Almost every single comment in here is critical of Terry Gross’s advice. I have to wonder, does anyone here have a 40 year career as an interviewer and millions of people tuning in to listen to them every week? In the face of uncomfortable advice it’s so easy to dig your heels in to your experience instead of thinking “maybe there’s something to learn here”.
Terry Gross is an excellent interview and I enjoy her work very much. However, the advice claims to be how to have better conversations. I'm not convinced that interviewing and having better conversations are the same thing. Further, I think some of the advice here is really more advice about interviews, and thus it is fair to be critical of the advice in a different context. Most of the criticism is really only on using "Tell me about yourself" as an ice-breaker. If I don't like being asked that question, than it is entirely reasonable for me to wonder if it is the best opener to use in general social circumstances.
One who takes offense to the phrase "Tell me about yourself" does not have the ability to function as a member of society. Based on some of these comments you would think that asking the typical Hacker News commenter about the weather would result in a ten minute lecture on the increased efficiency of looking out the window as opposed to bothering one's peers with futile conversation.
If you don't want to give an answer it's very easy to demur in a polite and conversationally enjoyable way. All of the conventional advice on getting people to like you emphasizes getting people to talk about themselves.
Does anyone ever ask you “tell me about yourself” verbatim in casual conversation between peers? I honestly find it hard to believe that this is normal. It sounds way too much like an interview question.
It's actually a good question to get to know people sometimes. You don't phrase it that way, but people do like talking about themselves unless they're robots
Right. "Tell me about yourself" might work well for Terry Gross, where the people she meets know of her reputation, are excited to meet her and get to talk to her, etc. If two strangers meet with little context about the other, "tell me about yourself" comes off very differently.
You're not wrong. I've always felt that I'm been a very strong interviewer (as a reporter, or when interviewing job/fellowship applicants), but I'm not at all great at conversation when I'm not in work-mode.
But that's the thing: "talking to people" and "interviewing them" are not the same thing. It's not even clear whether Gross is actually talking about party conversations and such, despite what the article says.
Also, results are not all that matters; you can be a critic of the methods even if they bring the desired outcome.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think it's a bit like saying "steak is not the same as a hamburger" - they're not, but they're both beef and both a good meal.
I think if you define interviewing in the strictest sense, then sure. But personally I find this all pretty applicable. I do far better in conversation (with strangers) when I apply most of this. One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was "nobody cares about you, but everyone loves speaking about themselves". If you can get someone to open up and _start_ talking, and you are genuinely curious without seemingly like you're looking for an opportunity to talk about yourself, in my experience that person goes away with a generally positive opinion of you.
I suppose you could also argue that any conversation with someone new IS an interview - be it date, work, new friend. Ultimately you're checking as to whether you want a second encounter with that person, right?
Out of curiosity, have you actually opened with "tell me about yourself"? I imagine most of us converse by trying to learn about the other person, but specifically that phrase?
No, I'll try it though. After a small talk introduction I'll usually use (the fairly similar) "so what do you do with (/how do you spend) your days?!" - or sometimes "time" and sometimes "_like_ to do with". Generally depends who I'm talking to and what I know already.
Asking about work seems to define the direction of the conversation, and some people don't work, which makes it a little awkward. Everyone does _something_ so this gives whoever you're talking to an opportunity to pick what they want to talk about - "I work in marketing" or "I'm trying to get my black belt in karate". Then you just starting picking around that topic and ever so often drop in a short annecdote or story of your own (followed by another question - "has that ever happened to you?!") to keep the conversation going.
I hate "what do you do" question with a passion. Not saying it is a bad one, as most people don't seem to mind, but I dislike the implicit (possibly unintentional) importance given to my work or even having one.
And I know people for whom this question is really anxiety inducing.
I’ve learned that one of the skills needed to function in American society is the ability to answer that question with grace despite one’s misgivings about it. It is a socially conditioned, and for the most part innocuous, attempt to connect, and should be treated as such.
I’ve known people who have tended to respond to that question with sarcasm or hostility. They also tend to be the most socially shut out. And then they wonder why people don’t like them. It’s one of those things where you expect society to be better but it isn’t. The choice then is either to become bitter or to redirect it into something more positive and gracious.
If one is unemployed or one doesn’t have a career a good neutral response is “I’m in transition”. Any number of creative responses will work, and will keep the conversation going. But one responds with hostility because one hates that question, one will invariably pay the social costs and may be killing potential budding friendships. I can tell you, most of the time it is not worth it. The downside is greater than the upside.
On the initiator’s part, a good alternative to it is “what keeps you busy?”
One of my regular responses to "what do you do?" is "I struggle with how to answer that question"... then launch in to a bit about work and hobbies, seeing if any of those topics I talk about resonates with the other person (travel, music, food, tech, etc). Then we can dive in more on that subject.
Everyone spends their time on many different things. If you ask the question in such a way that it doesn't require the work/school/unemployed answer, then the question in effect becomes: "Of all the different activities on which you consistently spend time, which is the one you most want to talk about?" That might be a pretty decent way to get people to start talking about something they're genuinely interested in.
Agreed. I actively try to see how long I can talk to a person without getting anywhere near what their job is. Yes, the job may be interesting but most people are MUCH more interesting than being reduced to "I'm an engineer" "i work at apple" whatever. My answer is that i tell people I'm an aspiring astronaut...because I am. I have no qualifications and zero contacts in the space industry but conversations about the stars and possibilities of science are a lot more interesting than talking about my businesses.
I would encourage others to avoid asking "what do you do?" As well. Ask what the person's favorite book is, their favorite trip/place, their favorite memory from childhood, etc. I promise the resulting conversation will be much more interesting and also give you a better view of the person.
Respectfully, I don't think it is, and the tone of your reply suggests you assume it'd go badly. Other than being (perhaps) slightly more expansive as a question, I really don't get what the big deal is. It's an opener. I'll happily give it a go and I'm fairly certain it'll be fine.
Edit: by badly, I mean badly for me. I'm getting a bunch of downvotes above - obviously this is just my opinion, based on my interactions with people over the last few years.
It’s really blowing my mind both that people seem to have never asked this question, or can’t imagine it going well. I find it extremely easy to ask strangers in a friendly, casual way and get interesting responses. Sometimes people don’t know where to start, so it’s good to have some suggestions (say, asking about music they like or books or art or whatever).
I prefer being asked “tell me about yourself” because it allows me to choose to what depth and on what topics I want to open up about. I get to talk about things I find interesting in my life currently to the extent I want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about my job or my company to people at work let alone strangers.
So people should ignore a counterargument that makes sense to them because Terry Gross has more experience? We should blindly follow authority in spite of our own reasoning abilities?
I'm always disappointed when these dismissive appeal to authority ad-hominems [1] are not only posted on HN comments but voted to the very top. These types of comments take no effort and don't add any information to the discussion. Isn't HN supposed to be better than that?
Why not instead respond to the actual specific arguments people have put up in objection to Terry Gross's advice? Then the insufficiency of her experience is plain to see: She has 40+ years of experience indeed, but in a relatively narrow form of conversational interview, and commenters here are rightfully pointing out that her advice doesn't generalize.
> "DH1. Ad Hominem. ... Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem."
At best that question is a clear demonstration of lack of both and a plain vanilla diplomatic type question.
At worst it tells me this person doesn’t care and is just waiting to be asked the same question to rattle off their prerehearsed answer which will no doubt incorporate some fine oneupmanship (in other words that questions tells me that person is just waiting for their time to talk).
The only proper answer to such a question: “I live off the fat of the land, how about you?” Then as they struggle to begin their prerehearsed response, excuse yourself to a more interesting conversation.
"Ms. Gross brings a combination of empathy and rigorous preparation to the job. “I read, watch or listen to as much of the person’s work as possible..."
I’m not disputing Ms. Gross’ talent as an interviewer, genuineness, or work ethic. And the question is appropriate for an interview, specifically because it’s diplomatic and open ended.
Certainly when talking to people we won’t have the same resources and ability to research the person we speak with the same way Ms. Gross has with the persons she interviews. And in the context of “talking to people” I don’t think this particular question is going to make a good reflection on the asker. If you have literally nothing else to say, then fine, but again that typically shows lack of wit and charisma. I’d recommend starting with a personal observation of the person that is clearly meaningful to the person you engage, in which you have a guinuine interest.
I've noticed that hn on almost every topic is now hypercritical to the point of being satire - people outside of this thread (community?) gush non-stop about how charming and genial Terry Gross.
here's something for the "cave dwellers" to ponder: do you think maybe the tone and body language with which you say something like "tell me about yourself" mediates the effect?
As a testament to this, I usually check the comments before clicking through to an article. As a result I virtually never click through to the article -- I just end up reading all the reasons it's wrong.
Also reminds me of an anecdote. Talking with a tech VP from a telco recently, I offer an opinion to advance the discussion and his response was simply “No, that’s wrong, you’re so wrong.” Period, full stop. End of discussion, no explanation, no offer of what direction he might agree with. All that mattered was that I was wrong and that he had the right answer. Great talk.
At its best HN is critical and discerning, which are necessary qualities for raising the discourse to a higher intellectual plane (otherwise this would just be Reddit). At its worst it is cynical and contrarian. Those are flip sides of the same coin.
HN is like UChicago. Cerebral, academic, rigorous and always ready to shoot down sloppy thinking.
Quora is more like Northwestern. Intelligent, emotionally savvy, and projects a sense of polish.
HN does not have a strict, unbiased critical thinking. If it did it might be more acceptable. The worst of HN is when it tries to bear critcism on a topic or subject that it inherently disagrees with and wants to be untrue (even when it probably is true).
Which is a genuinely useful stance in the case of products—pointing out why someone’s startup won’t work does them the service of laying out potential failure modes.
I like heading to the comments because I feel like I get a much more rounded perspective on a publication.
Unfortunately, if you spend too much time in the comments then it's easy to leave with an unfair impression of a topic or author: "Gosh, {topic/author} sure is (misguided|hyperbolic|reductionist|obvious|ignorant|wrong|malicious|unnecessary), tsk tsk"
Indeed, in face-to-face interactions, more than 90% of the communication occurs non-verbally. So there's a big difference between taking a defensive posture, avoiding eye contact and saying "so tell me about yourself" vs. smiling, making eye contact and saying the same thing.
“Tell me about yourself” is not a question it’s an order/request. You can only say that if you have the upper hand already, ie. if the person wants you to know about them for some reason.
It’s arrogant and belittling, unless you are in a position of power (like a famous interviewer). Even then it’s rude. Don’t say it unless you know the person a little already or are interviewing them and literally giving them a platform to tell the world about themselves.
I 100% disagree. Have had extremely interesting conversations out of essentially this question regardless of my status relative to the person I'm asking (plus or minus 3 levels in the management chain), except in the rare case that the person is so super shy that they can't come up with anything to say even with coaxing. People that don't give a shit about me are even more interesting when they answer.
With a person who is higher status than you, they invariably have a life story that they are practiced at and enjoy telling, and know how to answer this question in a really satisfying and engaging manner because it's been asked so many times. That's the easy one, and pretty much no high level person will be upset if you ask.
It's toughest with someone not used to answering this question, or someone who thinks of you as higher status - in those cases, you can't just say "tell me about you", you have to make them comfortable and coax them into getting excited to tell you about things they care about. That requires active attention and listening, and is not necessarily easy.
Asking people to tell you about themselves is never rude, in any case. If your conception of "rude" includes that, then you're gonna have a rough time in all but the most wonky parts of business.
> they invariably have a life story that they are practiced at and enjoy telling, and know how to answer this question in a really satisfying and engaging manner because it's been asked so many times.
Yeah the point is you have prepared and practiced an engaging "sales pitch" for yourself. If you are experienced in networking or interviewing this is second nature to you. But it would be pretty rude to ask outside of a professional or networking setting IMHO. You are challenging the person to "sell themselves" to you, which is highly inappropriate outside of business.
I agree that it comes off as pretentious to a lot of people if you open with that in any normal context. I think the right context for it is if you are expected to be sharing life stories, e.g dating, interviews, networking and stuff like that. I think Terry Gross gets away with it in other contexts because she's a famous interviewer.
"Tell me about yourself" is not question, it is instruction. You give instructions and expect other one to obey them.
The discussions where the other person don't expect me to be the one who has to reveal all details or where I get to ask questions too are more comfortable.
I think for most social demographics in the USA, "Tell me about yourself?" is a perfectly acceptable question.
It can be seen as intrusive, however, for Europeans. In fact even a question like "tell me about <x>" is not taken well by Europeans. They see it as a demand to be entertained and is considered lazy and thoughtless.
On the other hand, Terry Gross is a spectacular interviewer. SHE could get away with asking almost anything to anyone and even it is a disastrous question is able to recover from it. I think someone who is able to read cues and think on their feet has much more latitude in what they can get away with as far as questions go.
> even a question like "tell me about <x>" is not taken well by Europeans
It phrases in the form of “what’s your story” in most European languages. Same thing, though. The question does seem to be one which separates high-status and low-status people in many societies.
Just ask it politely, softly, with a smile and a genuine interest. Only Ron Swanson-esque people who see an order/demand in a friendly request would get offended. And if someone gets offended and thinks this is arrogant/belittling by such a polite request as this, then it's a bad sign that they aren't going to be able to handle conversations with me where I encourage non-PC exploration of tough issues.
How fragile is someone's sense of self and ego if that is a powerful trigger? It's a great weed-out for PC individuals honestly, if you think that's belittling then I probably don't want to talk further with you.
It's certainly forward, but it's a much more interesting proposition than "what do you do for work?" It assumes you've already broken the ice with some banter, and you're at a fork in the road - you can talk about something deeper or you can move onto the next person at the party. People like to talk about themselves, and this gives them the option to pick whatever they want to emphasize about their life, i.e. lets them put their best foot forward.
It depends on how and when you ask, of course. If you’re on a date I think it’s a great question - many people love talking about themselves. It’s perhaps a cultural thing too, Western society is very individualist and so asking a question like that makes sense. Other cultures may have different values, and it could be seen as conceited to up-talk yourself.
Exactly, forming it as an open ended, permission based question is far better. "Hey would you mind telling me a little about yourself?" Is much more comfortable. It is more conversational.
It's of course a cultural thing rather than a single unifiying rule. In the South of the United States strangers strike up conversations and I can ask people about themselves without it being weird. In the North of the United States, I wouldn't bother unless I already knew someone well and if I know them well why am I asking them for?
Wouldn't do it in Japan, Germany or Scandinavia; would do it many other countries.
> “Tell me about yourself” is not a question it’s an order/request.
In every question, there's an implied order to deliver the answer. Some people might perceive "What would you like my audience to know about you?" as less demanding, but it's fundamentally the same thing.
This kind of open-ended request for information isn't a good fit for a lot of conversations, but it's a good fit for a biographical interview and similar situations like a job interview or a blind date. I don't think it's rude in these contexts, as the purpose of those kinds of encounters is to get to know a lot about the person in a short time. It might be too intrusive in other contexts.
I prefer "tell me more about that" when you have already touched on a topic briefly that you are genuinely interested in knowing more about. Less abrubt when it's mid conversation and sounds less like an order.
The simplicity of 'tell me about yourself' is brilliant. It's all too easy to say 'what do you do?' Which presumes that the other person actually wants to talk about their work.
I've been trying to switch to 'tell me about yourself', but it's somehow harder than I thought.
Interesting. I can't imagine that working at a dinner conversation. Starting with neutral guaranteed points of commonality are likely to be more successful in my experience (in observation and in practice).
The neutral small-talk intros (travel-to-venue, number-of-people, weather) segueing rapidly to how-you-know-host, and then on to learning about the person without asking them to come up with a narrative usually does well in that setting.
The key is to induce load on your conversational partner at the level that they are willing to accept and not to put a disproportionate load on them. "Tell me about yourself" is high load IMHO. They need to figure out what aspect of themselves they wish to represent.
Then again, perhaps I inhabit different social circles from that of a top-flight radio host and things are different there.
In an interview, I like "tell me about yourself" as a starter but not with passive listening for the most part.
> The key is to induce load on your conversational partner at the level that they are willing to accept and not to put a disproportionate load on them. "Tell me about yourself" is high load IMHO. They need to figure out what aspect of themselves they wish to represent.
This tracks with my experience as well.
Many nerds and introverts (myself included) detest small talk and want to jump into deep conversation straight away.
But life experience has taught me that guiding the conversation from shallow to deep produces a much better effect in most cases, even with other nerds and introverts. (except at conferences, where there is already a shared assumption of interest/knowledge)
I’m sorry, but being asked this question would make me feel incredibly awkward. It’s a bit too personal of a question to ask a complete stranger IMO. I would rather be asked something a little lighter/superficial that we can find common ground on and go from there.
Interestingly, not everyone answers "tell me about yourself" with "what do you do." How someone parses the former can actually be more interesting than the answer itself. For example, some people answer with their family, their country of origin, their company (versus profession), their title (versus company), a description of their role, or–quite plainly–discomfort. (Crudely, I've noticed peoples' enjoyment with this question roughly correlates with their social competence, perceive social status and general curiosity about people. New Yorkers answer with a profession. Europeans, more frequently, with a town of origin. The oddest pattern I picked up on was in Montreal, where I kept getting a detailed description of what the person did or ate that day.)
It's also fun watching yourself answer the question, particularly when your parsing varies given the company you're with or context you're in.
I'm a recent anglophone immigrant to Québec, currently midway through my francisation program. We spend a huge amount of time learning to converse with others about our daily routine, meals, etc. I wondered if the emphasis on these subjects was simply because everyone eats, or if there was a deeper cultural reason.
I usually use "What projects have you been working on?" If there's nothing, then I ask "What have you been excited about recently?"
I'm surprised by the pushback on HN. "Tell me about yourself" is a guiding principle, not a literal tactical prescription. "Those that are interested are interesting", as the saying goes.
"What have you been excited about recently?" is really great!
Asking people to share what they enjoy / experience they really liked is another opportunity for them to re-experience what they like. A absolutely love questions that allow me to re-live a moment from my vacation, or to share an idea that gets me excited!
Personally I think it is awful, it really puts the person on the spot and under pressure to come up with something interesting. It will basically lead to dead air while they think. Open ended questions are great but the answer should be in a second. That question is designed to for the person to subconsciously think the person asking is expecting something.
If you ask, as you see the person's response - if their face isn't overcome with an expression of excitement, you could continue ... "or something interesting you've seen this year ... or any new place you've been ..." etc.
It's hard to come up with a good one-question strategy that would fit all. As you know more about the person it gets easier to ask fitting questions. For example if they have a child, that's a whole basket of good things to ask - let them be proud about the kid's first steps / first year in school / etc.
Or questions are equally bad because it boxes someone into a binary choice. And that form you gave is far too long and still fairly specific. It is kind of open ended. But open ended questions should be incredibly targeted yet give a lot of leeway. "Oh you lived in Chicago? How did you like it?". "have you been on any trips lately".
You are dead on about dialing questions in after you get some responses though. But being incredibly vague and simple helps to open the conversation up. They have the ability to run any direction with the response. It works for personal relationships and professional interviews. Let the person talk and follow up from there.
Yes, I agree. Opening questions should be simple, not too clever and not require one to reach too much. Small talk is supposed to be a social lubricant that leads to deeper talk, and it is important not to skip too far ahead.
If someone were to ask me what I'm excited about, my two options are "Nothing much" or "I'm trying to use Kubernetes for HPC....". Both are conversation stoppers unless the other party is a nerd.
For me, "what's keeping you busy?" works 80-90% of the time. It reaches into raw memory rather than the analytic side of a person. One can get to the latter eventually, but it needs to be a guided process.
I agree with some of the other comments that “tell me about yourself” feels a little too direct and personal.
I prefer something like “so what are you spending your time on these days?” It’s a question that can be answered with something work-related while not making the person feel that they’re defining themselves by their work. It also allows them to talk about their hobbies (or things like video games or Netflix) if they so choose.
'Tell me about yourself' is horrible advice for a real adult conversation. 'What do you do' is also bad. People prefer reflecting on what they like, how they feel, and what they want to do. No one wants to start defining, describing, or even alluding to their personal attributes, and no one really wants to hear about them.
Aren't "reflecting on what they like, how they feel, and what they want to do" examples of "defining, describing, or even alluding to their personal attributes"?
Seriously. And how else are you supposed to navigate the conversation to those things with a complete stranger you just met? Be a mind reader and know those things about them and ask them explicitly? I don't understand why these questions are getting so much hate, for me they're just a starting point when I have no obvious one, and it's a great and easy way to get a general sense of what someone's all about. A getting the ball rolling kinda thing. And having used "so what do you do" as my default ice breaker for years now, I have always felt it put people at ease more than anything, especially people who seem kinda shy. It's open ended and they can go where they want with it. They gotta cool project they're working on they'd love to talk about? They can jump right to it for all I care, sounds good to me!
Or maybe my southerner is just showing super hard in this thread, ha.
I seriously don't understand the majority reaction here, either. It's just a simple, friendly, open-ended question. If you don't want to answer it, who cares. It's amazing what some people feel offended by nowadays. I guess these people would rather others just ignore them, as if on a subway.
It seems very strange to me that inviting a respondent to essentially fill in a blank as desired would be considered "calculated" or "trying way too hard." It's essentially saying, "If you would like to share something about yourself, go ahead." If one were going to describe it negatively, it seems more like lazily not even trying to ask a thoughtful, relevant question. Bizarre.
Yes, Terry Gross is giving advice to be uncomfortably familiar if you try this on someone you've never seen before. She gets to do that because interviewing her is a pretense; the interviewee knows her by reputation, and she knows them by their public persona.
If you don't know the person, then yes, you have to ante up with small talk, let them warm up to you, and all the usual stuff. The point is that open-ended questions let other people drive the conversation, and it usually works better that way. Plus, you can't accidentally bring up an awkward topic if you don't choose one.
> “Tell me about yourself,” a.k.a the only icebreaker you’ll ever need
Big no-no in some parts of the world (yes, even the Western americanized world).
I remember an article on HN describing how the usual "So what do you do for a living ?" was very insensitive and an American woman had it hard striking a conversation with her husband's african dad (or something like that).
As a European I find this opener extremely aggressive, even in a friendly setting. It's the first line used by HR in a job interview. Not a pleasant way to start up a conversation.
Thanks for the comment. "What do you do for a living?" is a question my wife dreads. She doesn't fit in a traditional "stay at home mom" (we don't have kids), nor does she have a job. She then has to figure out a way that is socially acceptable to justify what she does at the moment (art and self-education / self-improvement).
This reminds me of the valuable reminder I got while studying to be a math teacher: many students don't have a mother or a father - so telling kids "have your mom sign this paper" would be insensitive. Similarly, assuming a person you're talking to has a partner of an opposite sex isn't very sensitive.
I have always just asked "so what do you do?" because I'm in my 20s in a college town so I always assume that many of the people I'll encounter at bars etc are students. Leaves it open ended: are you in school? Are you working? Both? Neither? Something in between? Secretly five groundhogs in a trench coat? And actually many times I've had people tell me in depth about their art/writing/music pursuits and only briefly mention their serving job or something, and honestly that's way more fun and interesting to talk about for both of us.
What do you recommend as an alternative? I prefer the phrasing, “what matters to you” or “what are you currently excited about”, but it’s the same basic thing.
I like being asked such questions because they let me guide the conversation and decide how much I want to disclose, which is the reverse of how many people here interpret these questions. Beats getting stuck in a shallow conversation that neither party really cares about. You have to actually be interested though and open for any response. I’ve had great conversations about everything from Warcraft to politics to medical school just by being interested in what the other person is saying
It really does depend on the setting (a party, a brunch, an after work drink).
I'd go with the flow of the setting and let conversations unfold. Normally the host or others should kick-off the conversation and include you at some point. No matter what they shouldn't disclose sensible things about you to jump start the conversation (and certainly not a "Tell me about yourself").
Now if you are digging for stories, I find that listening to conversations and going from there with a question about a specific does the trick.
Also, you could very well be there for the humane experience of being in a group, not necessarily disclosing yourself or trading interesting stories. Sometimes shallow conversations are OK for the mind because maybe you just wanted a casual stress-free interaction with a human being you don't want to sell anything to.
I think a good alternative is to ask "Where are you from originally?" then that naturally leads to how the person got to be here and what they are spending their time doing here. The person can decide to tell their whole life story or just give a one-word answer, no pressure
As an American I find it extremely aggressive also. I have literally never heard someone say “tell me about yourself” in a normal, casual conversation.
I've been a fan of Terry Gross for years and have spent many hours enjoying her interviews, but I would not call what she does conversation. For me, conversation is a mutual thing in which two parties gradually share more of themselves. Terry's interviews are strictly one-way, and she always bristles when someone tries to make the conversation mutual. If you've listened much, you know how uncomfortable she gets when a guest asks her a question. That's just fine on the show, that's how it works, but one gets the sense that the interviewer role is her way of avoiding real connection. She's brilliant at it, and presumably it's secure for her, but there's no real relating going on, only a simulacrum. I feel like that is the secret tragedy behind the show and part of what makes it fascinating.
Yea i agree with others here. In my experience people dont do well with vague questions esp with strangers. If you were asked that you may feel intruded upon or surprised / not sure how to answer the question. Same reason this question causes so much stress for interviewees - how do you select the best points, in the right conciseness? You are wondering what the other person is interested in, and you dont know shit about them. This situation is even compounded because it’s unlikely you expect this question and you know even less about the person.
I find that a useful technique for cutting through the standard "small talk" polite answers is to ask several almost the same but slightly different questions. If people are interested in talking, they'll feel awkward responding with the same canned phrase several times, and give you some sort of hook to carry the conversation further.
In my opinion, listening to her daily, Terry's interviews are different based on whether or not she likes, or appreciates the interviewee experience. This really stuck out to me during an interview with Jay Z.
Again in my opinion, she took issue with some of the content of his music, which is understandable but felt almost encroaching. Clearly, I'm not "right" but was curious to hear if others held a similar opinion.
