(what they're really saying is "fuck you, thats what you get for isolating yourself")
I think that's not a charitable interpretation. Two alternative explanations, which are not mutually exclusive:
1. Most people don't like confrontation or rejection; they find it awkward and uncomfortable, even if it's done politely. After interrupting you a few times, they find that they are generally rebuffed, so they stop interrupting you. But that hesitancy will continue even in cases where they think maybe you would say yes.
2. They may not really understand why you're redirecting them to asynchronous communication; they don't have a good mental model of how you will respond. Without that, they're not able to assess what you will think is important enough to warrant an interruption. So they err on the side of not interrupting.
Theres a term for that! I think its called passive agression. Passive agression and active accomodation (ie, being nice) shouldn't be confused though. The purpose of course, for the adversary, is to disguise the former as the latter to gain a tactical advantage. While the laguage used by the parent was (somewhat) blunt, I don't think the pheonomenan he is describing is an empirical anomaly.
No, that is not what I am trying to describe. Passive aggressive behavior is still acting with malice. I am talking about people who want to do the right thing by someone, but can't figure out what that is.
I think that's not a charitable interpretation. Two alternative explanations, which are not mutually exclusive:
1. Most people don't like confrontation or rejection; they find it awkward and uncomfortable, even if it's done politely. After interrupting you a few times, they find that they are generally rebuffed, so they stop interrupting you. But that hesitancy will continue even in cases where they think maybe you would say yes.
2. They may not really understand why you're redirecting them to asynchronous communication; they don't have a good mental model of how you will respond. Without that, they're not able to assess what you will think is important enough to warrant an interruption. So they err on the side of not interrupting.