Oh, that's what I like about that show the most. He gets the guests uncomfortably outside the zone of a normal interview, both with the specificity of the questions as well as the pacing. I'm sure it's at least partly on purpose. I agree that it feels a little like a thesis defense, but I like it when you can hear the guest (someone who is usually at the top of their field and used to answering softball questions) thinking "christ, what am I supposed to say to that?"
But you don’t get good responses. Instead it’s just, “I hadn’t thought of that” or “That’s a good question but I’d need to think about it awhile.”
The idea that an expert should be able to give a fully-formed answer to a novel question on the spot is not a good one. Thinking takes time, which Cowen doesn’t give his guests. Subsequently most of his interviews are notable for their anecdotes or trivia, not for insightful responses.
TC’s questions are far from random, but designed to be just adjacent to things the guest has commented on previously, or which he suspects they have may have given thought. If a guest gives a long discursive answer, he lets them go on or asks follow ups. Otherwise, he keeps moving forward to the next question, like drilling for oil. PG is never discursive in his answers, so this results in a rapid fire question-answer that nonetheless I found interesting.
PG kept saying how hard the questions were, but I wish he’d instead been more willing to just concentrate and go with the flow as the results would have been even more interesting.
I guess that style appeals to some people, but I don’t think it’s conducive for good conversations. A better conversationalist knows how to pull out a thread and keep the conversation going without immediately jumping to an unrelated topic. A real-life conversation like this would be just as jarring.
As an economist Cowen knows that the more conversational market for podcasts is already saturated, and decides not to pursue it. I personally prefer that the questions Cowen makes show that he knows rather well who he is interviewing and why. Someone like Lex Fridman is in comparison less prepared. The downside with Lex's style is that some interviewees are so used to do a performance talk on their work that it's like listening to a broken record -- those who know nothing about the person get to hear a shallow introduction, whereas those who know the person learn nothing new compared to the papers, books, or other youtube videos.
Like, if you have been on a podcast yourself you might prefer Fridman kind of discussion in which you can quite freely lead hence get your agenda across. It is quite clear many visit Fridman because they know they will get to sell their ideas.
TC says he is well-prepared for interviews, that he has read this book and listened to that interview of the current guest, but then asks questions that are way out of the interviewee's circle of competence, interests, or knowledge.
"Do you prefer this conductor or this other one?". And the guest has never listened to either of them. Similar questions are asked at every interview, and sometimes several times during the same interviews. To me, it sounds more pretentious than prepared.
Most of his guests are quite intelligent. His style generally works well with people who have expertise in something or are just generally deep thinkers. He also picks interesting guests that people are generally aware of (sometimes). The mainstream guests are the by far the worst interviews, the PG one being a great example.
