3 ms·

Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. I enjoyed the recent interview with a prominent American

Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. I enjoyed the recent interview with a prominent American objectivist (Ayne Rand) but some of the stuff he said really need to be challenged and since it wasn't we didn't the opportunity to really be convinced.

jasode 6y ago
>Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. The biggest part of a "good interview" is getting the guest to say "yes" to being interviewed. The issue that people overlook with "challenging questions" is that the guest must agree to be interviewed in the first place. If the interview is denied, then the "lack of challenging questions" is a moot point because the guest never made himself/herself available to be made uncomfortable. In other words, let's say Lex starts out of the gate 3 years ago with a hard-hitting style. This instantly increases his rejection rate and decreases his guest count. Then later guests he tries to pitch to also look at those previous challenging interviews which is distasteful to them and they also decline the invitations creating a snowball effect. You can't replay history with (as of today) 160 podcasts and say they should have been more challenging -- because we wouldn't even have the 160 podcasts to complain about. Yes, journalists like Kara Swisher like to challenge/ambush/provoke/etc their guests but not everybody wants to be interviewed by her. See the chicken & egg issue? Lex isn't poor at challenging questions. In reality, he's building a body of work that solidifies his reputation for interviews in a friendly conversational style that doesn't threaten the guest. This reputation attracts many types of guests that a bigger journalist like Kara Swisher can't get.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  I agree. Plus, it seems like there are a lot of return guests. By building a relationship over time it's more likely that the guest is more comfortable with "challenging questions" (Whatever that truly means).
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  The risk is giving a megaphone to manipulative and charismatic people whose words may lead many astray.
jariel 6y ago
I think it's fine. Charlie Rose, Joe Rogan, Larry King - they didn't really push very hard either. Sometimes just giving a people a forum to speak works just fine. Lex has a very odd personality for media - but it works fine for this format, in this industry, and he's smart and curious enough to ask reasonable questions. He 'talks up' to his interviewees like he's one of their team members of interns and that's fine.
twright 6y ago
I think when watching Fridman (and other long-form interviewers) it's important to keep in mind the difference between an interview for the purpose of journalism versus for entertainment versus education. I think Fridman dances between the last two categories, particularly towards entertainment when the subject is outside of his expertise. I watched of the episode you mentioned and stopped about half way because it felt disingenuous that he wasn't asking even the simplest of the questions to the claims that the interviewee was making.

jasode 6y ago

>Yes, but he is poor at challenging his guests and I think that is a valuable part of a good interview. The biggest part of a "good interview" is getting the guest to say "yes" to being interviewed. The issue that people overlook with "challenging questions" is that the guest must agree to be interviewed in the first place. If the interview is denied, then the "lack of challenging questions" is a moot point because the guest never made himself/herself available to be made uncomfortable. In other words, let's say Lex starts out of the gate 3 years ago with a hard-hitting style. This instantly increases his rejection rate and decreases his guest count. Then later guests he tries to pitch to also look at those previous challenging interviews which is distasteful to them and they also decline the invitations creating a snowball effect. You can't replay history with (as of today) 160 podcasts and say they should have been more challenging -- because we wouldn't even have the 160 podcasts to complain about. Yes, journalists like Kara Swisher like to challenge/ambush/provoke/etc their guests but not everybody wants to be interviewed by her. See the chicken & egg issue? Lex isn't poor at challenging questions. In reality, he's building a body of work that solidifies his reputation for interviews in a friendly conversational style that doesn't threaten the guest. This reputation attracts many types of guests that a bigger journalist like Kara Swisher can't get.

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I agree. Plus, it seems like there are a lot of return guests. By building a relationship over time it's more likely that the guest is more comfortable with "challenging questions" (Whatever that truly means).
paulryanrogers 6y ago
The risk is giving a megaphone to manipulative and charismatic people whose words may lead many astray.

jariel 6y ago

I think it's fine. Charlie Rose, Joe Rogan, Larry King - they didn't really push very hard either. Sometimes just giving a people a forum to speak works just fine. Lex has a very odd personality for media - but it works fine for this format, in this industry, and he's smart and curious enough to ask reasonable questions. He 'talks up' to his interviewees like he's one of their team members of interns and that's fine.

twright 6y ago

I think when watching Fridman (and other long-form interviewers) it's important to keep in mind the difference between an interview for the purpose of journalism versus for entertainment versus education. I think Fridman dances between the last two categories, particularly towards entertainment when the subject is outside of his expertise. I watched of the episode you mentioned and stopped about half way because it felt disingenuous that he wasn't asking even the simplest of the questions to the claims that the interviewee was making.