4 ms·

Fridman always comes off as painfully naive in conversations like these. "Aw shucks, can't two leaders just pick up the phone and have a human conversation and

Fridman always comes off as painfully naive in conversations like these. "Aw shucks, can't two leaders just pick up the phone and have a human conversation and make the problem go away? What if the US got involved to help?" No, actually. "Well what if the US just completely abandoned their strategy in Europe and gave Russia what they want, would that make the problem go away?" Yes?

lardo 3y ago
I don't know if this is what Fridman is doing, but interviewers will often ask naive questions that they already know the answer to on behalf of an audience who might not.
strikelaserclaw 3y ago
"Can't love solve the crisis in Ukraine?"
kelseyfrog 3y ago
You've identified a key misunderstanding - conflict resolution between individuals is nothing like conflict resolution between nations. Our metaphors for nations in the Lakoffian sense[1] erroneously guide us toward the conclusion that "countries are people". Countries "want" this or "dislike" that is specifically an example of personification identified in chapter seven. This is a dangerously leaky abstraction that when taken for granted lead to the naive conclusions you've identified like nations calling each other up and resolving some misunderstanding. Partially, the fact that diplomatic negotiations are closed and the public has no mental model of how negotiations actually work can be blamed too. That doesn't necessarily mean that negotiations should be made public (how would that work?), but that it is a complicated contributing factor. Political viability plays a hugely underappreciated role and simply telling the body politic "you're not going to get your way this time,"(like children) doesn't and will not work. 1. See Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
reducesuffering 3y ago
Fridman also blatantly softballs anyone he's interviewing. He will have people with opposing views on. First one, he'll agree with 90% and never seriously challenge. Next person comes in with opposite belief, he'll agree with 90% and not challenge. He offers little here, those two people should've been debating each other. Prime example is back to back interviews with Netanyahu and Yuval Noah Harari.
- beezlewax 3y ago
  That's kind of his thing though he let's people talk and you make of it what you will. He has challenged people directly in the past but isn't aggressive about it.

lardo 3y ago

I don't know if this is what Fridman is doing, but interviewers will often ask naive questions that they already know the answer to on behalf of an audience who might not.

strikelaserclaw 3y ago

"Can't love solve the crisis in Ukraine?"

kelseyfrog 3y ago

You've identified a key misunderstanding - conflict resolution between individuals is nothing like conflict resolution between nations. Our metaphors for nations in the Lakoffian sense[1] erroneously guide us toward the conclusion that "countries are people". Countries "want" this or "dislike" that is specifically an example of personification identified in chapter seven. This is a dangerously leaky abstraction that when taken for granted lead to the naive conclusions you've identified like nations calling each other up and resolving some misunderstanding. Partially, the fact that diplomatic negotiations are closed and the public has no mental model of how negotiations actually work can be blamed too. That doesn't necessarily mean that negotiations should be made public (how would that work?), but that it is a complicated contributing factor. Political viability plays a hugely underappreciated role and simply telling the body politic "you're not going to get your way this time,"(like children) doesn't and will not work. 1. See Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1981). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

reducesuffering 3y ago

Fridman also blatantly softballs anyone he's interviewing. He will have people with opposing views on. First one, he'll agree with 90% and never seriously challenge. Next person comes in with opposite belief, he'll agree with 90% and not challenge. He offers little here, those two people should've been debating each other. Prime example is back to back interviews with Netanyahu and Yuval Noah Harari.

beezlewax 3y ago
That's kind of his thing though he let's people talk and you make of it what you will. He has challenged people directly in the past but isn't aggressive about it.