This was painful to watch but nonetheless worth it. Why was it painful? Simply due to the fact that the interviewing was so incredibly inept. This was a classic case of watching two unevenly matched people debate matters outside of the ability of one of the parties to adequately grasp. Clearly one was disciplined in logic and the other was chock full of emotions, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases. When something was said that the host didn’t like, rather than delving deeper, analyzing it with greater care, the response was to use what amounted to innuendo, slander, and false inferences to distract from the truth at hand. It was really quite sad.
Some of the best conversations that I’ve had, have been with people holding views very much opposed to mine own (Sikhs, Communists, Semi-Pelagians, etc.). However, despite our differences, we were able to speak cordially, indepthly, without falsely imputing motives, mischaracterizing meanings and intents, and otherwise acting disingenuously. The host didn’t seem to understand the concept of objectivity and thus often projected, and maligned, and redirected, whenever she didn’t like what was being said… even when what was put forth was verifiably accurate. It was at times frustrating; and yet, not only was this an interesting video to watch as it related to the topics at hand, it was also an interesting one as it related to their psycho-social interplay.