I think there's a subtle system that interrupters use (and for context I am definitely an interrupter, though I very consciously work to not be one when I'm with non-interrupters). If I'm speaking and you interrupt, if my expectation is that your thought is more valuable than mine, I stop and let you go. If I think my thought is more valuable, I continue. In this situation, you're doing the same thing. So if we both continue to talk, each of us is signaling that we think our thought is more important, but each of us is also taking in the information that the other thinks their thought is more important. So if you're still talking after some threshold (and this is quick, so that's maybe 2-3 seconds), even though I think my thought is important, it's not 2-3 seconds of interruption important, ergo your thought is probably more important, so I cede the metaphorical baton to you.
That might sound insane to non-interrupters, and even for interrupters it's a quick, natural assessment, but if you listen to two interrupters talk for a while, especially about something they're both passionate about, you can pick up on what's happening.
That said, there are also some interrupters who just do not stop speaking once they've interrupted no matter what. They're a minority, but they drive me nuts. So it's all relative, I suppose.
Huh. It's my impression that 2-3 seconds of talking over someone else is not "quick". To me, that's a long time to keep going.
I have a similar thought pattern with who's thoughts are more valuable - but my perception is that the person butting in knows what I am saying and what they want to say, whereas I only know what I'm saying. Therefore, they are in a much better position to determine which thought is more valuable, so my best course of action is probably to pass the baton.
Honestly you might be right about the 2-3 seconds. It's one of those things that happens pretty quickly and naturally, so it's very plausible I'm judging the timing wrong.
But yeah, 100% agree with what you're saying, but the part I'd add is that if I think that they think they know what I'm saying but are likely to be wrong, that's when I'll keep talking over them as they try to interrupt. That might happen if I'm about to make a point that's counterintuitive, so they've likely misjudged where I'm going.
My mom (from whom I definitely learned to be an interrupter) and I do this to each other in more direct fashion with a "no no, shush, I haven't made my point yet," or something along those lines. But that obviously only works because it's just a normal conversational paradigm for us, and neither of us would ever get offended.
Certainly agree on there being "good" and "bad" interruptors. Being a jerk with the way you interrupt is never a good idea, and unfortunately the reputation of interruption in general as mode of communication has been sullied by such jerks.
I also agree with your analysis of us interrupters having a secret system—that's totally the case in my experience as well. I think a lot of it comes down to whether you instinctually view the act of interruption as inherently disrespectful or not.
That might sound insane to non-interrupters, and even for interrupters it's a quick, natural assessment, but if you listen to two interrupters talk for a while, especially about something they're both passionate about, you can pick up on what's happening.
That said, there are also some interrupters who just do not stop speaking once they've interrupted no matter what. They're a minority, but they drive me nuts. So it's all relative, I suppose.