Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more.
I would bet that you would not be able to do better. Actually I bet that you would pause just as long and then often reply with something barely relevant to what was just said, such as "wow that was deep".
Seriously, you think that Bach hasn't spent years preparing that elegant information and philosophy? And Lex was trying to adapt on the fly. But you casually suggest that you could have a rapid-fire intelligent back-and-forth with Joshua Bach as he lays that stuff on you.
I would like to see it. Go ahead, record a conversation with Bach on a topic that is slightly different from the existing podcasts/talks.
Sounds like I should do a podcast, thank you, I will seriously consider it. I think Bach is one of the funniest and most entertaining people I can remember listening to, as he's one of the few examples I know of who could meet the definition of a stand-up philosopher.
My ideal first episode would have Bach and Daniel Dennett together talking about whether or not they have dogs, and what they might perceive that relationship to be like, given their respective views of consciousness and language, and what their dogs might think of them.
why does OP's interviewing skill have to do with anything? i actually agree that stilted non-conversational speech like that in interviews and speeches sounds bad (talking in particular about the beginning). no need to say all that live if it's not contingent on the interviewee in any way. just watch the video: he is sitting there staring at a piece of paper reading, and then the first question the interviewer asks is essentially "what are some of the foundational inspirational ideas of your work?", which for anyone who isn't brilliant and hyperrational like the interviewee would be difficult to answer after being warmed up for an hour, much less before even seeing the eyes of the interlocutor. yes, interviews are not the same thing as normal conversation, but i don't think it's that crazy to suggest (like OP) that priming people in a more conversational way can be a nice way to smooth the edges around a conversation that will already be difficult for everyone to grasp (including Bach, who has to articulate all these things).
all of this is independent of how good of work lex does as an interviewer, which seems like it's pretty good given his ability to engage with the ideas presented (in this context idea empathy (ie understanding what Bach's saying) > interpersonal/conversational empathy).
Lex is just trying to come up with worthy follow-up questions that also sometimes align with his plan for the podcast. And his default is to speak carefully because he knows that the topics are complex and algorithms are transcribing them etc. So he is starting at a fairly slow normal just for clarity and the high level of Bach's comments requires him to think more.
I would bet that you would not be able to do better. Actually I bet that you would pause just as long and then often reply with something barely relevant to what was just said, such as "wow that was deep".
Seriously, you think that Bach hasn't spent years preparing that elegant information and philosophy? And Lex was trying to adapt on the fly. But you casually suggest that you could have a rapid-fire intelligent back-and-forth with Joshua Bach as he lays that stuff on you.
I would like to see it. Go ahead, record a conversation with Bach on a topic that is slightly different from the existing podcasts/talks.