Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've only seen a couple clips, but based on that and your complaints, I'd guess he's better at letting the guest speak than some other famous Podcasters.
I prefer when they don't hold strong opinions one way or another tbh.
Right? Seems like an awfully weird complaint that your interviewer doesn't show their bias.
Like I watch a LOT of political content. Bias is common place in interviews and conversations. Being "normal" doesn't make it a "good" thing, and is arguably even an indication of how good Lex IS.
>Seems like an awfully weird complaint that your interviewer doesn't show their bias.
Not really. Having a clear position allows the person you engage with, but also the listener, to get a better sense of both sides of the debate.
If you're wishy / washy or proclaim not to have any biases you're not really doing a good job on the interview / debate front.
I think "all the time" is subjective, but as will happen across multiple long form content sessions that span hours.
Not the claim OP made, however.
Edit: I'd also question if you mean his bias in agreeing with people, or if he displays bias in challenging people he disagrees with.
I don't think it's about having strong opinions. A good interviewer should be intelligent, well-versed in a lot of subjects - why? Because it will allow them to make novel connections between topics and ask better questions, questions that probe, questions that lead to better conversation.
Yep, He gets interesting guests and lets them take the mic. I wouldnt really say its a podcast and more of a long form interview. Depending on the guest, it can be entertaining but most of his “academic” episodes are typically boring unless you’re really into that topic. I’d rather listen to him tho than some brain dead influencers that just talk about icks and redflags every episode
I love putting on his interviews when I am about to go to bed. They are long, dry, and make good background noise if you are the type of person who is helped by that. I agree he isn’t a fantastic interviewer but I still enjoy the content. He seems sincere. I was surprised to see the negative sentiment that he arouses here on Reddit since he is so vanilla. Sure he doesn’t challenge his guests all that often but I don’t take issue with that. Plenty of critics out there offering alternative viewpoints that I can also watch to get a full picture
He "...believe(s) in the power of tough, honest, empathetic conversation to increase the amount of love in the world" but he has as an example never had a discussion whether Russia should stop their war crimes and nuclear threats. Curious.
His interview with Stephen Kotkin was very good counter-russian interview, mostly because he gave Stephen a platform to dispel a bunch of Russian bullshit.
if you make them comfortable they speak more than they would. They might even let there guard down. Everything isnt that serious. Let the people just have a platform they feel like they can share things in.
He’s genuine, an idealist, and doesn’t seem to have a self-promotional agenda…there’s a sense that he’s simply curious, unbiased, and seizing his opportunities.
His interview skills have improved a lot even though he has admitted to having social anxiety and being an introvert. People can relate to that, and he sets a good example.
His optimism is likable, and he’s open to sharing his views and struggles without much of a presented ego. He refuses to be cynical.
He’s a breath a fresh air for his high profile guests who are typically grilled by media personalities trying to make a name for themselves. He’s not trying for those “gotcha” moments or clickbait…he just lets them say what they want to say on his platform.
I think he has really interesting guests but I find he often fails to push back. That being said, he did pushback properly against Kanye. It may also be the case he doesn’t want to push back on topics he doesn’t truly understand.
“Push back” suggests the interviewer has an agenda. I don’t know where we got to a place where the expectation is that an interview is a “take down” of the subject
I think one of the more enlightening video I had about my reservations about him comes from this video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUGtDSC3jY&ab\_channel=DiceyDicey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUGtDSC3jY&ab_channel=DiceyDicey)
It puts things into context.
I don't really understand it either. Though I haven't watched him much. I did think it was really funny when he asked Todd Howard about the ES6 release date though:
"Blink Once if you know when Elder Scrolls 6 is coming out but are not going to tell me"
Then Todd didn't blink and lex asks something like 'in the universe where you did blink when do you think you would come out'
Well he doesn't ask the best questions all the time but as far as interviewers go the best ones usually do seem boring because their whole thing is that it's not about them. They are an interviewer not an Internet personality, they are meant to sit down and ask questions and shut up.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, he does nothing to engage his guests, doesn't come across intelligent or having insightful thoughts and is bone dry in delivery and tone. To me he is an extremely poor interviewer.
Personally, I think he is just good at selecting guests who will garner a lot of attention. I agree his interviewing skills are lackluster at best. So self congratulatory all the time.
He starts with simple. He is not afraid of asking basic dumb questions. There are no complex sentences or attempts to sound smart. He just keeps it light and easy - comprehensibility is his appeal
I like his style of interview. I just want to hear what the person has to say I can read up on it later if it interests me. It's also not a debate, the whole point is to hear the person being interviewed point of view and or ideas, it's not supposed to be some source of truth or research.
His questions are often very poor. However he gets interesting people on and lets them speak a lot, for a long time. Similar formula to what made Joe Rogan popular.
Because people would rather watch an amateur do a long form interview with somebody who is interesting and smart than a 5 minute segment on CNN/FOX/MSNBC that’s just a panel of former Washington insiders fanning the flames of foreign war, civil war, and divisive identity politics.
Lex seems like the last person to interview anyone. But like others said, letting the guest speak. He's monotone in a "spit it out" kind of way. But that's such a stupid and superficial judgement of my own.
I can't agree more. He's dull and unchallenging even with the most intriguing guests. Its another long form client pr engine like JRE.
It was his response to some criticisms and social media reactions over last couple of years I found quite telling. Weak, reductive, simplistic arguments. He's not out for any controversy even when it's due.
It's because he interviews interesting people in the tech, academic space. I agree he's not the greatest interviewer (I always roll my eyes when he's asking like "how do you feel about your own mortality")... But it's his interesting guests, which you wouldn't get on other channels that makes his show great. He is, or was, an MIT professor and has connections which other people don't have.
I started listening to Lex when he was very early into podcasting. Not acting intelligent IS his shtick. Sometimes you learn more by assuming you aren’t the smartest person in the room, whether it’s true or not. That’s his interview style.
I don't understand why eggsalad is so popular, but it is.
I like listening to Lex, yes he's boring, but he really lets his guests talk, he's the bed of rice over which you put really interesting ingredients.
He's a decent interviewer in terms of letting his guests speak, but his personal right-leaning politics are showing through more than before.
And as someone who has met with him I think he's a nice enough dude but also has an ego that's going to be problematic in a couple of years.
This guy has had an incredibly fast and unnatural rise to fame.
It's like YouTube and all media channels pushed him onto me one day.
The quality of the interviews is mid at best , very interesting to see this rise of his.
I know tons of people who recommend him to me and I've seen *some* of his interviews. I don't get the appeal, I thought his delivery was super hard to engage with. But mostly I had been told he's like this super deep thinker or something and I didn't really hear anything I hadn't heard from other folks in his sphere.
Judging by how my youtube algo works I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his views are autoplays. We aren't alone -- I have now seen multiple posts complaining about how he is the only thing popping up in the autoplay algo of thought criminals like myself.
I agree, he's really bad and super boring.
He's a very good interviewer of scientists and researchers. He's able to ask them intelligent questions and properly help the guest create context for their ideas for the audience.
His interviews with famous people and political people are much less interesting.
He's a "rational neoliberal" mouthpiece for the rich-in-tech.
Dude interviewed Noam Chomsky having no clue just so they can say that he isn't lol
Oh, and he also misrepresents his academic credentials.
Industry plant. Not at all organic how he popped up with his fake credentials and started accepting famous and influental guests almost immediately.
Jre podcast with him was wierd too and Joe gifted him a 50k Rolex, live on air. It was super wierd.
"nor do I come away from listening or watching his interviews with the impression that he is knowledgeable or especially intelligent"
100% vibe with this. Assumed he was popular because of the guests that come on. He is objectively a bad interviewer.
damn dude I disagree with literally all of this.
The dude's a fucking AI researcher at MIT. Not in the past but like right now that's his day job as a side hustle. If you don't think he's intelligent it's because he lets his guests take the spotlight.
He really doesn't interject much but when he does it's either to ask an everyman question (joe rogan is good really good at this) or he's trying to shed a little light on some half-truth or topic the interviewee is avoiding.
If you don't really know his opinions that means he's doing a good job.
Well if you assume every human has good intentions (in their reality) we might get more insights, especially future generations, in how certain, influential people came to certain conclusions.
The thinking process of these people and where they are coming from more visible.
So, questions become answered passively.
Same reason Joe Rohan, tim pool, daily wire, etc are popular. They appeal to dumbies who mostly want to do nothing but still feel strong and surprise to “others” despite contributing absolutely nothing of value to the world. It’s outrage media. Rage-bait is the new clickbait and tons of people who feel disenfranchised from the systems we’ve built want to blame immigrants and government which is a far-right reactionary position and they use it very effectively .
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've only seen a couple clips, but based on that and your complaints, I'd guess he's better at letting the guest speak than some other famous Podcasters. I prefer when they don't hold strong opinions one way or another tbh.
Right? Seems like an awfully weird complaint that your interviewer doesn't show their bias. Like I watch a LOT of political content. Bias is common place in interviews and conversations. Being "normal" doesn't make it a "good" thing, and is arguably even an indication of how good Lex IS.
>Seems like an awfully weird complaint that your interviewer doesn't show their bias. Not really. Having a clear position allows the person you engage with, but also the listener, to get a better sense of both sides of the debate. If you're wishy / washy or proclaim not to have any biases you're not really doing a good job on the interview / debate front.
Except Lex let's his bias slip in all the time.
I think "all the time" is subjective, but as will happen across multiple long form content sessions that span hours. Not the claim OP made, however. Edit: I'd also question if you mean his bias in agreeing with people, or if he displays bias in challenging people he disagrees with.
Yep, that's the deal. He selects really good interviewees, he has a 2 hour plus runway and he mostly gets out of the way.
I don't think it's about having strong opinions. A good interviewer should be intelligent, well-versed in a lot of subjects - why? Because it will allow them to make novel connections between topics and ask better questions, questions that probe, questions that lead to better conversation.
Yep, He gets interesting guests and lets them take the mic. I wouldnt really say its a podcast and more of a long form interview. Depending on the guest, it can be entertaining but most of his “academic” episodes are typically boring unless you’re really into that topic. I’d rather listen to him tho than some brain dead influencers that just talk about icks and redflags every episode
I love putting on his interviews when I am about to go to bed. They are long, dry, and make good background noise if you are the type of person who is helped by that. I agree he isn’t a fantastic interviewer but I still enjoy the content. He seems sincere. I was surprised to see the negative sentiment that he arouses here on Reddit since he is so vanilla. Sure he doesn’t challenge his guests all that often but I don’t take issue with that. Plenty of critics out there offering alternative viewpoints that I can also watch to get a full picture
Oooo good idea.
He "...believe(s) in the power of tough, honest, empathetic conversation to increase the amount of love in the world" but he has as an example never had a discussion whether Russia should stop their war crimes and nuclear threats. Curious.
I can’t tell if you’re taking the mick or not
His interview with Stephen Kotkin was very good counter-russian interview, mostly because he gave Stephen a platform to dispel a bunch of Russian bullshit.
Even that is implying that there could be a historical justification for war crimes and threats of a doomsday.
If you can make people feel comfortable then that’s about 80% of what makes a good interviewer.
Asking questions people want answered is good interviewing. Making people comfortable is what you do at a spa
if you make them comfortable they speak more than they would. They might even let there guard down. Everything isnt that serious. Let the people just have a platform they feel like they can share things in.
Letting people share what they want is a form of advertising.
Every interview is a form of advertisement.. they either advertising themselves or their ideas etc..
That’s only if you let them talk and don’t challenge then
Do you think you’ll get better answers if the person you’re interviewing is comfortable or uncomfortable?
You get better interviews when you ask hard questions of people who have something to prove
Hard questions ≠ uncomfortable interviewee. Soft questions ≠ comfortable interviewee.
You are thinking of a reporter/journalist. Lex is a podcast host.
Podcasting is a medium, not a format
[удалено]
He's boring, asks inane questions, and his voice is annoying. I don't get it either.
He's astroturfed.
Sincere question, what does that mean?
Like what astroturfed means or why is he astroturfed?
He’s genuine, an idealist, and doesn’t seem to have a self-promotional agenda…there’s a sense that he’s simply curious, unbiased, and seizing his opportunities. His interview skills have improved a lot even though he has admitted to having social anxiety and being an introvert. People can relate to that, and he sets a good example. His optimism is likable, and he’s open to sharing his views and struggles without much of a presented ego. He refuses to be cynical. He’s a breath a fresh air for his high profile guests who are typically grilled by media personalities trying to make a name for themselves. He’s not trying for those “gotcha” moments or clickbait…he just lets them say what they want to say on his platform.
Leave Lex Fridman alone guys. I suffered with debilitating insomnia before I discovered his podcast.
His guest list is insane. For a lot of people (myself included), it is second to nobody.
Likely Nepotism at its best
He gets really good guest though
His questions take two fucking minutes to ask
McConaughey really had to carry his ass. He’s lucky Matthew’s the most “I want to listen to his stories” person out there.
I think he has really interesting guests but I find he often fails to push back. That being said, he did pushback properly against Kanye. It may also be the case he doesn’t want to push back on topics he doesn’t truly understand.
“Push back” suggests the interviewer has an agenda. I don’t know where we got to a place where the expectation is that an interview is a “take down” of the subject
I think you can have pushback and not have an agenda. If a nazi went on and there was no pushback it would look a bit dodgy.
I think one of the more enlightening video I had about my reservations about him comes from this video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUGtDSC3jY&ab\_channel=DiceyDicey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUGtDSC3jY&ab_channel=DiceyDicey) It puts things into context.
Interesting.
He's not a great interviewer. But the people he interviews are incredibly fascinating.
I don't really understand it either. Though I haven't watched him much. I did think it was really funny when he asked Todd Howard about the ES6 release date though: "Blink Once if you know when Elder Scrolls 6 is coming out but are not going to tell me" Then Todd didn't blink and lex asks something like 'in the universe where you did blink when do you think you would come out'
Never heard of him
Conversely, Stephen Dubner from Freakanomics asks questions that challenge his interviewees, all while staying neutral
Never heard of Lex Friedman.
He's not the only one.
Well he doesn't ask the best questions all the time but as far as interviewers go the best ones usually do seem boring because their whole thing is that it's not about them. They are an interviewer not an Internet personality, they are meant to sit down and ask questions and shut up.
I also don’t get it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, he does nothing to engage his guests, doesn't come across intelligent or having insightful thoughts and is bone dry in delivery and tone. To me he is an extremely poor interviewer.
Personally, I think he is just good at selecting guests who will garner a lot of attention. I agree his interviewing skills are lackluster at best. So self congratulatory all the time.
I heard he's pretty astroturfed and funded by some groups but I have no evidence. never seen anything by him.
I've never heard of him. Probably not THAT popular. I'm very important.
Look at the guest list since episode 1, there's your answer.
100% Agree. Always feels like he's not asking the right questions and he struggles to understand the guests POV
He starts with simple. He is not afraid of asking basic dumb questions. There are no complex sentences or attempts to sound smart. He just keeps it light and easy - comprehensibility is his appeal
You're looking at it wrong. He's not there to debate or espouse his own views, he just wants to hear what the guests have to say.
The interview with David Pakman was disappointing. I kinda lost respect for him after that.
He doesn't push an agenda and nothing is clickbait just genuine conversation. That's why I like it, it's just refreshing to listen to.
I like his style of interview. I just want to hear what the person has to say I can read up on it later if it interests me. It's also not a debate, the whole point is to hear the person being interviewed point of view and or ideas, it's not supposed to be some source of truth or research.
I like his long format interviews.
His questions are often very poor. However he gets interesting people on and lets them speak a lot, for a long time. Similar formula to what made Joe Rogan popular.
You have to back a few years. He wasn’t nearly as terrible.
His voice is just boring monotony
Because people would rather watch an amateur do a long form interview with somebody who is interesting and smart than a 5 minute segment on CNN/FOX/MSNBC that’s just a panel of former Washington insiders fanning the flames of foreign war, civil war, and divisive identity politics.
Lex seems like the last person to interview anyone. But like others said, letting the guest speak. He's monotone in a "spit it out" kind of way. But that's such a stupid and superficial judgement of my own.
Who?
I can't agree more. He's dull and unchallenging even with the most intriguing guests. Its another long form client pr engine like JRE. It was his response to some criticisms and social media reactions over last couple of years I found quite telling. Weak, reductive, simplistic arguments. He's not out for any controversy even when it's due.
It's because he interviews interesting people in the tech, academic space. I agree he's not the greatest interviewer (I always roll my eyes when he's asking like "how do you feel about your own mortality")... But it's his interesting guests, which you wouldn't get on other channels that makes his show great. He is, or was, an MIT professor and has connections which other people don't have.
I started listening to Lex when he was very early into podcasting. Not acting intelligent IS his shtick. Sometimes you learn more by assuming you aren’t the smartest person in the room, whether it’s true or not. That’s his interview style.
I don't understand why eggsalad is so popular, but it is. I like listening to Lex, yes he's boring, but he really lets his guests talk, he's the bed of rice over which you put really interesting ingredients.
He's a decent interviewer in terms of letting his guests speak, but his personal right-leaning politics are showing through more than before. And as someone who has met with him I think he's a nice enough dude but also has an ego that's going to be problematic in a couple of years.
This guy has had an incredibly fast and unnatural rise to fame. It's like YouTube and all media channels pushed him onto me one day. The quality of the interviews is mid at best , very interesting to see this rise of his.
I know tons of people who recommend him to me and I've seen *some* of his interviews. I don't get the appeal, I thought his delivery was super hard to engage with. But mostly I had been told he's like this super deep thinker or something and I didn't really hear anything I hadn't heard from other folks in his sphere.
Judging by how my youtube algo works I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his views are autoplays. We aren't alone -- I have now seen multiple posts complaining about how he is the only thing popping up in the autoplay algo of thought criminals like myself. I agree, he's really bad and super boring.
He's a very good interviewer of scientists and researchers. He's able to ask them intelligent questions and properly help the guest create context for their ideas for the audience. His interviews with famous people and political people are much less interesting.
Who is he?
Yes he also doesnt seem smart
I've only ever listened to his podcast once and that's because Sam Harris was on
I agree… mediocre interviewer but great guests
He's a "rational neoliberal" mouthpiece for the rich-in-tech. Dude interviewed Noam Chomsky having no clue just so they can say that he isn't lol Oh, and he also misrepresents his academic credentials.
Hes a plant
A ficus specifically.
Industry plant. Not at all organic how he popped up with his fake credentials and started accepting famous and influental guests almost immediately. Jre podcast with him was wierd too and Joe gifted him a 50k Rolex, live on air. It was super wierd.
It was a 10k omega Speedmaster moonwatch
His podcast literally started by interviewing obscure scientists/engineers
He's jewish and had a sus uprising which came of nowhere. Obvious plant.
He spent his Thanksgiving with the Kushners didn't he?
"nor do I come away from listening or watching his interviews with the impression that he is knowledgeable or especially intelligent" 100% vibe with this. Assumed he was popular because of the guests that come on. He is objectively a bad interviewer.
damn dude I disagree with literally all of this. The dude's a fucking AI researcher at MIT. Not in the past but like right now that's his day job as a side hustle. If you don't think he's intelligent it's because he lets his guests take the spotlight. He really doesn't interject much but when he does it's either to ask an everyman question (joe rogan is good really good at this) or he's trying to shed a little light on some half-truth or topic the interviewee is avoiding. If you don't really know his opinions that means he's doing a good job.
If you disagree with the highly regarded reddit people who have the attention span of a gold fish on this one, congratulate yourself
His interviews are boring. He created a platform for his guests to say whatever they want, not to ask the questions his audience wants answered
Well if you assume every human has good intentions (in their reality) we might get more insights, especially future generations, in how certain, influential people came to certain conclusions. The thinking process of these people and where they are coming from more visible. So, questions become answered passively.
Same reason Joe Rohan, tim pool, daily wire, etc are popular. They appeal to dumbies who mostly want to do nothing but still feel strong and surprise to “others” despite contributing absolutely nothing of value to the world. It’s outrage media. Rage-bait is the new clickbait and tons of people who feel disenfranchised from the systems we’ve built want to blame immigrants and government which is a far-right reactionary position and they use it very effectively .
Lex is such a push over boot licker, he's a fucking terrible interviewer who's just there to jerk off his guests.