I don't know how collaboration is implicated, but regardless that's not the form of confrontation I'm talking about. It's confrontational because interrupters and Barkers (from the story) have to either be overpowered vocally, or asked specifically to allow for the thoughts of others ("Can I finish?").
never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact
No, “interrupters” do not have to be “overpowered”. They just have to be interrupted, which is something they are expecting, and will stop talking to accommodate.
The back-and-forth of a conversation (including interruptions) is a collaborative endeavor, not a “confrontation”. Something like playing improvisational music together.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
For people in an interruption-heavy conversation culture, someone who sits back and doesn’t say anything because there is never a long pause where no one else is talking – or who doesn’t jump in and say something when the interrupter starts saying explaining something they already know, leaving the interrupter to waste their time – seems cold and distant. The non-interrupter’s silence feels judgmental and antisocial. The interrupter will often interpret the non-interrupter’s behavior as an indication that that he/she does not like the interrupter or does not want to be part of the conversation.
Often this impression of standoffishness is inaccurate, a result of cultural misunderstanding. Just like the non-interrupter’s impression that the interrupter is confrontational or rude is inaccurate, also a misunderstanding.
* * *
There are many similar kinds of cultural differences which can lead to misunderstandings.
When someone from a culture where each person gets a personal plate to eat from meets someone from a culture where everyone eats from a communal plate, each person can interpret the other’s behavior as rudeness.
When someone from a culture without much physical contact meets someone from a culture where people greet each-other with hugs or kisses, again, each can interpret the opposite behavior as rudeness.
If someone often interrupts but will not easily allow themselves to be interrupted, or if someone completely ignores what the other person is saying, then that is just rude, not some difference in conversational culture. That’s not what we are talking about in this discussion though.
Yes it is. That's the confrontation, again.
The rest of your comment doesn't really make a point, just value judgement on your preference for interrupting. Someone being a loudmouth or a boor is a cultural difference or "just rude," while someone who prefers not to participate in everybody talking over each other (a predictable condition) is cold, distant, judgemental, antisocial, and just plain does not want to be part of the conversation.
This is an antagonistic and bad-faith perspective.
I'd expect there are more cultures and households out there
than not that punish any form of interruption to the point where its members would see it not just as confrontation but as a sin. To take a view that casts these people as standoffish is dismissive.
I am not calling these people standoffish. I am showing the previous commenter (by constructing an opposite dismissal) that such judgments are misplaced.
From the civility side, interrupting is at best confrontational but more likely a social sin. From the interruption side, failing to interrupt is standoffish. The reaction of each side to the other is unbalanced, but the severity of civility's backlash is easy to understand.
From the other point of view, never interrupting is a fundamentally standoffish way to interact.