and just wanted it to be over. My interruptions are largely efforts to redirect to other topics, or to propose alternative perspectives on the situation. Altho, to be fair, usually things wrap up pretty quick when I get exasperated, say, look this is not a good way to think about it, shut up and listen to me for a minute. I explain how it looks from the other person’s perspective, the kid gets a stunned look and say, oh I had not realized. And I’m like, yeah, well, no one explained it to me either, and I’m sorry that the world sucks and human relationships are so difficult. I don’t generally share either my child’s perspective (altho I usually can vividly remember once seeing it that way, too!) OR the other person’s perspective (because JFC it’s so fucking obvious that my child misunderstood your idiomatic language quit using tired metaphors and references that the kids don’t get and think they get and then there is mad chaos).
Where was I?
Oh, right. Look, if you are being repeatedly talked over in a context where there is someone who is supposed to be moderating the convo, get their attention and make them fix it. If there _is not_ someone supposed to be moderating the convo, figure out a way to loom over the person who is dominating (make them sit while you stand, stand on a chair if they won’t sit down) and really get _into_ their face and be vicious about it while avoiding language that could be a criminal threat. In an ideal situation, they’ll get physical, and they won’t be a part of your work or whatever life any more. Second best, they submit. When people are dominating, you leave, or dominate them harder. This whole, you’re right about this part will be viewed as an invitation to re-interrupt you. It’s not like any actual work is getting done when a bunch of guys are engaging in a dick measuring competition anyway.
https://conflictremedy.com/culture-clash-in-conversations-at-work/
I might actually endorse this one, altho I will point out it starts by saying no one like to be interrupted and then goes on to lay out in great detail that she actually feels happiest, most comfortable and most productive when her conversational partner shares her interruption style.
https://englishwithkim.com/interrupting-politely-interjecting/
This is _hilariously_ awesome and awful at the same time. There’s so much going on. First, a lot of what is being described is actually really useful, presumably to the people who are new to the culture BUT ALSO it is really nice to have this laid out in detail for people on the autism spectrum. Love That!
Also, it is _apparently_ _never_ _polite_ to interrupt to tell someone that they cannot be talking like that at least not around you / in this environment. The odds of someone having made it this far and not being able to imagine examples of that are slim, but I will include a few anyway:
Do not use racist language here.
Do not use sexist language here.
Do not use transphobic language here.
Do not use homophobic language here.
Do not engage in Holocaust denial here.
Do not trivialize [insert horrifying thing] here.
Do not engage in religious proselytizing here.
Do not body shame here.
Do not discuss dead bodies here.
Do not discuss medical procedures in detail here.
Do not talk about that-person’s-recent-ex here.
Do not use [offending word] here.
Do not talk about sex in graphic detail here.
Do not repeat Fox News talking points here, not even for purposes of humor.
Some of these, really, you can just tell them rudely as you are escorting them out the door and if they collect some damage on the way, so be it. You don’t need to always be polite. But for some of these — like, f bombs are fun, but not in front of the toddlers they are repeating everything at day care and I cannot afford for them to be kicked out of another one — it would be nice to have some advice on how to convey the conversational limitation clearly, succinctly, politely and without waiting for the other person to give you an opening.
I’m going to have to think about this. My search strings clearly suck.
ETA:
https://www.lianedavey.com/is-interrupting-rude/
This offers an interesting me vs. them metric for deciding whether the interruption is rude. The presumption — and this is fair, because she’s a consultant to c-suite types — is that the context is work, and people are presenting information with like a slide deck or whatever. (Honestly, right here you can see the merits of writing down a proposal and having everyone read it at the beginning of the meeting.) You are not supposed to ask a good question during slide 4 that will be answered on slide 9. But if slide 4 _prompts_ the question, and you don’t know that it will be answered on slide 9. . . And if you _do_ know it will be answered on slide 9, why are you in this presentation? Who is this presentation for, anyway?
The interruptions that _enhance_ communication are little better. Basically, if the person talking is talking too fast for you to absorb, or if you cannot hear them clearly, or you are zoning out and missed something, it _enhances_ communication to ask for a repeat. Which seems reasonable! But then again, what about all the other people in the room who will zone out when the repetition bores them to absolute tears and then they’ll miss the next bit.
This _sounds_ like a clear metric, but it isn’t one at all.
no subject
Date: 2022-11-29 03:12 am (UTC)I like this piece by S. Bear Bergman: https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/pb-daily/how-to-have-a-disagreement-without-having-a-fight
Point 3 is about how one person’s cooperative overlap is another person’s interruption.