My impression is that he often tries to 'steelman' the other side by purposely putting forth more simple-minded positions or questions than he actually holds. At least in AI territory it often seemed that way, noticeable when a guest mispeaks or mislabels a theory and Fridman corrects them, suddenly knowing the exact scientific term or implications.

I don't think he's necessarily doing a great job with this approach, but I'm guessing that there's some attempt of method behind it, rather than him being negligently oblivious to the subject at hand.

edit: grammar

> noticeable when a guest mispeaks or mislabels a theory and Fridman corrects them, suddenly knowing the exact scientific term or implications.

In my experience, (Elon interview) they are _both_ misspeaking. Just one (Elon) more so than the other (Lex).

Of course, you wouldn't know this as an outsider to that field, necessarily - and it does have the effect of making both parties seem smarter than they actually are.

Joe has this whole meat-head misunderstanding the world thing, it's actually a very useful prompting mechanism for insights from his guests.

This sort of appeal-to-the-commoner approach has been used for decades by news anchors.

But that's not generally what news anchors do - frequently they go in with a pre-established narrative; and whether or not they are agreeable or combative will depend upon that narrative.

Joe pokes the bear with his genuine (yet curious) ignorance, and listens to some very smart people with a child like wonder as they respond.

Sometimes he's like that. Other times with ivermectin etc. he slips back into this mode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E

More and more since joining Spotify.

Cowen is absolutely one of the best out there too, but I do wish he got in deeper with his guests! His blog Marginal Revolution is also consistently interesting and he has a good map of great spots to eat across the DMV

https://marginalrevolution.com/ https://tylercowensethnicdiningguide.com/

Similarly, I get the feeling that Lex Friedman wrote a list generic questions beforehand that he will plow through regardless of what happens.

The most annoying habit he's picked up recently is asking people to define words. It's never really interesting. For instance, during an interview with an economist, "let's start with what is economics"? He was interviewing CEO of Coinbase and Armstrong will try to give a normal answer and Lex will just interrupt "what is a wallet" or ask questions like "do you consider Coinbase layer 1, 2 or 3". They're just bad questions and interrupt a normal conversation.

On the other hand someone like Tyler Cowen doesn't ask for clarification unless he legitimately doesn't know what some is talking about. Some guests even said "maybe I should explain that", to which Cowen replies, "this conversation is for us, don't worry about the audience", and that leads to a much better natural and interesting conversation. If the listener doesn't understand anything they can always pause and look up what they don't understand

The "is Coinbase layer 1, 2, or 3" is a particularly dumb one and a good example of how eye-rollingly bad his questions can be. It's hard for the guest to get into the interesting details when interrupted with a question that's wrong in a bunch of ways that betray he has no idea what he's talking about. It just feels like he's full of shit.

If I were asked this question, I would actually consider this a good question, because:

- it probably is something people are wondering

- it's a good moment to talk about layers and where coinbase fits in the ecosystem

the answer for the curious: none of them. Coinbase is just a wallet using the layer 1 of most cryptocurrencies, and can also use apps and wallets from other layers (I'm not sure it does support any other layers at the moment though). A layer 2 can be seen like another cryptocurrency built on top of a cryptocurrency (layer 1), and a layer 3 is the same built on top of a layer 2, and so on.

It's a different kind of investigation into a subject. Perfectly valid. Any textbook on a subject, will often start with the most basic question. The Who/What/Where/Why/When of questions. Another way to describe First Principles Thinking. I find it extremely foundational to know the basics in developing higher knowledge in a field.

I've been doing podcasts and I'm often asked "what is cryptography?" as first question. I don't like it either :D

Same here I find it crazy that Joe Rogan is better at interviewing scientists than Lex.

Interviewing is a skill and Joe had a long time to perfect it. That said after 300 podcasts Lex should’ve improved but he hasn’t.

He really needs to get a producer to provide him with constant feedback and to guide him in general; every great interviewer/newsperson had an even better producer behind them.

I'm amazed at all the people here criticizing Rogan's interview skills. I think it's an instance of disliking a person in general and applying it unwittingly to everything they do.

Rogan may be a shitty person but he is a phenomenal interviewer. He manages to connect with the people that he is interviewing on a personal level in a way that makes them open up like they have known him as a childhood friend.

He's the new Larry King.

If you consider Rogan a shitty person, you must live in paradise.

The problem with rogan is that he always advocates the same 5 ifestyle choices over and over.

That just makes him a stable, consistent sounding board for his guests and listeners.

This "uniquely individual, but authentic and consistent persona" factor is a great trend for public persons. The reason why it works is because even if you don't agree with or like the host, say Lex or Joe, they are authentic and consistent enough that you can 'subtract' the difference between your average opinion and theirs from a conversation with a guest and still get back a reasonable read on the guest from your perspective.

It's like they're a human guage block, constantly measuring their guests with their own personality and reporting the relative measure. Then you slap your Rogan-to-infogulch guage block on top and now it's like you're measuring their guests yourself by proxy. (I'm tired but this seems like a reasonable analogy.)

Is he supposed to advocate a brand new and entirely contradictory diet every episode?

But does this really detract from what his guests are saying?

It’s funny how all of this works. I’ve tried many times to listen to Tyler Cowen after being introduced to him on Lex’s podcast, I’m still subscribed even. I just can’t do it, something about how he approaches the interview process grates on my nerves.

I have mixed feelings about Cowen.

On the one hand, I appreciate his breadth (but not depth, next point) of knowledge, his charisma, his pace, and his energy, all very admirable traits and qualities. I always listen to his podcasts.

On the other hand, there are many things that bother me about him. What I write may appear overly critical, but he is a public figure and it goes with the territory. Nobody criticizes me -- I am a nobody.

Some, perhaps more than a few, of his questions -- "I ask the questions I want to ask and not the questions you want to ask" -- more than curve balls seem like balls thrown off the field: "Try to hit this one!" To the point that his guests are puzzled, but they do not want to look ignorant or poor guests and do not react.

He greatly overestimates his knowledge of science, technology, art, cooking and everything else excluding, maybe, economics. Let's take languages. He says he learned to speak Spanish, then I hear him speak a few words of Spanish, and what I get is that he knows a few Spanish words and phrases, which in my opinion is not the same as speaking the language. I throw together a few ingredients, but I am not a chef.

When he talks with pace, conviction, determination and apparent curiosity -- I say apparent because I have never heard him change his outlook on anything, whatever he proposes is doable and there must be some low IQ person in charge or some sort of rent-seeking behavior to make it not happen -- about what I know (biology, AI, my country, women's rights), he is far from having a solid grasp of the subject, despite his conviction, tone and determination. But no one objects because he interviews and is not interviewed -- sometimes he is, next point -- and his guests usually shy away from replying to questions and opinions, informed or uninformed, about classical music, paintings, Chinese cuisine and obscure African poets.

He maintains his intellectual position at the top of the mountain through fog, smoke and utter confusion, which is admirable for the audacity, but also rather unsettling. When interviewed, he has a ready answer for any question, which for some may demonstrate his knowledge, wit and intelligence, to others, like me, he seems to be pulling answers out of his backpack.

He takes positions that he does not follow and marries himself to "causes" because they suit him. For example, he often speaks out against alcohol and legitimately so, but my impression is that it is convenient for him because he does not like to drink: would he follow his own recommendations if he liked alcohol instead?

In an interview about his latest book (which, like others he has written, are rather forgettable, a pot-pourri of whatever crosses his mind on the subject), he said that "on average" exercise is a net benefit to longevity and mental capacity. But he doesn't seem to exercise, and he doesn't talk about exercise or moderation at the dinner table because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't like to exercise and likes to eat plenty. But it is clear that a glass of wine a day is not a "bad thing" (some say it has positive effects on longevity) and that being 50 pounds overweight (all fine, it is his choice and my point is not about his lifestyle choices) puts one at risk for diabetes, poor quality of life, and early death. However, thanks to his assertive way of speaking and presenting his ideas, and his position among the "intellectual class" no one ever objects or asks though questions.

There is a lesson there.

I still think Cowen is about the most interesting interviewer out there, but I also think this is all spot on. I've absolutely had this skepticism for having ready answers for everything. He'd be more interesting if he said "I don't know" more often.

Fair criticism, and given how much praise I normally hear for Tyler, it's nice to hear it!