4 ms·

Is it just me or does the interviewer come across as weirdly adversarial in this piece?

zellyn 7y ago
It's not just you. It was a very strange interview. Perhaps it was just a snippet out of a longer conversation, that made sense in context.
quasarj 7y ago
It's not just you. I was thinking the same thing.
candlemas 7y ago
I think he is always like that.
methehack 7y ago
I think it may do the subject (the interviewee) a service to take a skeptical approach as the interviewer in a situation where many readers will bring a lot of skepticism. If the interviewer seems _too_ friendly, many readers will dismiss the responses and not listen as carefully as they might otherwise. It seems like a justifiable approach to me here.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  If the scientist was wrong, he was wrong for reasons that were more subtle and complicated than the objections the author thought of. A better option would be to have organized a debate between two scientists who were both already experts. There's also a difference between skepticism and unfriendliness: the author came across as unfriendly, while a scientist who could not be so easily knocked back might have been able to keep it to skepticism.
  - Psyladine 7y ago
    >If the scientist was wrong, he was wrong for reasons that were more subtle and complicated than the objections the author thought of. oh you mean like aliens not existing and the guy getting really excited over a space rock?
nscalf 7y ago
Yeah, he was awful. I also thought it was interesting he left in the bit about not knowing the persons pronouns. It was entirely unrelated to the conversation or topic, and I assume he did it to paint the scientist in a certain light to certain people. Idk if that’s true, but the alternative is probably that he is just bad at his job.
whatshisface 7y ago
He came across as aggressive and a little snooty, and the scientist clearly wasn't going to put up with that. The interviewer was outmatched (nothing wrong with that, journalists can't restrict themselves to people who know less than they do), but he wanted to come across as an intellectual equal, and he might have gotten frustrated when he realized that no matter how smart you are, home turf advantage is hard to reckon with. It's not normal for magazines to publish heated arguments, but maybe this counts as a unique break from the norms. I'm not sure if it was good or bad for the New Yorker but it was probably bad for the author.
TedDoesntTalk 7y ago
It is precisely its uniqueness from other journalist-interviews-astrophysicist interviews that makes this interview superb. You can see they are both people with emotion and passion, and who love to argue, not just dispassionate drones who follow the data.

It's not just you. It was a very strange interview. Perhaps it was just a snippet out of a longer conversation, that made sense in context.

quasarj 7y ago

It's not just you. I was thinking the same thing.

candlemas 7y ago

I think he is always like that.

methehack 7y ago

I think it may do the subject (the interviewee) a service to take a skeptical approach as the interviewer in a situation where many readers will bring a lot of skepticism. If the interviewer seems _too_ friendly, many readers will dismiss the responses and not listen as carefully as they might otherwise. It seems like a justifiable approach to me here.

whatshisface 7y ago
If the scientist was wrong, he was wrong for reasons that were more subtle and complicated than the objections the author thought of. A better option would be to have organized a debate between two scientists who were both already experts. There's also a difference between skepticism and unfriendliness: the author came across as unfriendly, while a scientist who could not be so easily knocked back might have been able to keep it to skepticism.
- Psyladine 7y ago
  >If the scientist was wrong, he was wrong for reasons that were more subtle and complicated than the objections the author thought of. oh you mean like aliens not existing and the guy getting really excited over a space rock?

nscalf 7y ago

Yeah, he was awful. I also thought it was interesting he left in the bit about not knowing the persons pronouns. It was entirely unrelated to the conversation or topic, and I assume he did it to paint the scientist in a certain light to certain people. Idk if that’s true, but the alternative is probably that he is just bad at his job.

whatshisface 7y ago

He came across as aggressive and a little snooty, and the scientist clearly wasn't going to put up with that. The interviewer was outmatched (nothing wrong with that, journalists can't restrict themselves to people who know less than they do), but he wanted to come across as an intellectual equal, and he might have gotten frustrated when he realized that no matter how smart you are, home turf advantage is hard to reckon with. It's not normal for magazines to publish heated arguments, but maybe this counts as a unique break from the norms. I'm not sure if it was good or bad for the New Yorker but it was probably bad for the author.

TedDoesntTalk 7y ago

It is precisely its uniqueness from other journalist-interviews-astrophysicist interviews that makes this interview superb. You can see they are both people with emotion and passion, and who love to argue, not just dispassionate drones who follow the data.