Send us Fan MailInterrupting someone feels rude. Sometimes not interrupting is the bigger communication mistake.Dale Dixon learned that during about fifteen years in television news, where protecting the viewer sometimes meant cutting into an answer and bringing the conversation back to the question.One live interview with a candidate for governor forced that decision in real time. Dale had three minutes, one question about accountability, and an answer that kept moving somewhere else.He interrupted.He never got the answer.But the experience left him with a question he has been working on ever since:When is the thing that feels rude actually the responsible move?In this episode of The Presence Lab, Dale examines the split-second judgment behind interruption and three practical moves for handling it:SETTLE FIRST
Get steady enough that discomfort does not make the decision for you.NAME WHO IT'S FOR
Identify who depends on the conversation being useful.BRING IT BACK
Interrupt briefly, say what you are protecting, ask one clean question, then let the other person answer. The episode also looks at research on attention, social-evaluative stress, the social cost of interruption, and evidence showing that our interruption patterns are not always as fair as we think they are.The goal is not to interrupt more.It is to develop the judgment to know when interrupting is the respectful thing to do.An interruption has to earn the cost it creates.Free Interrupt Field GuideGet the two-page guide with the three tools, sample language, a practice drill, and a seven-day interruption check:https://daledixonmedia.com/rudeJoin The Presence LabPractice communication under pressure with other leaders:https://daledixonmedia.com/communityResearch referenced in this episodeGloria Mark on attention and screen switching:
https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/attention-spansDickerson & Kemeny on social-evaluative stress:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15122924/Han Z. Li on cooperative and intrusive interruption:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X01020003001Katherine Hawkins on deep interruption:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X91103003Dupas et al., Gender Differences in Economics Seminars:
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.20241718Miller & Sutherland on interruptions at congressional hearings:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/effect-of-gender-on-interruptions-at-congressional-hearings/DDD33F28A1C8ED9C162E1793D8126243Jacobi & Schweers, Justice, Interrupted:
https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/faculty-articles/274/Cai et al., Let Me Just Interrupt You:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/let-me-just-interrupt-you-estimating-gender-effects-in-supreme-court-oral-arguments/4870F0FD3BEF0E00AF46F8D64EDA2289Jeremy Paxman / Michael Howard background:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/jan/31/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemediaSupport the show