The Art of Conversation

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[mamselle]

It happens online in chat forums, too...had you noticed?

M.

[Hegemony]

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.

[Caracal]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[smallcleanrat]

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.

[Myword]

   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.

[Caracal]

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...

[Puget]

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.

[Hegemony]

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.

[Caracal]

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.

[Puget]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[mamselle]

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.