I submit that it would be very nice to have a method other than verbal interruption that explicitly communicates to someone that you want them to stop talking. (Possibly an array of methods, depending on why you want them to stop.) I think this might cut down on the use of verbal interruption to accomplish said goal by its mere availability. And the fact that it would explicitly mean “I want you to stop talking” (when interruption doesn’t directly say that) would make it a little clearer that it’s a rude thing to express and encourage saving it for cases where it’s actually important for conversational flow.
The only thing I’ve seen work well is a norm that no one talks for very long at once. (At college I learned how to say just one thing, which allowed people to argue, ask questions, change the subject, or if they were interested ask “can you say a little more about that?”.) When conversing with people who have been similarly acculturated, if they interrupt me, that means that I have been rude by giving a speech instead of conversing.
Some people raise their hand, which is pretty clear but sufficiently jokey and simultaneously deferential to the speaker that it never seems rude to me. Along those lines I’ve seen some success giving off the visual signals of “about to speak,” plus at most a verbal “um” or “hmm”.
I submit that it would be very nice to have a method other than verbal interruption that explicitly communicates to someone that you want them to stop talking. (Possibly an array of methods, depending on why you want them to stop.)
Hand raising serves this purpose pretty well. People tend to think of it only for when an audience member wishes to interrupt a presenter, and not for conversations between peers, but it seems suitable for peer conversations too..
Putting your hand out with an index finger raised also works pretty well, and might be less socially surprising. You can also vary the details to send different messages, with “arm out and index finger pointing just above the person’s head” being “stop talking right now!”
I submit that it would be very nice to have a method other than verbal interruption that explicitly communicates to someone that you want them to stop talking. (Possibly an array of methods, depending on why you want them to stop.)
I agree completely.
make it a little clearer that it’s a rude thing to express and encourage saving it for cases where it’s actually important for conversational flow.
I have been interrupted exactly twice in this way; I appreciated it and did not find it rude. (Particularly helpful was accurately thinking of the signal as “talk about it later” rather than “don’t talk about it”) The conversation in question felt atypically effective and pleasant, although only a tiny part can be attributed to this strategy.
I would rather such signals be used whenever they save time and further our shared values. If there is any chance, I would be happiest to participate in a culture which could work around human nature to deal with similar problems.
As I think about it more I think there’s enough variation in reasons to want to interrupt someone that a variety of gestures or whatever are called for:
I want you to stop because you are boring.
I want you to stop so I can correct you on something minor, but after that, please go on.
I want you to stop because I have something time-dependent to say.
I want you to stop because you have drifted from the topic.
I want you to stop because you are violating a social norm and you need to quit digging that hole any deeper.
I want you to stop because you’ve been talking a long time and someone else should get a turn nowish.
There’s a pretty low threshold for how conspicuous you can make these cues without confusing most people or getting them to make their eyes wide while they try to give you strong eye contact and scrunch their foreheads as if in distress.
That said, as long as they work when you use them, why should you be worried about the asymmetry? Are you worried that they will notice that you use the cues but don’t pick up on them and start to think you’re not really paying attention to them or something? If so, I doubt this is the case; in my experience people seem to care much more about whether you are picking up on their non-verbal cues than whether you’re using the right ones yourself. Whether or not you use working cues, they will tend to be equally annoyed that you aren’t picking up on their cues.
Anyway, unless you’re interacting with very good friends it isn’t as though you could get the people you are interacting with to use a significantly different set of cues; most of this is going to be largely subconscious/habitual to them.
If you use signals that you wouldn’t notice then you’ll still be able to send the message, even if you have trouble receiving it yourself, and annoyance about you not picking up on their cues will be similar whether or not you do this; so doing this should afford you greater utility than just not using recognizable signals at all.
I would definitely try to make these signals more obvious. One way of doing that would involve using your hands to make gestures that feel right (similar to the facial expressions) to display in the particular situation.
For example, if I think of myself being exasperated at someone either because they’re spouting nonsense or being super boring, it feels right to splay the fingers of each hand all the wey out while holding my palms at about a 45 degree angle to my chest.
I want you to stop because you are boring.
A somewhat more obvious one here is bobbing your head side to side in a rhythm—I find it fairly easy to do this when I no longer have an interest in what someone’s saying, and am only hearing the tone of their voice.
I submit that it would be very nice to have a method other than verbal interruption that explicitly communicates to someone that you want them to stop talking. (Possibly an array of methods, depending on why you want them to stop.) I think this might cut down on the use of verbal interruption to accomplish said goal by its mere availability. And the fact that it would explicitly mean “I want you to stop talking” (when interruption doesn’t directly say that) would make it a little clearer that it’s a rude thing to express and encourage saving it for cases where it’s actually important for conversational flow.
The only thing I’ve seen work well is a norm that no one talks for very long at once. (At college I learned how to say just one thing, which allowed people to argue, ask questions, change the subject, or if they were interested ask “can you say a little more about that?”.) When conversing with people who have been similarly acculturated, if they interrupt me, that means that I have been rude by giving a speech instead of conversing.
Some people raise their hand, which is pretty clear but sufficiently jokey and simultaneously deferential to the speaker that it never seems rude to me. Along those lines I’ve seen some success giving off the visual signals of “about to speak,” plus at most a verbal “um” or “hmm”.
Hand raising serves this purpose pretty well. People tend to think of it only for when an audience member wishes to interrupt a presenter, and not for conversations between peers, but it seems suitable for peer conversations too..
Putting your hand out with an index finger raised also works pretty well, and might be less socially surprising. You can also vary the details to send different messages, with “arm out and index finger pointing just above the person’s head” being “stop talking right now!”
I agree completely.
I have been interrupted exactly twice in this way; I appreciated it and did not find it rude. (Particularly helpful was accurately thinking of the signal as “talk about it later” rather than “don’t talk about it”) The conversation in question felt atypically effective and pleasant, although only a tiny part can be attributed to this strategy.
I would rather such signals be used whenever they save time and further our shared values. If there is any chance, I would be happiest to participate in a culture which could work around human nature to deal with similar problems.
I like the idea of ‘lets talk about this later’.
eyebrows raised, hand up, palm out?
ETA: on reflection, I imagine strong eye contact with eyebrows raised might be sufficient in itself to cause most to trail to a halt...
As I think about it more I think there’s enough variation in reasons to want to interrupt someone that a variety of gestures or whatever are called for:
I want you to stop because you are boring.
I want you to stop so I can correct you on something minor, but after that, please go on.
I want you to stop because I have something time-dependent to say.
I want you to stop because you have drifted from the topic.
I want you to stop because you are violating a social norm and you need to quit digging that hole any deeper.
I want you to stop because you’ve been talking a long time and someone else should get a turn nowish.
etc. etc.
Attempting to simulate these in my brain and see what my face actually does...
One eyebrow up, nose a bit scrunched
Eyebrows up, biting bottom lip, eyes a bit big.
Mouth a bit open, eyes wide
Biting lip, eyes sideways.
Eyes wide, strong eye contact, forehead scrunched as if in distress
Side of mouth turned up, nose scrunched a bit, eyes jumping to relevant silent parties.
I disapprove of these signals in particular for the specific reason that I would be guaranteed to miss most of them.
There’s a pretty low threshold for how conspicuous you can make these cues without confusing most people or getting them to make their eyes wide while they try to give you strong eye contact and scrunch their foreheads as if in distress.
That said, as long as they work when you use them, why should you be worried about the asymmetry? Are you worried that they will notice that you use the cues but don’t pick up on them and start to think you’re not really paying attention to them or something? If so, I doubt this is the case; in my experience people seem to care much more about whether you are picking up on their non-verbal cues than whether you’re using the right ones yourself. Whether or not you use working cues, they will tend to be equally annoyed that you aren’t picking up on their cues.
Anyway, unless you’re interacting with very good friends it isn’t as though you could get the people you are interacting with to use a significantly different set of cues; most of this is going to be largely subconscious/habitual to them.
If you use signals that you wouldn’t notice then you’ll still be able to send the message, even if you have trouble receiving it yourself, and annoyance about you not picking up on their cues will be similar whether or not you do this; so doing this should afford you greater utility than just not using recognizable signals at all.
I would definitely try to make these signals more obvious. One way of doing that would involve using your hands to make gestures that feel right (similar to the facial expressions) to display in the particular situation.
For example, if I think of myself being exasperated at someone either because they’re spouting nonsense or being super boring, it feels right to splay the fingers of each hand all the wey out while holding my palms at about a 45 degree angle to my chest.
A somewhat more obvious one here is bobbing your head side to side in a rhythm—I find it fairly easy to do this when I no longer have an interest in what someone’s saying, and am only hearing the tone of their voice.
Fake coughing/throat clearing is also a common cue here.