4 ms·

Joe is a master interviewer for the reasons you mention. I'd also add he has broad interests in almost any topic and subject matter, which helps. Another techni

by anonu 7y ago

Joe is a master interviewer for the reasons you mention. I'd also add he has broad interests in almost any topic and subject matter, which helps. Another technique he employs is "listening". There are many times when I want to butt in when listening to his podcasts. But Joe just waits and let's the other person speak and soaks it in. There are of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does most of the talking)... But I think that's part of why it makes for good listening. He keeps the conversation going. Even with a reticent guest, most interviews go for 2 hours or more. So in the end you extract something useful out of it.

me_me_me 7y ago
I started listening to his stuff few months back. And I must say I learnt a lot about listening and having good conversations. He mentioned this actually few times and its interesting that he learnt to be patient and non-combative no non-issues. Half of the time i pay attention to how he runs the podcast instead of actual conversations.
1337biz 7y ago
I noticed that over time too. My guess is that he has a feel if a guest is entertaining or not. And if they are not he is going into story mode and just sharing the joys of bow-hunting.
waffle_ss 7y ago
Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig deep anyway, but he's not. He's an everyman and asks very surface-level questions. As you say guests are (usually) given wide latitude to own the mic, which works great when it's a guest with a compelling narrative. It works terribly when the guest is very ideological or has some sort of agenda they are adept at selling. The times he does challenge a guest (sometimes way too aggressively as others in the thread have shown), oftentimes he has missed the point entirely, and the guest has to back up and try to patch the conversation. Once that happens a couple times the flow of the interview is really disturbed and it takes a long time to recover. I like Joe as a person, and admire his discipline, but to call him a master interviewer would be as accurate as calling him a master comedian because he has been grinding so long.
- personlurking 7y ago
  Peter Robinson (of the Hoover Institution) is a good example of a master interviewer, with his Uncommon Knowledge series. Here's one of the last ones I saw: Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8
  - waffle_ss 7y ago
    Definitely; he actually came to my mind but I didn't want to ruffle ideological feathers due to his neoliberal ties. Not that he should be pigeonholed as such - an excellent interview about Leon Trotsky he did with Christopher Hitchens and a Trotsky biographer comes to mind.
- hanklazard 7y ago
  Narduar is my favorite example of a master interviewer. Watch him leave Pharrell speechless multiple times (starting around the 5:15 mark is a good example). This guy does his homework better than anyone. https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q
  - arielserafini 7y ago
    His researching skills are indeed impressive, but I feel like he's a bit "loud" in his personality/character and that can take some attention away from the interviewee.
    - skyyler 7y ago
      In his interviews he really doesn't draw attention away from the interviewee. You're right about him having a strong personality but it's obvious to me that he tries very hard to never outshine the person he's interviewing.
    - hanklazard 7y ago
      I'd say he's just eccentric, and takes a bit of getting used to in terms of style. also, IIRC, this interview got him some REALLY big ones (including Jay-Z, I think) because Pharrell told everyone he knew to that they had to talk with Nardwuar. At the very least in terms of doing proper research on a subject, I think there's no one better.
maroonblazer 7y ago
I enjoy Rogan but he's no master interviewer. In fact he strikes me as a kind of conversational Zelig who will nod along in agreement with nearly any idea a guest might put forward. For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.
- peatmoss 7y ago
  Oof, I mostly only ever listen to Rogan on long flights and then choose episodes based on whether I have any interest in the person interviewed. I was excited to listen to Nick Bostrom, but came away from that episode wanting to scream. I feel like there are other episodes that have been reasonably good... I’m struggling to think of any that stood out in recent memory. But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.
  - puranjay 7y ago
    I thought his recent interview with John Carmack was great. Though a lot of that has to do with Carmack himself being a great communicator.
    - peatmoss 7y ago
      Oh yeah, I did listen to that one. It was a perfect venue for Carmack because I could listen to John speak about anything for as long as John wants to speak about it. Rogan didn’t need to do much prompting for Carmack to spill his solid-gold guts, and he also didn’t feel the need to cut in.
      - puranjay 7y ago
        It helped that Rogan is a self confessed Quake nut. If someone didn't have exposure to those early id software games, they might not have been as much at home with Carmack.

by anonu 7y ago

me_me_me 7y ago

I started listening to his stuff few months back. And I must say I learnt a lot about listening and having good conversations. He mentioned this actually few times and its interesting that he learnt to be patient and non-combative no non-issues. Half of the time i pay attention to how he runs the podcast instead of actual conversations.

1337biz 7y ago

I noticed that over time too. My guess is that he has a feel if a guest is entertaining or not. And if they are not he is going into story mode and just sharing the joys of bow-hunting.

waffle_ss 7y ago

Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig deep anyway, but he's not. He's an everyman and asks very surface-level questions. As you say guests are (usually) given wide latitude to own the mic, which works great when it's a guest with a compelling narrative. It works terribly when the guest is very ideological or has some sort of agenda they are adept at selling. The times he does challenge a guest (sometimes way too aggressively as others in the thread have shown), oftentimes he has missed the point entirely, and the guest has to back up and try to patch the conversation. Once that happens a couple times the flow of the interview is really disturbed and it takes a long time to recover. I like Joe as a person, and admire his discipline, but to call him a master interviewer would be as accurate as calling him a master comedian because he has been grinding so long.

personlurking 7y ago
Peter Robinson (of the Hoover Institution) is a good example of a master interviewer, with his Uncommon Knowledge series. Here's one of the last ones I saw: Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8
- waffle_ss 7y ago
  Definitely; he actually came to my mind but I didn't want to ruffle ideological feathers due to his neoliberal ties. Not that he should be pigeonholed as such - an excellent interview about Leon Trotsky he did with Christopher Hitchens and a Trotsky biographer comes to mind.
hanklazard 7y ago
Narduar is my favorite example of a master interviewer. Watch him leave Pharrell speechless multiple times (starting around the 5:15 mark is a good example). This guy does his homework better than anyone. https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q https://youtu.be/5RKbSi87J5Q
- arielserafini 7y ago
  His researching skills are indeed impressive, but I feel like he's a bit "loud" in his personality/character and that can take some attention away from the interviewee.
  - skyyler 7y ago
    In his interviews he really doesn't draw attention away from the interviewee. You're right about him having a strong personality but it's obvious to me that he tries very hard to never outshine the person he's interviewing.
  - hanklazard 7y ago
    I'd say he's just eccentric, and takes a bit of getting used to in terms of style. also, IIRC, this interview got him some REALLY big ones (including Jay-Z, I think) because Pharrell told everyone he knew to that they had to talk with Nardwuar. At the very least in terms of doing proper research on a subject, I think there's no one better.

maroonblazer 7y ago

I enjoy Rogan but he's no master interviewer. In fact he strikes me as a kind of conversational Zelig who will nod along in agreement with nearly any idea a guest might put forward. For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.

peatmoss 7y ago
Oof, I mostly only ever listen to Rogan on long flights and then choose episodes based on whether I have any interest in the person interviewed. I was excited to listen to Nick Bostrom, but came away from that episode wanting to scream. I feel like there are other episodes that have been reasonably good... I’m struggling to think of any that stood out in recent memory. But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.
- puranjay 7y ago
  I thought his recent interview with John Carmack was great. Though a lot of that has to do with Carmack himself being a great communicator.
  - peatmoss 7y ago
    Oh yeah, I did listen to that one. It was a perfect venue for Carmack because I could listen to John speak about anything for as long as John wants to speak about it. Rogan didn’t need to do much prompting for Carmack to spill his solid-gold guts, and he also didn’t feel the need to cut in.
    - puranjay 7y ago
      It helped that Rogan is a self confessed Quake nut. If someone didn't have exposure to those early id software games, they might not have been as much at home with Carmack.