Not sure if many others on the fora would find this of interest, but I thought I'd post it and see.
First topic: how do you deal with the interrupters in your life?
I'm thinking of people who habitually cut you off because:
1) Something you said sparked some thought in their head that they felt needed to be expressed IMMEDIATELY. Waiting for half a minute to allow you to finish your own current thought is out of the question because their tangential thought may have been forgotten by then.
2) They heard the first part of what you have to say and assume they know what you're going to say next. In my experience, people who do this often predict incorrectly. The result is that they start speaking to a point you never made and never had any intention of making. It can feel like watching someone argue with themselves.
This is especially frustrating if the person often complains about not being in the loop or not getting information they want, while attributing this to other people's failure to communicate, not their own failure to listen.
I once had a PI who even seemed to do this with email. They would read only the first sentence or two and then reply with something like, "Ok, but what's the status of X, Y, and Z?" If they had read the rest of the email, they would have seen that I had already sent them that info. Sometimes all I had to do was copy-paste my initial email for the PI to reply "Great. Thanks for the update!"
I really get annoyed at being talked over when I am answering a direct question. Why ask the question if you don't care enough about the answer to listen?
Sometimes the interrupter is condescending and dismissive. Sometimes they are simply someone of a talkative nature who doesn't even seem to realize they are interrupting. There have been times when I've tried to interrupt the interrupter just for the sake of getting the rest of my message across, only to have the interrupter continue talking without pause.
The times I've directly initiated a discussion with an interrupter about their behavior I've gotten answers like "Well, that's just how I am." Sometimes they say they'll try not to interrupt in the future, but I've never noticed much of a difference.
With professional relationships, I'm generally content to simply accept that face-to-face verbal conversation is not the best way to communicate with that person. With them I would remember to use email or notes left on their desk or whatever.
With personal relationships, I feel like giving up on face-to-face communication doesn't make as much sense.
Is there anything in the Bible about this? I suspect it's one of the oldest problems, dating back to when people sent messages with drums. Some have rhythm and some don't.
It happens online in chat forums, too...had you noticed?
M.
Sometimes you can wait until there is a peaceful moment in the interrupting and say, "It's hard for me to talk because you're interrupting me so much. Could you try to rein that in?" Then the next time they do it: "Now that's what I'm talking about." It will make them self-conscious — which is a benefit. Which is exactly what you want. If it's a friend, you can soften it with "I love our conversations, but..." or whatever else is true in addition to the annoyance.
Ok so here's my defense of interrupters...
It isn't necessarily about rudeness. It certainly can be, however, it can just be a conversational style that yours doesn't mesh well with. If this is something you are encountering a lot, it also might be worth considering if you could be playing a role in the dynamic. It would be nice if your PI could take the time to read the whole email before responding, but it could be that you have a tendency to bury the lede in your writing or your conversation?
Quote from: Caracal on January 23, 2021, 07:01:47 AM
Ok so here's my defense of interrupters...
It isn't necessarily about rudeness. It certainly can be, however, it can just be a conversational style that yours doesn't mesh well with. If this is something you are encountering a lot, it also might be worth considering if you could be playing a role in the dynamic. It would be nice if your PI could take the time to read the whole email before responding, but it could be that you have a tendency to bury the lede in your writing or your conversation?
Along this line, I have known people who start talking about something where I'm trying to see the point, and I eventually realize there
was no point, they were just rambling. I get very impatient listening to people like that, because I never know whether what they're currently saying is going to eventually be relevant or not.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 23, 2021, 07:25:25 AM
Quote from: Caracal on January 23, 2021, 07:01:47 AM
Ok so here's my defense of interrupters...
It isn't necessarily about rudeness. It certainly can be, however, it can just be a conversational style that yours doesn't mesh well with. If this is something you are encountering a lot, it also might be worth considering if you could be playing a role in the dynamic. It would be nice if your PI could take the time to read the whole email before responding, but it could be that you have a tendency to bury the lede in your writing or your conversation?
Along this line, I have known people who start talking about something where I'm trying to see the point, and I eventually realize there was no point, they were just rambling. I get very impatient listening to people like that, because I never know whether what they're currently saying is going to eventually be relevant or not.
marshwiggle, I get where you're coming from but, in my experience, the interrupters are often the ramblers. The people I know who interrupt chronically are interrupting precisely because they have difficulty sticking to one point or topic at a time. They feel the need to interject with every stray thought, question, or personal anecdote that pops into their head.
If someone is cutting me off after I've only gotten 1-2 sentences in, I don't think it's because they were impatient for me to get to the point. If that is the case, I don't think it's warranted. Is 5-10 seconds really enough to judge that someone's got nothing to say that's worth hearing?
Caracal,
The PI is the only person I know who regularly did that with emails; this hasn't been an issue with anyone else I that I can recall. And I wasn't sending huge walls of text. Many of these emails were maybe 5-7 sentences in total. For the ones that were longer, I would format the email with headings and bullet points to make it easier to pick out specific info quickly. So, I think the issue (at least for the email thing) was just this particular individual trying to process their emails too quickly.
As for face-to-face conversations, I think the fact that I am shy and soft-spoken is definitely a factor when I am speaking with someone who is outgoing and talkative. I've made a lot of improvements over the years on voice volume and eye contact; I'm not sure what other specific behavior changes might help. As I've worked on these skills, professional communication has improved a lot, but not so much the personal.
The thing about rudeness...it doesn't have to be intended to be an issue.
With some of my close relationships, I felt this was enough of an issue to be worth having a discussion over. A very common response is "Well, I didn't mean to interrupt/be rude/talk over you" as if that's the whole of it. 'I didn't intend anything negative, therefore I see no reason to modify my behavior in any way' seems to be the underlying message.
Either that or "hey, that's just how I am"
Yet, they expect me to be apologetic or sympathetic when they lament that I "don't talk to them enough." "I hardly know what you're up to or how you're doing these days." Well, I try to tell them. If they don't know it's because they're constantly cutting me off.
I've tried to point this out (with Hegemony's recommended diplomatic wording), which leads to them defending the interruptions. They seem to miss the point that whether or not they have indisputably good reasons for interrupting, these perfectly defensible interruptions are the reason they don't have the info they claim to want.
If they listened more and spoke less (or at least spoke later, after I've finished saying my bit), they might feel less aggrieved.
I know people who have interrupted on every subject, all the time. They will even cut me off in the middle of a sentence and highjack the conversation to another subject--themselves. This is their style of talking and they love to talk! They won't stop, like the radio. Also, they are NOT interested in what you are saying. Bored and perhaps tired of you or me talking about the same thing. Unless it is important to you, move to another topic rather than annoy them. That's what I do. If you are complaining, rephrase it completely and check your tone of voice.
I especially dislike loud talkers...they wear me out.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on January 23, 2021, 08:23:58 AM
The thing about rudeness...it doesn't have to be intended to be an issue.
With some of my close relationships, I felt this was enough of an issue to be worth having a discussion over. A very common response is "Well, I didn't mean to interrupt/be rude/talk over you" as if that's the whole of it. 'I didn't intend anything negative, therefore I see no reason to modify my behavior in any way' seems to be the underlying message.
Either that or "hey, that's just how I am"
In my experience, people like this fall into two categories. Some really just are self absorbed and don't actually care about other people. Others, just expect to be interrupted themselves and won't be offended by it, but actually are interested in the other person. I'm a little bit of the second myself (at least I hope so) As I've gotten older, I've been trying to become more thoughtful about other people's experiences of conversations. When I'm talking to someone who is a little more reserved or isn't comfortable interrupting, I try to rein myself in and make sure that I'm not cutting them off and dominating the conversation.
All that said, this is part of compatibility. There are plenty of perfectly nice people who you might not be interested in becoming closer to because you have a hard time talking to them. Of course, family members are a bit different...
This aspect of language is called pragmatics. Pragmatic skills differ across individuals (they are linked to both social cognition and executive function), and pragmatic rules differ across both situations and cultures (culture here can be at the level of the family up to the regional and national cultures). Certainly it can be a sign of rudeness or a power play, but not always--
With regard to pragmatics skills, some people, including those on the autism spectrum and with ADHD can have a lot of difficulty with this, absent other language problems. They may not read reactions to their interruptions, or be very focused on what they want to say and monopolize the conversation. Subtle hints are not helpful for them. I've had various students in seminars I've had to be direct (but kindly with a smile) with, and say things like "Stu, I believe Other Stu hadn't finished her point yet-- let's let her finish and then you can talk." In my personal life, I have a friend with ADHD who tends to monopolize conversations, but in that case I mostly just let her talk since she seems to need to talk things out with someone listening for support, and I feel OK with playing that role for her right now. At other times however, she as actually asked me to let her know if she is talking too much, because it is something she wants to work on.
With regard to cultures, there are widely varying rules about all sorts of pragmatics. In some, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for people to talk over one another and jump in -- a conversation is seen not as a series of turns, but as a sort of collaborative jam session. In others this would be considered deeply rude. In some cultures, allowing silences in a conversation is a failure, so if someone doesn't respond instantly they will jump back in and keep talking. In others, comfortable silences are the norm. And so forth.
I think, though, that a lot of the more polite people operate from a rule of "It would be offensive to state the problem and ask for what I want." So they try to figure out a way to get the problem to stop without having to mention it to the person committing the problematic behavior. Those indirect methods commonly do not work very well. But also, it's not a sin to mention it out loud — in a kind but clear way.
The times I've been asked to modify my behavior in various ways have been mortifying. But in all cases, I had no idea I was doing the thing, and although I was chagrined, I am very glad someone made me aware of it. One oddity of adult life is that people generally don't tell you even if you are committing the most annoying interpersonal blunders. But they do shun you because of it, or drop your friendship. That's why I'm thankful to those who were bold enough to tell me what I was doing that was annoying, rather than just dropping me or rolling their eyes behind my back.
Quote from: Puget on January 23, 2021, 10:04:01 AM
This aspect of language is called pragmatics. Pragmatic skills differ across individuals (they are linked to both social cognition and executive function), and pragmatic rules differ across both situations and cultures (culture here can be at the level of the family up to the regional and national cultures). Certainly it can be a sign of rudeness or a power play, but not always--
With regard to pragmatics skills, some people, including those on the autism spectrum and with ADHD can have a lot of difficulty with this, absent other language problems. They may not read reactions to their interruptions, or be very focused on what they want to say and monopolize the conversation. Subtle hints are not helpful for them. I've had various students in seminars I've had to be direct (but kindly with a smile) with, and say things like "Stu, I believe Other Stu hadn't finished her point yet-- let's let her finish and then you can talk." In my personal life, I have a friend with ADHD who tends to monopolize conversations, but in that case I mostly just let her talk since she seems to need to talk things out with someone listening for support, and I feel OK with playing that role for her right now. At other times however, she as actually asked me to let her know if she is talking too much, because it is something she wants to work on.
With regard to cultures, there are widely varying rules about all sorts of pragmatics. In some, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for people to talk over one another and jump in -- a conversation is seen not as a series of turns, but as a sort of collaborative jam session. In others this would be considered deeply rude. In some cultures, allowing silences in a conversation is a failure, so if someone doesn't respond instantly they will jump back in and keep talking. In others, comfortable silences are the norm. And so forth.
Interesting. Probably both of those things are at work for me. I do have ADHD. I'm also from a family where we talk at the same time. I still find it baffling that when my wife is on the phone with family and friends she feels like everyone would find it very rude if I walk in and ask her a question in the middle. In my family, it would be normal not only to ask a question but shout hello to the person on the other end. I've learned not to bother her unless it is actually urgent-but it still just doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote from: Caracal on January 24, 2021, 05:03:09 AM
Quote from: Puget on January 23, 2021, 10:04:01 AM
This aspect of language is called pragmatics. Pragmatic skills differ across individuals (they are linked to both social cognition and executive function), and pragmatic rules differ across both situations and cultures (culture here can be at the level of the family up to the regional and national cultures). Certainly it can be a sign of rudeness or a power play, but not always--
With regard to pragmatics skills, some people, including those on the autism spectrum and with ADHD can have a lot of difficulty with this, absent other language problems. They may not read reactions to their interruptions, or be very focused on what they want to say and monopolize the conversation. Subtle hints are not helpful for them. I've had various students in seminars I've had to be direct (but kindly with a smile) with, and say things like "Stu, I believe Other Stu hadn't finished her point yet-- let's let her finish and then you can talk." In my personal life, I have a friend with ADHD who tends to monopolize conversations, but in that case I mostly just let her talk since she seems to need to talk things out with someone listening for support, and I feel OK with playing that role for her right now. At other times however, she as actually asked me to let her know if she is talking too much, because it is something she wants to work on.
With regard to cultures, there are widely varying rules about all sorts of pragmatics. In some, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for people to talk over one another and jump in -- a conversation is seen not as a series of turns, but as a sort of collaborative jam session. In others this would be considered deeply rude. In some cultures, allowing silences in a conversation is a failure, so if someone doesn't respond instantly they will jump back in and keep talking. In others, comfortable silences are the norm. And so forth.
Interesting. Probably both of those things are at work for me. I do have ADHD. I'm also from a family where we talk at the same time. I still find it baffling that when my wife is on the phone with family and friends she feels like everyone would find it very rude if I walk in and ask her a question in the middle. In my family, it would be normal not only to ask a question but shout hello to the person on the other end. I've learned not to bother her unless it is actually urgent-but it still just doesn't make any sense to me.
ADHD is also pretty strongly heritable, so the bolded part may also not be a coincidence.
The broader point you illustrate is that there is nothing inherently better or worse about different pragmatic rules-- it is just that problems arise when the people involved in a conversation don't share the same pragmatic rules. To a greater or lesser degree, this requires us all to code switch to adjust to the current situation and culture.
Quote from: Caracal on January 24, 2021, 05:03:09 AM
Interesting. Probably both of those things are at work for me. I do have ADHD. I'm also from a family where we talk at the same time. I still find it baffling that when my wife is on the phone with family and friends she feels like everyone would find it very rude if I walk in and ask her a question in the middle. In my family, it would be normal not only to ask a question but shout hello to the person on the other end. I've learned not to bother her unless it is actually urgent-but it still just doesn't make any sense to me.
Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, when I was first married, when I entered our apartment I wouldn't say "hi"; I'd just go about my business quietly. I didn't want to interrupt my wife doing whatever she might be doing. She eventually expalined that she preferred me to say hi when I came home, so I started doing it.
For introverts like me, silence is indeed golden.
I used to interrupt when I'd get excited about something someone said, offer a comparison, and then forget they had the floor and continue nattering on.
It took a friend in a Bible Study, of all places, to keep on me about it. She'd look square at me, take in a breath after I'd made my first, perhaps appropriate point, and then say, "As I was saying...." drawing it out a bit so it was clear I'd been out of order.
She also spoke to me once after a meeting to ask me not to interrupt since it put her off her train of thought. I was surprised--I thought her trains of thought were pretty iron-clad and able to run on their own rails--but apparently it really flustered her and I didn't know.
I realized in part that it is was a family-dinner-conversation style of "kicking the football around the field" that I'd learned growing up. And in classes, teachers had reinforced my "Oooh, Ohh!" hand-rasising when someone was off-topic in an answer, by thanking me for setting the class straight (ego-boost there, of course, too...) Usually, people who didn't want to be interrupted just talked over me and I let that happen. I didn't think of it as something I had to do something about. It was just how conversations went.
So, I had to work on it a bit--probably took several meetings, and a few more reminders, before I learned to catch myself and either wait until my friend was done, or just save the remark for a different time entirely (or, as I also learned, some insights were 'just for me' and didn't really need to be shared). I started a little "yes? no?" dialogue within myself, even, asking if it were worth making that point, or if it didn't really even need to be shared.
Did me no harm, and a few months later she commented how much more comfortable she felt in the group.
So, learning is possible, it's usually not about you, but about how people have learned to interact in other settings, and you do have a reasonable degree of power over the ways you respond to the situation to see if you can alter it for your own comfort.
All good thoughts.
M.
This thread is making me remember this scene in Annie Hall: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8TSvMx2wPI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8TSvMx2wPI)
Quote from: Caracal on January 23, 2021, 09:43:40 AM
In my experience, people like this fall into two categories. Some really just are self absorbed and don't actually care about other people. Others, just expect to be interrupted themselves and won't be offended by it, but actually are interested in the other person. I'm a little bit of the second myself (at least I hope so) As I've gotten older, I've been trying to become more thoughtful about other people's experiences of conversations. When I'm talking to someone who is a little more reserved or isn't comfortable interrupting, I try to rein myself in and make sure that I'm not cutting them off and dominating the conversation.
All that said, this is part of compatibility. There are plenty of perfectly nice people who you might not be interested in becoming closer to because you have a hard time talking to them. Of course, family members are a bit different...
Sure. Most people I've talked with who interrupt are receptive to being interrupted themselves. It took me a while, but I learned to use body language cues to indicate I want to say something. Actually speaking to interrupt someone is much harder for me to do, but I've learned to use speech when necessary. I find this somewhat stressful, but don't see it as a flaw in the other person's behavior.
But a subset of interrupters haven't responded even when I'm verbally saying, "wait...hold on a minute, please...can I say something real quick...?" I raise the volume of my voice, even wave my hands to try to get the other person to pay attention. They do not stop talking. It's like I'm invisible.
Quote from: mamselle on January 24, 2021, 09:47:18 AM
I used to interrupt when I'd get excited about something someone said, offer a comparison, and then forget they had the floor and continue nattering on.
Yeah, I think this part is important. I don't mind being interrupted nearly as much if the person finishes their thought and then follows with "So, anyway. You were saying....?" It's when interruptions lead to me never getting to finish what I was trying to say that I get frustrated.
Quote from: Puget on January 23, 2021, 10:04:01 AM
This aspect of language is called pragmatics. Pragmatic skills differ across individuals (they are linked to both social cognition and executive function), and pragmatic rules differ across both situations and cultures (culture here can be at the level of the family up to the regional and national cultures). Certainly it can be a sign of rudeness or a power play, but not always--
With regard to pragmatics skills, some people, including those on the autism spectrum and with ADHD can have a lot of difficulty with this, absent other language problems. They may not read reactions to their interruptions, or be very focused on what they want to say and monopolize the conversation. Subtle hints are not helpful for them.
......
Thanks for posting this, Puget. I wasn't familiar with this as a concept. I can definitely empathize with being inadvertently inappropriate or unaware of particular social cues and expectations. Socializing has never been one of my strengths. Multiple people at various points in my life have told me they either assumed or suspected I was autistic. I never got evaluated or diagnosed for it, but for whatever reason I did have to put a lot of conscious effort into learning how to interact with other people.
For most of my interactions with people, interruptions are irritating but don't cause any real problems (because what is being talked about isn't that important). It hurts when close friends do it often, because it can feel like being used for sympathy and a listening ear when they need someone to talk to, with no value to them outside of this role.
The worst interrupters I deal with are my parents. I guess that's complicated by difficulty adjusting from parent-child dynamics to parent-adult offspring dynamics. They still seem to slip into the "Parents speak. Children listen." mindset, possibly without even realizing it.
The most frustrating thing is my parents frequently complain that I never share anything with them. But they accumulate so many topics they want to grill me over and "advise" me on that they rarely let me finish a single answer before they're anxious to move on.
I don't know why they can't make the connection between this behavior and knowing very little about me.
That used to happen with my folks on weekly phone calls. I'd be mid-sentence, and my mom would say, "Oh, here's your dad..." and hand him the phone....and I'd be thinking, "...like, fine, do I start over now, or...keep going...or...what?"
I tried talking about it with them, and they sort of huffed and puffed up and said, "OK, sure..." but within a couple weeks they were back at it. After a couple tries, I just decided if that was the level of superficial interaction they wanted, then, fine, that would determine the relationship overall, because I didn't feel like fighting over it all the time, and they'd made it clear they thought I was being silly (or worse, along the lines you describe, obstreperous. As in, how does a child get the right to say how the interactions with her parents should go?)
Since this was tied to the larger issue, that to them, it was an affront somehow to see us as "all adults together," the power dynamics just stagnated and I just let it go. They'd showed so many signs over the years of being a bit brittle, not liking or valuing change, and opposing any kind of role-redefinitions in general, that I decided it was one of those cases where I wasn't going to be able to change them, or the situation, and I could only address how I dealt with things-as-they-were from my side.
I figured it was a potential loss to all three of us; adjusted, with regret, my expectations; and got on with things, seeking resonant relationships with older adults in other places and ways instead. I'd figure out before I called if there were any topics, issues, or bits of information I needed to prioritize, make sure to raise them first thing, and let them get on with it after that.
At times since, now they're both gone, I wonder how or if I could have done anything differently. But one can never fully, unilaterally define a relationship on one's own terms--those pesky other folks always have a say--so I know, having had to choose my battles, I had done what I could, and if they wanted the (to me) more shallow set of connections that resulted, then it was their loss, I'd tried, and there were other avenues and paths to follow on so many other levels that I'd do my best there and let the rest go.
Every story is different, but that's one similarity I see here.
M.
There's something I've been puzzling over for a while.
I know a few people who consistently twist critical feedback or requests into something far more extreme or obnoxious than what was actually said.
Examples:
'You have a tendency to cut me off mid-sentence when we're talking. I'd appreciate it if you would let me finish before jumping in.'
'So I should just keep my mouth shut until you give me permission to speak?'
A doctor advises someone to be more conscientious about nutrition because weight loss and reduced sugar intake could help alleviate some of the patient's health issues.
'I can't believe that quack wants me to starve myself just so I can match society's arbitrary standards for how much a person should weigh.'
A friend has been listening to a person complain about their spouse "getting upset over nothing."
'Well, I can understand why their reaction bothered you, but honestly I would have been upset too. I can see Spouse's point.'
'So Spouse is always right and I'm always wrong? I guess I'm just a horrible person who doesn't deserve Spouse, is that what you're saying?'
The question always in my mind is:
Are these things what the person is actually hearing? Or do they know full well they are straw-manning and are doing it deliberately to avoid addressing the real criticism?
Does anyone have strategies regarding how to react?
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 02, 2021, 06:20:44 PM
There's something I've been puzzling over for a while.
I know a few people who consistently twist critical feedback or requests into something far more extreme or obnoxious than what was actually said.
Examples:
'You have a tendency to cut me off mid-sentence when we're talking. I'd appreciate it if you would let me finish before jumping in.'
'So I should just keep my mouth shut until you give me permission to speak?'
A doctor advises someone to be more conscientious about nutrition because weight loss and reduced sugar intake could help alleviate some of the patient's health issues.
'I can't believe that quack wants me to starve myself just so I can match society's arbitrary standards for how much a person should weigh.'
A friend has been listening to a person complain about their spouse "getting upset over nothing."
'Well, I can understand why their reaction bothered you, but honestly I would have been upset too. I can see Spouse's point.'
'So Spouse is always right and I'm always wrong? I guess I'm just a horrible person who doesn't deserve Spouse, is that what you're saying?'
The question always in my mind is:
Are these things what the person is actually hearing? Or do they know full well they are straw-manning and are doing it deliberately to avoid addressing the real criticism?
Does anyone have strategies regarding how to react?
[/quo
In some settings, you are supposed to just respond to the actual content of what someone said and avoid letting how you feel about that criticism come into play. In an academic setting, for example, if someone raises some concern or critiques some aspect of your work you really want to put aside any feelings of resentment or embarrassment. If you don't agree that the criticism is valid, you should say so and explain why. If you think its a fair point, but one you've tried to factor in, you should say that. If you haven't considered the problem, you should be open about that, and discuss how you could fix it. At least that's how it is supposed to work.
However, in lots of other settings, things get more complicated and people aren't going to approach critiques in the same way. Telling someone that you don't like the way they have conversations with you is going to be fraught. If someone said that to me, I would hear it as "You're a loudmouth and want to dominate conversation and you don't care about what I'm saying" and I'd probably be offended too. If you don't want someone to have that response, you have to really work to avoid it. For example, I'd probably respond better to "hey, I know this is sort of an annoying request, I've noticed that lots of people are comfortable having conversations where people break in in the middle of what they're saying and they do the same. I just get really thrown by it, I totally lose the thought I was having and then I don't feel comfortable trying to bring it back to what I was saying. I think its just something about the way I interact with people. When I've said this to people before, they've gotten offended, but I promise, I'm not saying you're some jerk who interrupts me, its just a thing about how my brain works. I totally understand if you sometimes forget and break in, but it really helps me out if I can say my thing first. Sorry, that's so awkward!"
I know that's a lot less direct, but its probably going to get better results if you do want to be friends with someone and have conversations that work for you.
They have no idea about strawman or other fallacies. Parents and others I know don't know what a fallacy is and do not care to know. If I told my parents, they wouldn't care or believe me anyway. They see nothing wrong with irrationality--it's called FEELINGS. They are right and I am wrong, no argument. It is irrational, of course, but so much conversation is, including mine sometimes.
Interrupting is a style of discussion. Sometimes the interrupter is bored and wants to talk about herself or anything else. I know people who always interrupt rudely and one friend who never does. It depends whether they stay on the subject.
"Telling someone that you don't like the way they have conversations with you is going to be fraught. If someone said that to me, I would hear it as "You're a loudmouth and want to dominate conversation and you don't care about what I'm saying" and I'd probably be offended too. If you don't want someone to have that response, you have to really work to avoid it."
Hi, Caracal. I shortened the request in my post's example to boil it down to its essence, but in practice I tend towards an approach much like what you describe.
(I am curious though, would you feel certain that the person was calling you a "loudmouth" or would that be a suspicion, with some room to consider that insulting you might not have been intended?)
I've been taught a few basic principles regarding requests that usually work pretty well to minimize conflict or offense:
1) Stick to facts and leave out judgments when describing the situation. (e.g. 'Yesterday, you didn't call to let me know you were going to be late.' NOT 'Yesterday, you were really rude.')
2) When talking about your feelings, keep it about yourself without placing blame on the other person. (e.g 'I felt hurt by that.' NOT 'You hurt me.')
3) Make requests, not demands, still keeping it about yourself. (e.g. 'It would really put me more at ease if you sent me a message so I know if you're going to be late.' NOT 'Stop being so inconsiderate. How hard is it to make a phone call?')
And I don't have a general habit of calling out everyone who's ever interrupted me in a conversation. This particular request is mostly an ongoing issue with my dad, and there are other factors that lead me to feel the request is worth making.
1) He is interrupting my answers to questions that he himself asked. So it's not like he's stopping me from prattling on about a topic he doesn't care about.
2) He usually asks 4-5 questions at a time, rapid-fire. If I start trying to answer the first question, I'm drowned out by questions 2-5.
I try to minimize my reaction to this, but I sometimes tense up when this happens or take a deep breath to gather my thoughts (because it's not easy keeping that many questions in mind at once). Tension may creep into my voice when I try to keep pace with his questions. It's largely just a reaction to feeling pressured.
I've told him it's hard for me to keep track of my answers, and I've asked him to wait for the answer to one question before moving to the next.
He still reads my reaction as disrespect: "Well, I'm sorry talking to me is such a chore. I don't mean to inconvenience you, Your Majesty."
(I've given up on requests to leave out the sarcasm. I've told him I'll listen to whatever he has to say, even if it's critical, and do my best to address anything he's concerned about. He's acknowledged I take constructive criticism well, but still feels a need to make those jabs.)
I've also asked my parents to leave out insults (e.g. "retard" "loser") emphasizing that I will do my best to listen to what they have to say and address their concerns; they don't need to use insults to get my attention. I'll get a response like "Oh, sorry if your precious little feelings got hurt. You poor thing. Tell me how else you want me to censor myself. What's PC enough for you? I guess I'm just a mean old bully and you're the helpless victim."
Similar results when I've asked them to refrain from getting physical when angry.
I could point out that they get pretty offended if anyone 1) cuts them off mid-sentence or 2) insults them. But I doubt it would help.
There's a parallel problem with politics and religion. I never volunteer my opinions with my family, or respond if they feel like having a rant, but I also won't lie if they directly demand an answer. I try to keep it brief and emphasize it's just my opinion, but simply saying "I don't agree with that." or "It just doesn't make sense to me personally." offends them.
"Oh, so all these people have no sense?"
(no...I said that particular view doesn't *make* sense *to me*)
"So you think you're smart enough to know the answers to everything?"
(not even close to anything I've ever said...)
"So you hate people who don't think like you?"
(if I say anything in regards to believing things like certain pseudoscientific "miracle" cures to be harmful and worth speaking out against)
If these things are what they honestly think I'm saying, maybe there's a way I can say things differently that won't push their buttons so much.
If this is a deliberate deflection tactic...I don't really know if there's much I can do to ease communication.
Hi SCR, I don't know that there is much you can do to ease conversation with your dad, but you can decide what isn't acceptable (for example, name calling, insults, or getting physical), and disengage if they go there. Protecting yourself is more important than being nice/respectful.
Yeah, I'd say he is indeed being a bully, and start curtailing the amount of time you have for such discussions (including a decreased frequency of visits, shorter times in the house or car with the offender, and/or planned interruptive scheduled breaks to cut him off when he gets inappropriate like that...."Oh, sorry, gotta go, my cells need to be fed on time and I only have 10 min. to get over to the lab..." or something, would do.)
If that's the level of conversation you get from him, no wonder your self-esteem is so fragile.
I'd divorce him like I did my abusive husband for that line of chat.
You don't need that corrosive acid drip rotting out your soul.
M.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on April 03, 2021, 11:15:21 AM
"Telling someone that you don't like the way they have conversations with you is going to be fraught. If someone said that to me, I would hear it as "You're a loudmouth and want to dominate conversation and you don't care about what I'm saying" and I'd probably be offended too. If you don't want someone to have that response, you have to really work to avoid it."
Hi, Caracal. I shortened the request in my post's example to boil it down to its essence, but in practice I tend towards an approach much like what you describe.
(I am curious though, would you feel certain that the person was calling you a "loudmouth" or would that be a suspicion, with some room to consider that insulting you might not have been intended?)
I've been taught a few basic principles regarding requests that usually work pretty well to minimize conflict or offense:
1) Stick to facts and leave out judgments when describing the situation. (e.g. 'Yesterday, you didn't call to let me know you were going to be late.' NOT 'Yesterday, you were really rude.')
2) When talking about your feelings, keep it about yourself without placing blame on the other person. (e.g 'I felt hurt by that.' NOT 'You hurt me.')
3) Make requests, not demands, still keeping it about yourself. (e.g. 'It would really put me more at ease if you sent me a message so I know if you're going to be late.' NOT 'Stop being so inconsiderate. How hard is it to make a phone call?')
And I don't have a general habit of calling out everyone who's ever interrupted me in a conversation. This particular request is mostly an ongoing issue with my dad, and there are other factors that lead me to feel the request is worth making.
1) He is interrupting my answers to questions that he himself asked. So it's not like he's stopping me from prattling on about a topic he doesn't care about.
2) He usually asks 4-5 questions at a time, rapid-fire. If I start trying to answer the first question, I'm drowned out by questions 2-5.
I try to minimize my reaction to this, but I sometimes tense up when this happens or take a deep breath to gather my thoughts (because it's not easy keeping that many questions in mind at once). Tension may creep into my voice when I try to keep pace with his questions. It's largely just a reaction to feeling pressured.
I've told him it's hard for me to keep track of my answers, and I've asked him to wait for the answer to one question before moving to the next.
He still reads my reaction as disrespect: "Well, I'm sorry talking to me is such a chore. I don't mean to inconvenience you, Your Majesty."
(I've given up on requests to leave out the sarcasm. I've told him I'll listen to whatever he has to say, even if it's critical, and do my best to address anything he's concerned about. He's acknowledged I take constructive criticism well, but still feels a need to make those jabs.)
I've also asked my parents to leave out insults (e.g. "retard" "loser") emphasizing that I will do my best to listen to what they have to say and address their concerns; they don't need to use insults to get my attention. I'll get a response like "Oh, sorry if your precious little feelings got hurt. You poor thing. Tell me how else you want me to censor myself. What's PC enough for you? I guess I'm just a mean old bully and you're the helpless victim."
Similar results when I've asked them to refrain from getting physical when angry.
I could point out that they get pretty offended if anyone 1) cuts them off mid-sentence or 2) insults them. But I doubt it would help.
There's a parallel problem with politics and religion. I never volunteer my opinions with my family, or respond if they feel like having a rant, but I also won't lie if they directly demand an answer. I try to keep it brief and emphasize it's just my opinion, but simply saying "I don't agree with that." or "It just doesn't make sense to me personally." offends them.
"Oh, so all these people have no sense?"
(no...I said that particular view doesn't *make* sense *to me*)
"So you think you're smart enough to know the answers to everything?"
(not even close to anything I've ever said...)
"So you hate people who don't think like you?"
(if I say anything in regards to believing things like certain pseudoscientific "miracle" cures to be harmful and worth speaking out against)
If these things are what they honestly think I'm saying, maybe there's a way I can say things differently that won't push their buttons so much.
If this is a deliberate deflection tactic...I don't really know if there's much I can do to ease communication.
That context puts things in a very different light. To answer your question, it would be a knee-jerk reaction and a suspicion. If I'm being honest, a lot of that reaction would come out of my own insecurities and anxieties about how I present myself. I want to be someone who listens to other people and is interested in them, but I am a fast talker and sometimes get carried away and I worry that I like talking about myself too much and don't give enough space to other people.
Really, however, with the longer explanation I don't think this stuff really applies. Its one thing if you're dealing with people who are well meaning but step on your toes sometimes. You're describing people who are abusive, certainly emotionally and perhaps physically as well. It sounds like interrupting is just part of a larger pattern of trying to control and belittle you.
SCR, if there is a chance you may be on the spectrum (as you report), I think there's an even bigger chance that your parents may be on the spectrum.
Combine that difficulty in understanding how conversational dynamics work with someone who doesn't want to know how they work, and you get the kind of dynamics you describe.
As for whether they believe all that about "So Spouse is always right and I'm always wrong?" etc. — yes, I think they do. In my experience, people like this tend to catastrophize, have heightened responses, and resist seeing nuances. They feel a strong emotional response to anything that seems like criticism, and their minds back up that strong emotional response with an interpretation that supports it. I've seen this in a friend of mine —
News reporter on TV: Scientists discovered today that cigarette smoking combined with eating pineapple over the course of twenty years produced a 3% heightened chance of MRSA infections...
Friend phoning her husband: I just heard on the news! If you smoke and you eat pineapple, it will give you a horrible infection! And that infection will kill you! It kills almost everyone who has it! And my mother does both those things! I can't believe my mother is going to die and she never listens to me and I'm sure she'll just ignore me about this ... [on the verge of tears]
(I am making that up about the news report findings, of course.) So what I see is heightened anxiety that is always scanning the vicinity for something that justifies that anxiety. And of course if you try to suggest that the trouble only comes after 20 years and is only a 3% increase, you get attacked for being dismissive of danger and feelings. If that produces a bad reaction, you can imagine how much stronger the reaction is when they feel personally attacked. And if they're on the spectrum, they a) probably have had people responding to them critically a good deal, which will make them more sensitive, b) probably have little insight into their own conversational habits, and so the fact that people criticize them for it will seem baffling and utterly unwarranted.
I think that unless people are actively willing to work on their conversational patterns, it's just knocking your head against the wall to get them to try. But there is also the saying "You teach people how to treat you" — which is not to say that you're responsible for people's bad behavior. But re-training is possible, just as dogs and dolphin can be trained. It basically consists of deciding what behavior is not to be tolerated (for instance, insults), and when it happens, saying calmly, "I won't be insulted, so I'm going to hang up now," and doing so. Of course then they have an "extinction burst," or "Change back!" response, to see if they can get you to tolerate the old behavior again. So they pitch a huge fit, try umpteen strategies of meltdown and guilting and manipulation. For those of us who are used to trying to keep the peace at whatever cost to ourselves, at first those seem scary. But when it's clear that we will genuinely no longer stick around for the bad behavior, and will hang up calmly every time it happen, after a while they get with the program. That's a lot easier to make happen than trying to drive insight into their brains. There are just too many factors weighing against the development of insight.
Quote from: Hegemony on April 05, 2021, 11:49:27 PM
SCR, if there is a chance you may be on the spectrum (as you report), I think there's an even bigger chance that your parents may be on the spectrum.
I've also noticed that because of that it seems like you've learned to try to think about whether you are misunderstanding social cues or handling situations incorrectly. That's probably been a good strategy, but I think you might sometimes be so worried that you're doing things wrong that you don't put the blame where it belongs and that might result in you being slow to get out of bad situations.
Reviving thread to ask how people deal with conversations in which someone comes at you with outrage after something they read incompletely and/or incorrectly.
I'll paraphrase an illustrative example from the sitcom King of Queens.
Dad: Did you see the news? The Vice President resigned today.
Daughter: What? No he didn't.
Dad: I read it in the paper. He absolutely did.
Daughter: If the VP resigned why was there nothing about it in on the radio or on TV?
Dad: Maybe this guy had an inside scoop. I'll prove it to you.
*Dad roots around to find paper; holds it up*
Dad: See? It's right there in black and white: Vice President Resigns...Himself to Wooden Image.
*Dad pauses in confusion*
Dad: Obviously this is not the right paper.
*Dad resumes rooting around to find the article about the VP's resignation he is still certain exists.*
My folks do this a lot, especially my Dad. He has a habit of assuming he knows the story even if he only read the headline (and maybe the first paragraph) or only tuned in halfway through a radio or TV segment. As a result, he gets a lot of things wrong.
It's very awkward when he wants me to share in his outrage or at least make some kind of comment. It's not about getting a fact here and there wrong, it's about getting the main gist of the story completely wrong. Or sometimes it's an attack on the author's integrity:
Dad: Can you believe this guy? Making such claims without a single citation?
*I skim through the article he's showing me*
Me: Um...He cites his sources in the third and fifth paragraphs, and again in a list at the bottom of the page.
Dad: Well, I didn't read that far.
Me: But how can you be certain he didn't mention something if you don't read the whole thing? Why assume that if the citations aren't in the first couple of paragraphs there are no citations at all?
Dad: *sigh* I don't know. Why do you have to be such a nitpicker?
He will sometimes get upset if I don't engage in the conversation, calling me a typical millennial, apathetic about the state of the world. I recently tried to explain the difficulty of having a discussion when the thing he's angry about didn't actually happen. It wasn't even reported to have happened, he just didn't read or listen carefully enough to get the actual story.
He blew up at me saying, "Oh, so unless I've researched every little detail, I can't open my mouth? Who the hell do you think you are? Fine, we'll do things your way. I won't talk to you ever again."
This kind of ties in to the last issue I posted about on this thread: I say one thing, the other person acts like I said something quite different (and more unreasonable than what I actually said).
Days later, when he was calmer, I asked if he honestly thought I was demanding he research every little detail (vs. what I actually said, which was essentially it's hard for me to engage in a conversation about a Man Bites Dog story when it's actually a Dog Bites Man story). I wasn't talking about little details at all.
At first: "Well, yes; that is what I heard you say. If that's not what you meant, then I forgive you." Followed by what seemed like deliberate attempts to pivot to a different topic.
Usually I would have let it go, but it was bugging me too much at this point. I asked how I could better communicate to avoid misunderstandings like that. Because I often think about my exact wording extensively before bringing up an awkward topic, specifically so as to avoid coming across as insulting or demanding. And I make a conscious effort to keep my tone of voice and facial expressions neutral. Where did communication break down?
At which point he says, "Ok, no. You didn't say that. You were actually pretty polite about it. I'll try not to be so hotheaded next time."
I left it there, but am I reading the situation wrong if I think this means he was lying about what he "heard" me say? Did he lie to me just to avoid addressing my real point?
My folks often complain that talking to me is "like talking to a wall." That they want to know how I think and feel about things, but I rarely tell them. I honestly don't know how to tell them a lot of things without triggering a fight.
You've answered it right there.
You can't not trigger a fight because they're clearly always spoiling for a fight.
This isn't about you and what you can do about the situation.
It's about them and what they won't do about it.
Repeating the suggestions made above to a) cut off or radically reduce face time/exposure to them; b) don't invest any personal insights or energy into fixing what isn't yours to fix (it's with them); c) re-balance your time so it's spent with positively-focused people so you get used to being treated well.
You're tearing yourself up inside for no good reason.
It doesn't matter if they're your folks, they have to want to heal themselves, you can't do anything to heal them.
The most recent conversation sounds like a tiny bit of progress was made, so that's to the good; if it continues, that's even better, but it's also possible (as Hegemony noted) that they just capitulated for a moment, and will try to re-drive the battle flags through at the next opening.
Which they will make by constructing misunderstandings out of thin air.
Because that's what they do.
Love yourself.
M.
I've gotten to a point where I only engage when I feel I can handle it. It doesn't really tear me up inside much anymore. It can still be frustrating, so I pick my battles so as not to get exhausted.
There was a bit of a transitional period during which threatening never to speak to me again was having less and less effect. When I was a kid and they said that, it felt like my whole world was collapsing. Now, if it actually happened, I'd be sad, but not devastated.
When I got harder to manipulate, they started to back off a bit and soften their approach somewhat. Maybe threatening to disown me was a bluff used to control me. Maybe they realized not having me in their lives is lonelier than they thought it would be. I don't know.
The fact that they have made some concessions is why I'm low-contact with them instead of no-contact. It's also why I'm willing to attempt an honest conversation once in a while to see if we can attempt to improve the relationship. And I grant my dad more chances than I do my mom because he has been more willing to make an effort (even if he still has anger issues).
I would never have attempted such a conversation with my mom, as it's probably a lost cause. But my dad is the one who always encouraged my educational pursuits, and taught be to value logic and skepticism. He always supported my interest in science and expressed pride as I matured and honed my ability to think critically. It's one of the things I'm most grateful for to him as a dad. So, it's baffling to me that he is so quick to jump to conclusions after merely skimming a headline, and that he's so defensive about being challenged.
He was also the parent who most helped me develop a sense of ethics and integrity. So, it's hard for me to reconcile this with the possibility that he is being consciously manipulative and dishonest with me.
Quote from: smallcleanrat on November 05, 2021, 04:05:45 PM
I've gotten to a point where I only engage when I feel I can handle it. It doesn't really tear me up inside much anymore. It can still be frustrating, so I pick my battles so as not to get exhausted.
There was a bit of a transitional period during which threatening never to speak to me again was having less and less effect. When I was a kid and they said that, it felt like my whole world was collapsing. Now, if it actually happened, I'd be sad, but not devastated.
When I got harder to manipulate, they started to back off a bit and soften their approach somewhat. Maybe threatening to disown me was a bluff used to control me. Maybe they realized not having me in their lives is lonelier than they thought it would be. I don't know.
The fact that they have made some concessions is why I'm low-contact with them instead of no-contact. It's also why I'm willing to attempt an honest conversation once in a while to see if we can attempt to improve the relationship. And I grant my dad more chances than I do my mom because he has been more willing to make an effort (even if he still has anger issues).
I would never have attempted such a conversation with my mom, as it's probably a lost cause. But my dad is the one who always encouraged my educational pursuits, and taught be to value logic and skepticism. He always supported my interest in science and expressed pride as I matured and honed my ability to think critically. It's one of the things I'm most grateful for to him as a dad. So, it's baffling to me that he is so quick to jump to conclusions after merely skimming a headline, and that he's so defensive about being challenged.
He was also the parent who most helped me develop a sense of ethics and integrity. So, it's hard for me to reconcile this with the possibility that he is being consciously manipulative and dishonest with me.
Your presence in their life is the one thing you can leverage. Treat their temper tantrums like you would in a toddler - ignore it and walk away. You can say "You are upset. Let's talk later when you calm down." Then hang up the phone and put it on silent.
My guess is that he is not being consciously manipulative and dishonest. His emotions are so big and scary to him that they are driving the bus.
Do you happen to know Jonathan Haidt's excellent book The Happiness Hypothesis? He uses the image of the rider and the elephant. The rider is the intellect. The elephant is the emotional response system. The rider, sitting on top, likes to think he's in charge. But when the elephant/emotions panic, they carry the rider far off course.
So I'd guess that being wrong is a huge taboo and danger in your father's mind. One reason I'm guessing this is that my mother was the same way. She would tie herself in knots refusing to look wrong — distracting the conversation, changing the subject, making ridiculous assertions ("I never said that!" — when she'd said it five minutes before). Somewhere in the past, all her value had become tied up in being right, and being wrong meant devastation. And if she was going to be wrong, only she could announce it — woe betide anyone else who tried to say she was wrong, however gently and innocently. Does that sound like your father at all?
It is painful to see our parents so flawed, so overtaken by emotion rather than reason, and frankly, so frightened. It's very hard to detach from it.
And one thing that happens in these situations is that they are responding wholly to their own internal state, not really to an interaction with us. They may be having an interaction with us, but they cannot calibrate themselves to respond to us in those circumstances, only to themselves. So it can feel like being invisible or erased. And when our parents are powerful forces in our lives (as they typically are), it feels as if they are not only treating us as invisible, but making us invisible. In fact I think those parents who have never matured themselves, like yours and like my mother, are harder to detach from — they never helped us form wholly independent identities. Then it's up to us to form them for ourselves, and not to erase ourselves, even if they are not capable of fully responding to us.
Hang in there, SCR.
I'm just here to offer support, scr. You can do this. You're not alone.
Quote from: Caracal on January 23, 2021, 07:01:47 AM
Ok so here's my defense of interrupters...
It isn't necessarily about rudeness. It certainly can be, however, it can just be a conversational style that yours doesn't mesh well with. If this is something you are encountering a lot, it also might be worth considering if you could be playing a role in the dynamic. It would be nice if your PI could take the time to read the whole email before responding, but it could be that you have a tendency to bury the lede in your writing or your conversation?
I imagine that the rules vary across cultures and among the different social classes within one culture.
Hi SCR, I think Hegemony is on to something really important here. Your dad probably isn't being deliberately manipulative, but he may be scared of being wrong--which drives his reactions to you. The reason he's scared of being wrong may be something that has been with him for his whole life (maybe because of his own upbringing), or it may be driven by changes brought about by aging, or it may be a combination of the two. But it has very little to do with you or what you said/didn't say.
A therapist once recommended The Narcissistic Family (Donaldson-Pressman & Pressman) to me; I am not suggesting that your family is narcissistic, but I found it helpful when thinking through some of my own family dynamics.