His most maddening fault is to ask a question, get an intriguing answer and not pursue the implications of the answer but just ask a different question.
I enjoy that. As he says, follow ups get worse answers. He pursues many answers, but to do more would move it closer to a conventional podcast, I think.
I listen to most of the podcasts but I find him infuriating. His delivery sounds over-prepared and unresponsive to what his guests actually say. So it is not a conversation which I find ironic given the title of the podcast. I hate the overrated/underrated section - how on earth do you make a binary response on those questions? And I loathe the deliberate hip obscurantism - the third track on the fifth album by artist X is surely better than the fourth track on album two by artist Y. There is no way that a human being can spend their waking hours consuming as much as he does - surely TC is actually four separate people each furiously writing, listening, reading and travelling and opining. I derived a kind of schadenfreude from the podcast with Amia Srinivasan whose fierce contrariness was a blunt instrument against her interviewer. I write all of this but subscribe to Marginal Revolution which is a terrific source of information and his Bloomberg column which is where he shines as a commentator who speaks outside the vortex of partisan hysteria currently dominant in the US
We have opposite opinions! I like the rattling off of questions as you learn so much more. Srinivasan was, for me, the format at its best. Information is the point of the whole thing, as you say. Good information density, as TC would say!
His most maddening fault is to ask a question, get an intriguing answer and not pursue the implications of the answer but just ask a different question.
I enjoy that. As he says, follow ups get worse answers. He pursues many answers, but to do more would move it closer to a conventional podcast, I think.
I listen to most of the podcasts but I find him infuriating. His delivery sounds over-prepared and unresponsive to what his guests actually say. So it is not a conversation which I find ironic given the title of the podcast. I hate the overrated/underrated section - how on earth do you make a binary response on those questions? And I loathe the deliberate hip obscurantism - the third track on the fifth album by artist X is surely better than the fourth track on album two by artist Y. There is no way that a human being can spend their waking hours consuming as much as he does - surely TC is actually four separate people each furiously writing, listening, reading and travelling and opining. I derived a kind of schadenfreude from the podcast with Amia Srinivasan whose fierce contrariness was a blunt instrument against her interviewer. I write all of this but subscribe to Marginal Revolution which is a terrific source of information and his Bloomberg column which is where he shines as a commentator who speaks outside the vortex of partisan hysteria currently dominant in the US
We have opposite opinions! I like the rattling off of questions as you learn so much more. Srinivasan was, for me, the format at its best. Information is the point of the whole thing, as you say. Good information density, as TC would say!
I love the point about making interesting boards rather than aiming for checkmate. Another take on the same prompt: https://bartkus.substack.com/p/on-conversations-with-tyler
Thanks! And thank you for the link.