Fun fact: there isnāt anything wrong with you if you do what OP is describing.
Deborah Tannenās work focuses on different conversational stylesĀ ā the sets of behavioral norms and expectations that we bring with us to conversations. In one of her earlier articles, she describes two conflicting conversational styles that exist in the US.Ā
One, which she (perhaps inaccurately) dubsĀ āNew York Jewish conversational style,ā is based on the principle of building camaraderie with oneās interlocutor. The other, which she doesnāt really name but which we could callĀ āmainstream American conversational style,ā is based on the principle of not imposing on oneās interlocutor.
Each conversational style has its own behavioral norms. Mainstream American conversational style involves things like asking your interlocutor questions about him/herself and waiting until your interlocutor is clearly finished speaking until you say something. These demonstrate a focus on oneās interlocutor and a clear resistance to imposing. NYJ conversational style involves things like conversational overlaps ā speaking at the same time as oneās interlocutor ā andĀ āswapping stories.ā These demonstrate a high level of engagement with oneās interlocutor. Conversationalists using the mainstream American style make space for each other; conversationalists using the New York Jewish style carve out their own space.
Each of these conversational styles works well when the two people conversing have the same style. Imagine two friends meeting for drinks after work:
āOh, hello! How was your trip here?ā
āOh, it was awful. There was so much traffic on the turnpike.ā
āThatās terrible.ā
āI know. How was your trip?ā
āWell, there was an accident on the bridge.ā
āOh no! Was there a big backup?ā
āYeah, pretty big.ā
āOh, hi!ā
āHey! Ugh, sorry Iām late, there was so much traffic on the turnpikeāā
āOh my god, I know, there was an accident on the bridge and the cars were backed up a MILEāā
āThat is the worst, I remember one time I sat in traffic for an HOUR waiting to get through that toll, they really shouldāā
āAdd more EZ-pass lanes, right?ā
āAdd more lanes, yeah, exactly.ā
Both of these conversations worked: the participants feel that theyāve had their say and that theyāve been understood. They feel connected to their interlocutor.
But when people with conflictingĀ conversational styles converse, thatās where things go wrong. Because we interpret other peopleās contributions according to our own conversational style. So the person with mainstream American conversational style comes away thinkingĀ āWhy did they keep interrupting me? Why didnāt they ask me any questions about me? Why were they so loud and emotional?ā And the person with the New York Jewish conversational style comes away thinkingĀ āWhy were they so disengaged? They didnāt seem involved in the conversation at all. They didnāt even offer any personal information.ā
Rather, they wouldĀ come away thinking that, except that weāre taught growing up that the first example conversation up there is what conversations shouldĀ look like. So the person with the New York Jewish conversational style actuallyĀ comes away from the conversation thinkingĀ āoh my god, what was I doing? I kept talking about myself. I think I kept interrupting them. I am so rude, god, Iām the worst.ā When in fact: a) itās about cultural difference, not individual moral qualities; and b) one conversational style isnāt inherently ābetterā than another.
Which isnāt to say that we shouldnāt attempt to bridge the gap between conversational styles, as suggested above. But we should be aware that:
TL;DR: Cultural difference is often mistaken for individual moral failings.