Also, I would argue that, if your own train of thought is at risk of being derailed by a person interrupting in order to protect their own train of thought from derailing ... then (assuming you're not aware of it and doing it intentionally) perhaps it may be worth considering if you're being partially "uninterruptible".
A good communicator should communicate no more than 2-3 ideas max, before allowing a gap for counterpoints (i.e. inviting constructive "interruptions") to occur.
If you've branched n times from the original argument and people are still trying to debate the root of the tree, of course they need to interrupt; otherwise they'll be stuck debating the leaf nodes, or worse, appear to be rudely ignoring all n-1 arguments in order to return to the (presumably now largely irrelevant) root node of the conversation.
Meanwhile, you've managed to get n arguments in and managed to get offended at the interruption. win-win /s
- sorry, not a personal attack; just a point I see often, which your comment reminded me of :)
A good communicator should communicate no more than 2-3 ideas max, before allowing a gap for counterpoints (i.e. inviting constructive "interruptions") to occur.
If you've branched n times from the original argument and people are still trying to debate the root of the tree, of course they need to interrupt; otherwise they'll be stuck debating the leaf nodes, or worse, appear to be rudely ignoring all n-1 arguments in order to return to the (presumably now largely irrelevant) root node of the conversation.
Meanwhile, you've managed to get n arguments in and managed to get offended at the interruption. win-win /s
- sorry, not a personal attack; just a point I see often, which your comment reminded me of :)