Well-Intentioned Interruption?
Why do we do it? Is it for the sake of others, for the group, or out of selfish interest? I don’t think people are generally ill-intended when they fail to listen and keep interrupting each other. Sometimes with friends or family, we express genuine feelings about stressful situations related to health, relationships, or work. Our close ones want to help. They want to propose solutions they think will address our problems. They've understood enough about what we've said and know us closely, so they don't need the gory details of what happened or how we feel. They already empathise with us and want what’s best for us. It’s not so much that they don’t want to listen, but that they genuinely want us to feel better by seeking solutions. It's further a social role for family to offer parenting advice and friends to provide psychological support. People get used to performing their social roles and are comfortable in them. So they interrupt us before we can complete our thoughts, helping us see that our bad feelings are not necessary or justified, and offering solutions to get out of our problems. Does that help? Not in my experience. I can be my own parent, and if I need a psychologist, I’ll pay to see a professional. Unless I ask for brainstorming ideas or solutions, what I seek is to share my experiences with someone who will listen, understand, and take some of the stress away by simply being present and listening.
But why do we do it when it’s not about problems? Why do we interrupt each other and offer our opinions or beliefs without listening to what others think? Are we similarly trying to help? Instead of correcting their feelings, are we attempting to correct their beliefs? I don’t think people are ill-intended when they fail to listen to a thought being expressed, interrupt the speaker, and say what they think on the subject. I don’t think we realise when we keep stopping someone from sharing their thoughts. Or perhaps it’s some kind of learned behaviour to express something good and be rewarded for it. That would be more out of selfish interest, to present ourselves as good or smart people. Or perhaps it’s even a defensive reflex, out of fear of not showing that we understand the topic or have something interesting to contribute. It’s not always comfortable to be in a discussion when the rules of engagement are not clear. When do we transgress at a dinner party? At a family dinner? At the pub? When do we go too far? Some people will turn everything into a joke, either finding a funny angle on what is said or by expressing something relevant to the topic but in full irony. Is that a defensive measure? Because if we’re wrong, it doesn’t matter since we weren’t trying to be right, but to be funny.
A simple trick I’ve learned from working with my colleague Maree Davis in education is to teach students the use of uptake questions. Instead of saying, “I don’t agree with this,” or interrupting a speaker with what we think is a better opinion, ask a question that invites others to develop their ideas: “Why do you say that?” “Why do you believe that?” Leave it open; don’t ask a rhetorical question that tells them they’re wrong, such as, “Don’t you think it’s more like [express your opinion]?” I wonder what your experience will be. One thing I’ve noticed is that when people are given time to develop their ideas, they feel more comfortable expressing themselves in more nuanced, constructive ways that everyone benefits from listening to. That is one way to enforce neutrality in a dialectical space of enquiry.
