I attended a group discussion in regard to religion and ethics where there were very firm rules about how interaction could take place. No interrupting, no cross-talk, people’s statement’s were timed with a little hourglass and all took less than 60 seconds… I think (if I recall correctly) they even had a “talking-item” which you had to have in your hand in order to speak. When we read over the rules at the beginning of the discussion, I remember rolling my eyes and thinking, “Seriously? We are all adults… Can’t we just have a discussion without all these rules? This is silly & infantile...”
The discussion was awesome. One of the most productive and interesting discussions I can remember. The rules, with no excepetion, were strictly but politely enforced. It felt silly at first, and then increasingly natural. I listened much more intently to other perspectives than I regularly do. I re-thought and chose to refrain from making statements I normally would have made. It was cool, and I’d say the Wait Culture worked that day.
I’ve been an ‘interrupter’. I like to talk. And I enjoy heated debate. But I’ve been persuaded it is very unlikely to be the most productive way to proceed in a discussion. I’m trying to become a ‘waiter’. (It’s hard to do...)
...
Upvoted for framing this topic in a helpful way (Wait vs. Interrupt Culture). I’ve learned there is a staggering difference in the way individuals feel about this—some think the wait culture is super weird; some are horrified by the rudeness of anything resembling an interruption. Interesting and helpful to know.
How many solutions are there that we overlook because they seem childish or “cringe”? Maybe that’s just something I notice, since I notice myself avoiding “cringe” things too much. I think being averse to cringe is not entirely a bad thing, because it helps rule out solutions that probably wouldn’t work.
I attended a group discussion in regard to religion and ethics where there were very firm rules about how interaction could take place. No interrupting, no cross-talk, people’s statement’s were timed with a little hourglass and all took less than 60 seconds… I think (if I recall correctly) they even had a “talking-item” which you had to have in your hand in order to speak. When we read over the rules at the beginning of the discussion, I remember rolling my eyes and thinking, “Seriously? We are all adults… Can’t we just have a discussion without all these rules? This is silly & infantile...”
The discussion was awesome. One of the most productive and interesting discussions I can remember. The rules, with no excepetion, were strictly but politely enforced. It felt silly at first, and then increasingly natural. I listened much more intently to other perspectives than I regularly do. I re-thought and chose to refrain from making statements I normally would have made. It was cool, and I’d say the Wait Culture worked that day.
I’ve been an ‘interrupter’. I like to talk. And I enjoy heated debate. But I’ve been persuaded it is very unlikely to be the most productive way to proceed in a discussion. I’m trying to become a ‘waiter’. (It’s hard to do...)
...
Upvoted for framing this topic in a helpful way (Wait vs. Interrupt Culture). I’ve learned there is a staggering difference in the way individuals feel about this—some think the wait culture is super weird; some are horrified by the rudeness of anything resembling an interruption. Interesting and helpful to know.
How many solutions are there that we overlook because they seem childish or “cringe”? Maybe that’s just something I notice, since I notice myself avoiding “cringe” things too much. I think being averse to cringe is not entirely a bad thing, because it helps rule out solutions that probably wouldn’t work.