Amazoniac
Member
It has now become customary to adopt the format where Raj is bombarded with random questions, it seems to stem from eagerness to extract the most out of him in a limited time and willingness to engage the audience. People appear to be surfing the podcast wave, the guest isn't regular and the host has to switch topics fast to cover a lot or decides to have a chilled talk to know the person better.
It's entertaining to listen to him, but he's not an entertainer. More than being inspired, most of the audience is after understanding the nature of their problems and finding solutions. Comprehension and retention of information is considerably worse when it appears out of context (it's very likely that your interview isn't going to be memorable).
You may think that listing what has been covered (because in these cases the title can't synthesize it; difficult to relate) or the existence of search engines solves the issue with randomness, but it doesn't. The core problem is topics being addressed superficially, he soon understands the dynamic of the interview and chooses brief comments over developing on them, and it doesn't help any that the interviewer has the next question in mind. If this was great, why are his articles not written in a similar fashion? It's not necessary to stick to a single theme, but when there's more than one, it's valuable to put them together in a meaningful way. I doubt that a shallow approach with fragmented information is gratifying.
Such eagerness conflicts with his background not being summarized for him (and asked if something was missed). Instead, 10 minutes of the interview is spent with the guy rehashing his past for the 100th time. By not being objective right away, makes us wonder if the interviewer just wanted to hang out with him and the other aspects are secondary. The interest being greater on him than in the information would explain them not bothered by the direction that the conversation takes and not putting effort to make it purposeful; it's nice when the interviewer makes the person comfortable enough to wander on the topics, but is there to guide the conversation and prevent extreme diversions by pulling back on track. But there's a public with expectations and it's when we witness an abrupt shift in the conversation that now turns him into an answer machine that puts out bits of information that bear no relation to each other.
One or a few themes that he has agreed in advance is what I suggest, the quality of the interviews should improve dramatically, it becomes reference material rather than a collage.
If you don't believe me, here's validation:
It's entertaining to listen to him, but he's not an entertainer. More than being inspired, most of the audience is after understanding the nature of their problems and finding solutions. Comprehension and retention of information is considerably worse when it appears out of context (it's very likely that your interview isn't going to be memorable).
You may think that listing what has been covered (because in these cases the title can't synthesize it; difficult to relate) or the existence of search engines solves the issue with randomness, but it doesn't. The core problem is topics being addressed superficially, he soon understands the dynamic of the interview and chooses brief comments over developing on them, and it doesn't help any that the interviewer has the next question in mind. If this was great, why are his articles not written in a similar fashion? It's not necessary to stick to a single theme, but when there's more than one, it's valuable to put them together in a meaningful way. I doubt that a shallow approach with fragmented information is gratifying.
Such eagerness conflicts with his background not being summarized for him (and asked if something was missed). Instead, 10 minutes of the interview is spent with the guy rehashing his past for the 100th time. By not being objective right away, makes us wonder if the interviewer just wanted to hang out with him and the other aspects are secondary. The interest being greater on him than in the information would explain them not bothered by the direction that the conversation takes and not putting effort to make it purposeful; it's nice when the interviewer makes the person comfortable enough to wander on the topics, but is there to guide the conversation and prevent extreme diversions by pulling back on track. But there's a public with expectations and it's when we witness an abrupt shift in the conversation that now turns him into an answer machine that puts out bits of information that bear no relation to each other.
One or a few themes that he has agreed in advance is what I suggest, the quality of the interviews should improve dramatically, it becomes reference material rather than a collage.
If you don't believe me, here's validation:
