Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't think it's best to think of this in terms of "safety." Interruption is a dark pattern. It enables the user of the pattern to gain more attention and get more "turns" at speaking, but does it at the expense of group members being able to express complicated or difficult concepts. It's a pattern which suppresses thought and information.


Totally agree it can be a dark pattern but also sometimes folks just don’t realize their behaviors consequences on those around them. To clarify, pushing the org in the direction of fostering “physiological safety” allows folks to bring things like this up without fear of reprisal. (Google for studies on the term) When issues are surfaced they are more likely to be addressed and the company or team can become more effective since more folks have an opportunity to contribute fully rather than shutting down to protect themselves as the original post describes. Turns out effective human interaction is good for business.


Do you see the value in interrupt-based software? Why should there be any real distinction between software message-passing and human message-passing?

The complete rejection of interruption-during-conversation is equivalent to the denial of existence of far-too-long monologues, isn't it?


"Excuse me this is taking too long, please wrap up" is not the same as taking over the conversation.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: