Why Interruptions Are Bad
They’re obviously rude and annoying. It’s apparent to the other conversationalists and any audience. It’s also increasingly frustrating when it’s constant.
They reveal arrogance and self-infatuation. The interrupter thinks what they have to say is more important, and assumes the other participants and audience agree.
They’re purely emotional and never intellectual. They happen mid-thought of the other person, indicating that the interrupter is not actually processing that thought, but vomiting their immediate feelings mixed in with half-baked ideas.
They’re an attempt to compensate for logical inferiority. A strong and well-formed argument requires taking in everything the other person is saying and addressing those points. The interrupter is unwilling or incapable of understanding the other person’s thoughts, therefore tries to make up for it by talking more.
They’re a verbal train wreck in slow motion. Due to the lack of intentional thought, the interruption usually results in incoherent statements, unrelated tangents, and general nonsensical rambling.
They reveal conversational insecurity. The interrupter knows or feels they can’t compete in turn-based dialogue. Therefore they aim to overwhelm and dominate by talking…
