[ISO-morphism]

Related - The Church of Interruption [1].

> When people are interrupting each other - when they're constantly tugging the conversation back and forth between their preferred directions - then the conversation itself is just a battle of wills. But when people just put in one thing at a time, and trust their fellows to only say things that relate to the thing that came right before - at least, until there's a very long pause - then you start to see genuine collaboration.

I think that's the meat of the collaborative conversational spirit. Interruption/waiting is one axis, another nearly orthogonal axis is continuation/abandonment of the current topic which correlates more strongly with actual listening rather than politeness.

In terms of [1], I've definitely encountered "civil barkers", who will never interrupt you verbally (but usually offer increasingly strong nonverbal cues that they want their turn), then very weakly link into a new topic. That is to say, waiting isn't a sufficient (nor I'd say necessary) condition for constructive conversation. E.g. the Trump/Hillary debate, when asked to say something nice about each other, Hillary immediately pivoted into talking about her platform.

[1] https://sambleckley.com/writing/church-of-interruption.html

[drewcoo]

What that Church of Interruption axis is missing is authority vs freedom

Refusing to interrupt is cowing to authority.

Refusing to yield is asserting authority.

If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.

[Godel_unicode]

Ah yes, the “I’m not an asshole I’m just independent” argument. Refusing to interrupt is respecting the other person enough to let them say what they think, and trusting them enough that they will grant you the same respect.

[dleslie]

Which they probably won't, if they can prevent it, most of the time. People tend not to invite discussion for the purposes of challenging their positions.

[Godel_unicode]

Small-minded people, perhaps. Is it worth discussing things with them?

For what it’s worth, this is a common take from interrupty people which I have found not to be the case in the long run. I suspect there’s a significant observer effect.

[dleslie]

Or perhaps there's a selection bias in the company kept. It's easy not to find cause to interrupt if there exists general agreement and temperament.

[njharman]

No it’s not worth discussing, that’s why you interrupt!

[JadeNB]

> If people feel safe and free to act autonomously and engage in the best way they see fit, they allow interruptions and they interrupt.

I disagree, and I think a lot of bad feeling and a lot of bad meetings come out of people assuming that the dynamic that is comfortable for them is what others always prefer, or is somehow the natural state of conversation, from which other dynamics are a flawed aberration.

I hate being interrupted because of the family dynamic with which I grew up (ceaseless interruption), and so try very hard not to interrupt others. When I feel safe that my ideas will eventually be heard, I don't interrupt; and, when I feel safe that I am interacting with my peers as equals, and will neither hurt feelings nor impose authority, I will request of them that they don't interrupt me, i.e., taken together with the first point, that we have a conversational dynamic where we don't interrupt one another.

(The latter is, of course, more dicey, since while I indisputably have a right not to interrupt others, but don't have a right to insist others not interrupt me. But, under the very stringent conditions of conversations with equals with the understanding that it is OK to say "no" to a request, I think that it is a reasonable thing to request.)

[awestroke]

Refusing to interrupt is to stick to your ideals. Tit-for-tat does not work against interrupters, and especially against barkers