I can't think of an interviewer who interjects their viewpoint more and tries to get his guest to acknowledge/agree to his typically shallow level analysis than Lex. The only redeeming quality about his podcast are the guests he gets. I don't think Dwarkesh is great but he's leagues better.
I just don't understand this view on Lex Fridman at all.
Fridman is quite good at letting the guest speak. The whole show is exceptionally good at keeping a conversation moving.
I think there are technical haters on Lex but that is stupid because Lex is in sales. He is selling a podcast. From a sales perspective, Lex is incredibly good.
It is like saying the chef is only a good cook because of the quality of the ingredients. Yes, exactly. The chef isn't a farmer growing their own organic vegetables for the dishes. The art is in the choice and ability to source quality ingredients and then bring it all together as a full dish.
I guess you're right - getting your podcast big enough that it becomes a necessary checkbox for book/media tours is a skill.
You're correct that he brings absolutely nothing to the podcast, but he interrupts plenty - usually with superficial pet theories about the "oneness of the universe" or "how all we need is love, actually". He never seems well prepared for his guest beyond a chatgpt summary, never gets any kind of interesting answer out of a guest that they weren't already going to give, just absolutely zero criticality to anything in the interview.
A podcast with guests is an interview. Interviewing is a skill. The difference between a good and bad interviewer is night and day.
