I’m guessing that if possible, these modes should be chosen depending on the situation. Waiting seems better when discussing something in a group where several people often have something to say at the same time, as a kind of scheduling algorithm to improve fairness and give structure to navigate a more complicated conversation (and control its complexity). A norm that you can interrupt, but only rarely, can rescue a discussion with many participants from this mode. Interrupting seems better when only a few people are interacting, so that there is a more efficient feedback loop, for example relevant confusions/questions are cleared up quickly instead of increasing the difficulty in interpreting subsequent statements (including to the point where you are no longer able to follow, which easily happens when there is no possibility of feedback, but can be mitigated when there is).
Interrupting seems better when only a few people are interacting,
Another important variable is who the people are. I’m an “interrupter” myself, but I’ve known “waiters” who find the interrupting style of conversation very difficult to work with, even when they are talking with just one other person.
It’s not just a matter of perceived rudeness. Some waiters find it hard to keep their thinking organized if they have to switch abruptly and unexpectedly from “talking mode” to “listening mode”. Since I don’t find it so hard to hold onto my thoughts while the waiters say their peace, it makes more sense for me to accommodate their waiting style rather than to impose my interrupting style on them.
Interesting, I’m more used to a very different style of “waiting” where having a long organized chain of thoughts you have to get through in sequence is an exceptional case—usually you let the other person’s response to the first thing you say help steer the conversation. But now that you mention it I recognize the style you’re talking about too.
I’m guessing that if possible, these modes should be chosen depending on the situation. Waiting seems better when discussing something in a group where several people often have something to say at the same time, as a kind of scheduling algorithm to improve fairness and give structure to navigate a more complicated conversation (and control its complexity). A norm that you can interrupt, but only rarely, can rescue a discussion with many participants from this mode. Interrupting seems better when only a few people are interacting, so that there is a more efficient feedback loop, for example relevant confusions/questions are cleared up quickly instead of increasing the difficulty in interpreting subsequent statements (including to the point where you are no longer able to follow, which easily happens when there is no possibility of feedback, but can be mitigated when there is).
Another important variable is who the people are. I’m an “interrupter” myself, but I’ve known “waiters” who find the interrupting style of conversation very difficult to work with, even when they are talking with just one other person.
It’s not just a matter of perceived rudeness. Some waiters find it hard to keep their thinking organized if they have to switch abruptly and unexpectedly from “talking mode” to “listening mode”. Since I don’t find it so hard to hold onto my thoughts while the waiters say their peace, it makes more sense for me to accommodate their waiting style rather than to impose my interrupting style on them.
Interesting, I’m more used to a very different style of “waiting” where having a long organized chain of thoughts you have to get through in sequence is an exceptional case—usually you let the other person’s response to the first thing you say help steer the conversation. But now that you mention it I recognize the style you’re talking about too.