Let's Ask Science: Is It Sexist for Sanders to Interrupt Clinton? UPDATED

Well, obviously, interrupting is not inherently sexist, but we've studied it and it can be a manifestation of sexism. Interrupting has been in the news lately, because Clinton interrupted Sanders, which some people say is totally rude because "Sanders never interrupts Clinton." In reality, Sanders tries to interrupt Clinton a ton*; there's a double standard at work. So, do Sanders' interruptions of Clinton exhibit the traits of the sexist manifestation or are they just normal competition between candidates? Let's ask science!

Interrupting is Gendered

There have been multiple studies on gender dynamics in interrupting and conversation (some with unintentional findings), but most of them apply to specific cases, cover only conversation, or for some other reason aren't on-point. They basically say that all of the stereotypes of women in conversation are untrue and/or unfair, because men dominate everything. This study is the most on-point one that I could find in a day, so I will be using it for data points*2. Sadly, I don't have access to the full results, so I have to take New Republic's word on it. That said, the data presented is supported by the abstract and aligns with other studies, so it's reasonable to assume that the presented data is accurate. (Although, it is incomplete.)

• Women are interrupted frequently; men are interrupted infrequently. The ratio is 1.8 : 1, meaning that for every 1 time that a man is interrupted, a woman is interrupted 1.8 times.
• Men are typically interrupted by men. The ratio is 1 : 2 for women interrupt men vs. men interrupt men.
• Women are more frequently interrupted by women than men. The ratio is 1 : 2.8 for men interrupt women vs women interrupt women. 
• No statistics are available for the ratio of men interrupting men vs. men interrupting women, so we have to assume that the non-data assertions are true. (And they align with other studies.)

So what's the takeaway from this science?

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Firstly, interrupting is gendered behavior-- based primarily on the gender of the person being interrupted. It is acceptable to interrupt women regardless of who is interrupting (although in some cases, men aware of the problem may try to avoid interrupting women). But it is also gendered behavior based on the gender of the interrupter. It is unacceptable for women to interrupt men but men can interrupt anyone. (This is the basic result of most studies, although some divide by position of power; people in a position of power or who feel empowered are more likely to interrupt; those not in power and who don't feel empowered don't. But of course, even that would involve a gender skew since men are more likely to be in positions of power or feel empowered. These studies account for the exceptions in the other studies and for interruption by people of the same gender, but not for the gender differences themselves.)

Let's apply this logic to the Clinton/Sanders interruption issue:

• Sanders interrupts Clinton and there are few complaints but there are also complaints that anyone complained. It's acceptable to interrupt a woman.
• Clinton interrupts Sanders and all hell breaks loose. People defend Sanders' stereotypically sexist response as "valid and appropriate," because "Clinton shouldn't have interrupted him;" anyone pointing out the stereotypical sexism got complaints that they complained. It's unacceptable for a woman to interrupt a man.

The interruption issue in this election aligns perfectly with the attitudes exposed by this study.

What About Sanders Specifically?

Don't worry; I listed the stats below.

Also, men underestimate the number of times that men do things that they dislike when women do them and men overestimate the number of times that women do them, in cases of interruption estimates and overall talking time. (That "women talk more than men" idea? It's a myth. Men talk more than women, especially in mixed company.) Sanders, specifically, invoked the underestimation of behavior by men that men complain about when women do them when he said this, in response to uproar about him shushing Clinton:

“Did you check how much time Hillary Clinton spoke during the debate? Did you check out how often Hillary Clinton interrupted me?” Sanders said to reporters. 

“When I was speaking, she interrupted me. I did not interrupt her, despite the fact that she spoke longer,” he continued. “You know, the red lights went on and she kept talking. I didn’t interrupt her. But I think in the middle of a debate if somebody is trying to make a point and somebody else interrupts you, it’s rude.”*3

Oh, well now that you mention it, yes, I did notice that you interrupt her more and statistics bear that out, and "I didn't interrupt her?" Maybe on that one question but otherwise, that is a complete lie.

He asked, so someone counted and printed them in an article called "Who Is The Worst Interruptor At The Democratic Debates? Please, Hillary, the MEN are talking." What were the findings? "In total, Sanders has interrupted Clinton three times more than she has interrupted him. (emphasis mine)" Also, that's rounded; the actual number of times that Sanders interrupted Clinton for 1 time that she interrupted him is 3.1666... (repeating, of course).

Well, poor oppressed Bernie. That bitch interrupted him (almost) a full one third as often as he interrupted her! That poor baby, getting interrupted far less than he interrupts. Based on the behavior in the video that I referenced earlier, this must count only successful interruptions or number of questions on which they interrupted, since that one question involved at least 10 interruption attempts. Even if that question is an outlier, it can't be so much of an outlier that it accounts for over 1/3 of his interruptions to date. Also, "At the debates held on November 14 and January 17... Clinton was actually the only candidate not to butt in on another candidate’s speaking time."

Also "Did you see how long she spoke?... she spoke longer." Well if you didn't use your full allotment of time during your turn, clearly that is because Clinton talks too much and should be faulted for it. Mysteriously (haha) this also aligns with sexist overestimation of women's dominance of conversations.

Raw Data (since it isn't presented clearly):

• Sanders interrupted Clinton 19 times in 9 debates, a rate of 2.111... (repeating) per debate.
• Sanders interrupted O'Malley 4 times in 5 debates, a rate of 0.8 per debate.
• O'Malley interrupted Clinton 4 times in 5 debates, a rate of 0.8 per debate.
• O'Malley interrupted Sanders 6 times in 5 debates, a rate of 1.2 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted Sanders 6 times in 9 debates, a rate of 0.666... (repeating) per debate.
• Clinton interrupted O'Malley 1 time in 5 debates, a rate of 0.2 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted Webb 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Clinton rate).
• Chafee interrupted Sanders 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Chafee rate).
• Webb interrupted Clinton 1 time in 1 debate (not enough data to be valid as a Webb rate).
• Sanders interrupted 24 times in 9 debates, a rate of 2.667 per debate.
• Clinton interrupted 8 times in 9 debates, a rate of 0.888... (repeating) per debate.
• Clinton interrupted 8 times in a total of 9 debates but only interrupted in 7 debates, so her mean interruption was 1 per debate. She interrupted more than once in only 2 debates. (No other per debate mean is available from this data).
• Sanders' interruptions of Clinton account for 79% of his interruptions.
• Of Sanders' per debate interruptions, 72.5% were interruptions of Clinton.
• Clinton's interruptions of Sanders account for 75% of her interruptions.
• Of Clinton's per debate interruptions (excluding the interruption of Webb), 77% were interruptions of Sanders. (Including Webb, Clinton's per date interruption rate of Sanders is 36%, which shows an anomaly in the data that contributes to its exclusion. Including Webb with better data would lower the per debate interruption rate against Sanders, so this point isn't reliable.)

Now let's discuss these stats in terms of the science:

• Sanders interrupted 23 times; Clinton interrupted 8 times. Men interrupt more than women.
• Clinton was interrupted 24 times; the next highest (Sanders) was interrupted 13 times. Women are interrupted more often than men.
• The highest rate of interruption is Sanders against Clinton at 2.111... per debate vs. her rate of 0.666.... Women interrupt at a much lower rate than men.
• Sanders interrupted Clinton at a rate of 2.111... per debate and the next highest (O'Malley) at a rate of 0.8 per debate. Men interrupt more often than women. (Method note: by calculating a per debate rate and judging based on that, I am compensating for O'Malley being in fewer debates.)
• In some debates, every man interrupted but Clinton did not. Women interrupt men at a much lower rate than men interrupt.
• O'Malley was interrupted by Sanders 4 times and Clinton 1 time. Women interrupt men at a much lower rate than men interrupt.
• Clinton and O'Malley interrupted Sanders the same number of times despite Clinton being in more debates, making his per debate rate (0.8) higher than hers (0.666...). Men interrupt more than women. 
• 79% of Sanders' interruptions were against Clinton vs. her 75% against him, so not only does Clinton interrupt less in number of interruptions and rate of interruptions; she also spreads the interruptions more.

So, Is It Sexist that Sanders Interrupts Clinton?

Well, the Sanders/Clinton data perfectly aligns with the study that shows gendered behavior in interrupting. Not only did Sanders interrupt Clinton 3 times more often, he also insists that he interrupts less than she does. So yes, according to the data, Sanders' interruptions of Clinton are a manifestation of sexism. 

Yes, That Is What the Math Says.

Sanders' frequency of interruption of Clinton is sexist interruption. Because math. Sanders' insistence that she not interrupt him is a double standard, also potentially sexist. His lies that he never interrupts her is underestimation of men doing something that men complain that women do, also potentially sexist. And then there's Sanders complaining about how much Clinton talked during her turn, which is obviously more than he did in the same amount of time, also most likely sexism. So we have 1 case of proven sexism plus 2 cases of potential sexism plus 1 case of most likely sexism-- even if we ignore all other potential issues with this incident, like the stereotypically sexist shushing itself.

If we can't prove this incident sexist yet, what will it take? I ask because I have several more pages of reasons that this incident was sexist. They were merely too long to put into the same article as this, since so much space is dedicated to the statistics.

For the sake of argument, let's apply this to the GOP debates as well. 

Some of the GOP debates have become infamous because "everyone constantly interrupts everyone." More accurately, one white plus two white or white-passing Hispanic men interrupt everyone, but the black man doesn't. (I refuse to watch the GOP debates because I am prone to spontaneous human combustion*5, so I am assuming that lack of coverage of Kasich interrupting the others denotes that he does not frequently interrupt. I am also assuming that lack of coverage of Carson interrupting plus coverage of Carson pleading for someone to attack him denotes that Carson only interrupted to plea for an attack.*6 I mention these because they are potential flaws in my methods.)

If this assessment is correct, there could also be a racial component. The white(ish) guys interrupted but the black guy didn't. I hope that someone studies this so that we can be aware of any racial differences in this area and try to address it when possible. I do recall from my childhood that the "shut up" training that I started receiving at a young age was also directed at my black friends, even the boys.

That said, the previously mentioned studies that associate interruption with power and empowerment align with this information as well. The 3 guys who do the interrupting are the 3 most powerful men in the race and the men who should feel the most empowered. In comparison to the other candidates, they are successful in politics or entertainment as well as the most popular 3 in the election. While the black man is successful in medicine, people don't actually care much because brain surgery isn't exciting (these people are obviously not me), but as a successful black man, he still has less power than the three successful in exciting areas white(ish) men.

UPDATE: NYC Democratic Debate Coverage (4/15)

CNN featured a guest article today reviewing the debating skills of the candidates based on last night's debate, which the author determined that Clinton "won," partly due to her responses but also due to poor responses by Sanders. This is the first item for which he deducts points:

She still interrupts too much. No improvement there.

She interrupts 1/3 as much as Sanders, which is too much, but Sanders' interruption rate is not mentioned, presumably because it's fine when he does it. The article also lists a time that Sanders tried to interrupt, without mentioning the attempt.

Per Wonkette:

the only time the candidates stopped doing Interrupting Cow to EACH OTHER was when they would lock arms and do it AT THE ANCHORS IN UNISON.

Sanders also falsely accused Clinton of not answering the question on four occasions, while repeatedly refusing to answer the questions.

Interrupting: only bad when the lady does it.

(Unless you're a feminist website, in which case, you don't use a gendered view of interruption.)

(Update also posted as a Part 2.)

* Post incoming, but he tried to interrupt at least 10 times in the video in that article. This post is required background for that one.

*2 And these studies use binary gender, so I will be referring to it using binary gender only. While binary gender is not a concept that I agree is valid, that is outside the scope of this article and this election and is not yet covered by science. If you would like to know more about gender as a spectrum, google it.

*3 And after giving that interview, Sanders supporters used exactly the same language as Sanders to fault Clinton for doing what he does to her more often while pretending that he doesn't interrupt at all? Well, color me completely unshocked.

*4 And I'd cite the article where I read that, but they're hard to find in the deluge of "Sanders is a better feminist than Hillary" articles that magically avoid discussing her record and pretend that voting for something is better than voting for something that you advised on and have actively fought for for 40 years. If you merely omit Clinton's qualifications, pretending that they don't exist is easy! When I run across it again, I'll link. I do grasp that the intent of the google bombing is to eliminate negative narratives of Sanders, even when they are more factual than the promoted articles.

*5 Not actually, but fire-- fire on the sides of my face.

*6 I further assume that he pleaded to be attacked because being attacked got a candidate a time allotment to respond to the attack, leaving no debate opportunities for people who weren't attacked due to frequent attacks, making Carson's plea understandable rather than hilarious. I wish that people would stop making fun of him for this, even though I seriously dislike him and concede that it was whiny.