6 ms·

If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth of experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone with a similar level of expertise. Lex Fridman d

by bko 4y ago

If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth of experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone with a similar level of expertise. Lex Fridman does this where he tries to challenge people but can't articulate it and ends up asking "can you steelman some criticisms to what you're doing". I get it, but if you can't really articulate an argument, just keep the person talking and you'll eventually learn more. For instance, if you're talking to a Bitcoin developer and you ask them "what about the energy use", it's just a boring question that's been asked millions of times. You likely know the answer. I'd much rather they get in the weeds about some proposal or technical issue.

nomel 4y ago
That requires a podcaster that’s an expert in everything, or an interview on a super niche, super low subscriber, topic specific podcast. Odds are against both.
- bko 4y ago
  Right which is fine, in which case I'd prefer to hear the person being interviewed just speak candidly and the interviewer to offer little guidance. It's a more natural conversation style, like one I would have with someone at a dinner party about their field of expertise.
- homarp 4y ago
  or a podcaster who prepares their interview ?
  - nomel 4y ago
    No, original comment was: > If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth of experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone with a similar level of expertise. Preparing for an interview will give you some superficial understanding, which will probably fall apart during the interview, unless the interviewer is very intelligent/curious (Sean Carroll's Mindscape and Newtons Apple comes to mind). Another alternative would be to have people on both sides present, but I've never seen that work out. The discussion you get with hostility is nowhere near the discussion you get with curiosity.
  - chimineycricket 4y ago
    Joe Rogan doesn't interview people. He might have stuff that he wants to bring up, but most of the conversation is organic which is part of the appeal I think.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  Or it requires a podcaster that does some research and preps questions, including soliciting questions from the guest's peer community. This is like journalism 101 stuff but because Joe is a podcaster no one has the basic expectation of it.
- SyneRyder 4y ago
  I think that just defined what I like about all the podcasts I listen to. Topic specific, hosted by someone with significant experience in their field. I would much rather listen to a musician interviewed by someone with experience with recording & songwriting & making albums, who can ask intelligent questions about the craft & process & equipment. (Warren Huart's interviews with music producers are a great example.) Not some random gossip journalist asking "So what are your inspirations on this album" and "what can we expect from your tour".
  - nomel 4y ago
    For me, it's a problem of discovery, and the allure of the novel. I don't know about half these people, or topics, but I find I'm interested in them. From there, I do look for other podcasts that have had those people. I've found several topic specific podcasts from there. I think that's why broader podcasts are popular. You don't really know the specific topic you're getting, but it's often pretty interesting, and you can go deeper from there, finding the one or few expert podcasts that talk about that topic.
    - SyneRyder 4y ago
      Ahh, that makes a lot of sense! I have tried podcasts like that before (Farnam Street's "The Knowledge Project" comes to mind), but I found that often the guests weren't always interesting to me. If the hit-rate wasn't high enough I'd end up unsubscribing. Derek Sivers tried doing the reverse, his podcast feed was every interview he'd done on other people's podcasts. So he was always the guest, but it introduced me to new podcasts & hosts I'd never heard of. That's actually how I found The Knowledge Project (and I did love the Knowledge Project interview with Annie Duke, who wrote Thinking In Bets). Edit: Guess I should link those episodes for anyone who might be interested: https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/derek-sivers/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/derek-sivers/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/annie-duke/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/annie-duke/
mint2 4y ago
The cigarettes company ceo keeps getting asked about cancer, it’s just a boring question that’s been asked a million times. You likely know the answer, I’d much rather they get in the weeds about <other topic> Ignoring an unsolved and critical issue simply because it’s been asked before is odd. If someone is pushing something with an awful unmitigated issue, hell yes they should be challenged on it.
- bko 4y ago
  Interviewer: What about cancer? Cigarette company CEO: We understand that our product is dangerous and believe adults should make a judgement call as to the risks. We offer a lot of products to help people quit... Aren't you glad you wasted N minutes with that canned response? Or were you expecting a change of heart and him relinquishing the role of CEO and dissolving the company? > If someone is pushing something with an awful unmitigated issue, hell yes they should be challenged on it. I don't want my interviewer to be doing advocacy or "mitigating" issues. I want to listen to an interesting conversation. Not everything has to be advocacy.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Okay That would be the JR softball question style, I guess we’re on the same page that that doesn’t count as a question.

by bko 4y ago

nomel 4y ago

That requires a podcaster that’s an expert in everything, or an interview on a super niche, super low subscriber, topic specific podcast. Odds are against both.

bko 4y ago
Right which is fine, in which case I'd prefer to hear the person being interviewed just speak candidly and the interviewer to offer little guidance. It's a more natural conversation style, like one I would have with someone at a dinner party about their field of expertise.
homarp 4y ago
or a podcaster who prepares their interview ?
- nomel 4y ago
  No, original comment was: > If someone is an expert in their field or has a depth of experience, I'd prefer him to be challenged by someone with a similar level of expertise. Preparing for an interview will give you some superficial understanding, which will probably fall apart during the interview, unless the interviewer is very intelligent/curious (Sean Carroll's Mindscape and Newtons Apple comes to mind). Another alternative would be to have people on both sides present, but I've never seen that work out. The discussion you get with hostility is nowhere near the discussion you get with curiosity.
- chimineycricket 4y ago
  Joe Rogan doesn't interview people. He might have stuff that he wants to bring up, but most of the conversation is organic which is part of the appeal I think.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
Or it requires a podcaster that does some research and preps questions, including soliciting questions from the guest's peer community. This is like journalism 101 stuff but because Joe is a podcaster no one has the basic expectation of it.
SyneRyder 4y ago
I think that just defined what I like about all the podcasts I listen to. Topic specific, hosted by someone with significant experience in their field. I would much rather listen to a musician interviewed by someone with experience with recording & songwriting & making albums, who can ask intelligent questions about the craft & process & equipment. (Warren Huart's interviews with music producers are a great example.) Not some random gossip journalist asking "So what are your inspirations on this album" and "what can we expect from your tour".
- nomel 4y ago
  For me, it's a problem of discovery, and the allure of the novel. I don't know about half these people, or topics, but I find I'm interested in them. From there, I do look for other podcasts that have had those people. I've found several topic specific podcasts from there. I think that's why broader podcasts are popular. You don't really know the specific topic you're getting, but it's often pretty interesting, and you can go deeper from there, finding the one or few expert podcasts that talk about that topic.
  - SyneRyder 4y ago
    Ahh, that makes a lot of sense! I have tried podcasts like that before (Farnam Street's "The Knowledge Project" comes to mind), but I found that often the guests weren't always interesting to me. If the hit-rate wasn't high enough I'd end up unsubscribing. Derek Sivers tried doing the reverse, his podcast feed was every interview he'd done on other people's podcasts. So he was always the guest, but it introduced me to new podcasts & hosts I'd never heard of. That's actually how I found The Knowledge Project (and I did love the Knowledge Project interview with Annie Duke, who wrote Thinking In Bets). Edit: Guess I should link those episodes for anyone who might be interested: https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/derek-sivers/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/derek-sivers/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/annie-duke/ https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/annie-duke/

mint2 4y ago

The cigarettes company ceo keeps getting asked about cancer, it’s just a boring question that’s been asked a million times. You likely know the answer, I’d much rather they get in the weeds about <other topic> Ignoring an unsolved and critical issue simply because it’s been asked before is odd. If someone is pushing something with an awful unmitigated issue, hell yes they should be challenged on it.

bko 4y ago
Interviewer: What about cancer? Cigarette company CEO: We understand that our product is dangerous and believe adults should make a judgement call as to the risks. We offer a lot of products to help people quit... Aren't you glad you wasted N minutes with that canned response? Or were you expecting a change of heart and him relinquishing the role of CEO and dissolving the company? > If someone is pushing something with an awful unmitigated issue, hell yes they should be challenged on it. I don't want my interviewer to be doing advocacy or "mitigating" issues. I want to listen to an interesting conversation. Not everything has to be advocacy.
- mint2 4y ago
  Okay That would be the JR softball question style, I guess we’re on the same page that that doesn’t count as a question.