Communication style. Examples from two talk show hosts

Here I analyze the behavior of two talk show hosts, and compare them with other talk show hosts.

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).

The world is getting better by the hour, and so is the way we interact with one another. In verbal communication, polemics (verbal war), argumentation (persuasion used by salespeople, politicians, and jurists) has proven to have less utility compared with reasoning - the exchange of ideas through language.

The reasoning makes room for viewpoint diversity, as well as gender and ethnic heterogeneity; in the western world, this leads to the appreciation of human value over honor.

In some cases, polemics and argumentation still thrive. Religion is one obvious area, but also among journalists, who, as the world gets better, tend to over-value negative information (The media exaggerates negative news. This distortion has consequences).

Two talk shows, using single and multiple guests, are used as examples to demonstrate communication style.

The first example is BBC's Hard talk, hosted by Stephen Sackur who uses a single guest set-up.

In-depth interviews with hard-hitting questions and sensitive topics being covered as famous personalities from all walks of life talk about the highs and lows in their lives.

Reading the description, you may get the impression that Hard Talk will be about someone visiting the program, getting some open questions, and the chance to tell their story (Who wants to watch a show where the host dominates?)

Take the interview with the Harvard professor Steven Pinker, invited to talk about his new book - Enlightenment now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (as was stated in Sackur's introduction). Thus, the show should have been about Dr Pinker's book. But Sackur is the kind of media personality who's 'hard talk' is most and foremost a monologue, that is, himself talking most of the time. The guests tend to get little time to tell their story. Approximately four minutes into the program, Sackur starts on of his infamous monologues:

Well it would seem to me that Donald Trump's politics is a politics driven by emotion, driven by an appeal to a person's gut instincts rather than their necessarily their, their, rational brain and he connects. I mean, the skill of Donald Trump is that unlike many of his political rivals he found and continues to find a way to connect with the very significant part of the American population.

This outburst, which steals 30 seconds, comes after Dr. Pinker described the vulnerability of the Enlightenment, exemplified by, in general terms, the romantic era.
Pinker's face is a fantastic manifestation of patience combined with surprise, especially as he is an expert on the stuff in Sackur's 'proclamation'.
In an act of, politeness I guess, Pinker follows Sackur's and adds some information.
Pinker gets ~30 seconds before Sackur interrupts:

But if Trump isn't an aberration is, his not, he's not, a blip, I mean he's part of a long line of politicians that while you would say, you know the last few centuries have been a triumph for science and reason, many would  say the last few century have absolutely shown us that, that the ... human species is often driven but gut instinct, by emotion, and by feelings that aren't anything to do with science and reason. This take's another 5 % of the show, leaving 90 % time for the ... interview.

Note Sackur's condescending approach, saying to Dr. Pinker: - you say, and later, 'many would say' ... 'have absolutely shown' (like in evidence?). Many?
It looks like Pinker almost is falling asleep, but that he wakes up (looking surprised) at the end of Sackur's monologue, again filling the gap. But it doesn't take more than 35 seconds before Sackur interrupts again:

But if I understand your most recent book Enlighten now correctly, you are saying we need to understand that we as human beings have never had it so good and that in terms of statistics on world hunger, on poverty, on loss of life warfare, that really things are rather wonderful on our planet today (Pinker tries say something bur Sackur just continuous), and that isn't the way many people in both the developed and developing world s actually see and experience the world, Another 30 seconds gone. 85 % remains for the a possible interview.

Pinker tries to explain, using his expertise: psychology!

Sackur (after Pinker got 27 seconds):

I mean we can't really dismiss half of all Syrians that is twelve million people
being displaced from their homes. Many hundreds of thousands of them  killed. We can't dismiss that as some sort of unimportant blip in the data. This segment to only half the time - 15 seconds.

Pinker tries to talk from his expertise, but immediately, Sackur is interrupting:

How do you measure compassion how can you  (laughing) know that we are more compassionate in this generation in the early 21st century than any other humans?

Pinker tries to explain - Yes, I do not have data on compassion (Did Sackur read the book?). Remember, Pinker is there for an interview about his book. Instead, he is being interrogated. It looks like Sackur is listening, you know, to prepare for a follow-up question (I'm joking!), Of course, he interrupts to continue his monologue:

But I come back to the point, and of course its about many, most people on this earth don't think the way you do ,partly because they're not trained in the way you been trained, but also (strange noise from Sackur), you are driven by an idea, your book is full it, big data, metadata you know, and you crunch the numbers and you take a very sort of high overview of the way the world works. Most folks don't do that. They relate to their own experience and their own perceptions (Its like Sackar it trying to teach Pinker?). I just wonder how much value there is in you telling us all that we should be more cheerful, we should be more positive and optimistic about the human condition, when (and Pinker again looks a bit surprised. Probably because Sackur's monologue continues) it doesn't match reality for most people. That took a staggering 40 seconds or 33 % of the program so far.

Pinker tries again to say something. Remember he's the guest. But of course, Sackur interrupts:

Don't you have bias too, don't you? We all do. You are the product of, you're not sure, just as I'm of mine, and and anybody else in this world watching on TV or listening on the radio is of theirs and when people today express doubt about expertise and they sometimes say, you know, you can prove almost anything with statistics they have a point don't they?

Pinker, of course, corrects Sackur, saying it is not true if you use it in an honest way. Sackur persists by asking:

Who should define honest, you know, this is one of those perpetuating spirals of arguments because in the end we all make choices. You make choices about the data you put into your number crunching computers. You decide what particular facets of the human condition to profile (Pinker tries to reply, which of course is meaningless), but Sackur continues, all subjective.

Pinker, in an honest defense, makes clear that people [who watch Sackurs show] can listen to both sides and make their own judgment. Did Sackur take notice? Probably not. Instead he monologue continues:

No question, I think that everybody would agree the data on global hunger and poverty eradication does suggest that for most people in the world, in that very material sense, things are better today than they've ever been for most people. But, if you take the most advanced society, the United States, your ideas of progress suns into real trouble because for a generation, the middle class in the united states of America has seen their living standards stagnate and in some years actually decline and there is feeling, when you look at the polls, and Americans say that by a clear majority for years they have felt their country to be on a wrong track. But in the most advanced society in the world your theory of the eternal march to progress has been thwarted. Another 45 seconds, or 40 % of the show, gone.

This is haftway through the show, and most of the time (~20 %), Stephen Sackur has proclaimed his own opinion over what should be about the guest - Steven Pinker.

Another example is a Scandinavian talk show - Skavlan. - hosted by the Norwegian radio and TV-presenter Fredrik Skavlan. Skavlan is not about 'hard talk',  but rather about entertainment, maybe in an attempt to copy the British presenter Graham Norton, where Mr. Skavlan once was in the audience. Even so, Skavlan's show has politicians and scientists on, and recently, Jordan B Peterson, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Toronto visited Skavlan. Purpose: To promote his book: 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.

Fredrik Skavlan invites you to interesting conversations with some of the world's greatest stars, artists, politicians, athletes and philosophers.

Reading the description, you may get the impression that Skavlan will be about someone visiting, getting some open questions, and the chance to tell their story (Who wants to look at a show where the host dominates?).

Fredrik Skavlan introduces Professor Peterson after applause:

... 12 rule for life. Which one do you find the hardest to follow yourself?

This is a strange start of a conversation. It is not about the book. It is about the person who wrote it.

Dr. Peterson, experienced in the art of being interviewed, takes a moment, smiles, and then answer:
- Probably the hardest one is, to tell the truth, or at least not to lie. Then continues, like Dr. Pinker, to answer in a more general way, moving away from Skavlan's polemic approach.
(Dr Peterson is an academic (teacher) worth listening to.)

That does not prevent Skavlan from continuing to point attention away from the book, but keep it on to the author - Dr. Peterson:

Do you sometimes avoid telling the truth just to be kind?

Peterson, who probably is convinced that he will not be allowed to talk about the content of the book, takes the chance to give a brief lecture about psychotherapy (his profession).

Skavlan continues:

You, you talked, you talked sometimes about weak man. Why are weak men such a problem?

Dr. Peterson corrects Skavlan, says it's about humans, then continues to talk about the part of humans called men ...

Skavlan:

Don't you never see that showing weakness can be a strength to?

Dr. Peterson: Not Weakness, vulnerability, that's a whole different thing. Admit to the fact you are vulnerable, that's a form of courage  - not a form of weakness ...

Skavlan:
Why do you think so many men are following you because you have a lot of ...

Dr. Peterson: Because I want what was is best for them ...

Skavlan:

more than for young women (note that Skavlan was the one who framed his question using 'men' but not women.)

Dr. Peterson: No, no ....

Then Skavlan interrupts:

Why do you think so many (many seem to be a popular word among journalists) are young men ...

Dr. Peterson: I think it's a technological fluke ... it happens to be that 80 % of the people watching youtube are young men ... Peterson continues saying that there is some pernicious about male competence and activity, it's part of a, I suppose it's, part of the notion that the best way to characterize Western society is as an tyrannical patriarchy, which is an appalling doctrine as far as I'm concerned.

Skavlan:

How come is that (a relevant open-oriented follow up would be: please develop!)

Dr. Peterson describes the obvious by rejecting the proposition of tyrannical patriarchy, then deconstructing the concept and stating that it's neither tyrannical nor patriarchy unless you believe that women haven't contributed ...

Skavlan (who didn't listen, or, didn't understood) continues:

What you are doing and doing now as well is, is challenging the, the idea of gender equality that is very important in, in, in, Scandinavia. I think it's, it's, as you probably know. Why do you think that, that, can be a problem? (Note that this is a description made be Skavlan himself, suggesting he should be the one explaining why it is a problem. Dr Peterson facial expression during Mr Skavlans maneuver is interesting.)

Dr. Peterson, who is assigned to answer something made up by Skalvan, is doing his best:

I don't think that equality of opportunity is a problem. I think that's a great and that anyone with any sense champions equality of opportunity. I mean, even if you're purely selfish, say, and purely self-centered you'd would set up an economy where everyone who had ability could be maximally exploited by everyone else, because then we can all benefit from each other's talents, and so equality of opportunity is absolutely useful fundamental principal (Skavlan tries to interrupt), but that has nothing to do with equality of outcome. Those things aren't even in the same conceptual universe. And to strive for equality of outcome it's a fools game, and likely to be extraordinarily .. .it has proved to be in the past, extraordinarily dangerous as well as impossible, so, I mean, one of the things we know for example is, I don't know to what degree it's common knowledge in Scandinavia, but the biggest differences between men and women in the world in terms of temperament and interest are in Scandinavia. And they maximized as a consequence of the egalitarian policies.

Read this: Why Aren’t There More Women in Science and Technology?

Skavlan (Who obviously have n't understood the content of what Dr Peterson just said) interrupts:

What do you mean by that?  

Dr. Peterson: It means that the more egalitarian your state, the bigger the personality differences between men and women. That is like...

Skavlan:

How do you measure that, how do you know that (this same question was given/stated to Dr. Pinker (see above) by Mr. Sackur)? (His facial expression is, from my point of view, close to disgust).

Dr. Peterson:

Oh well, psychologists have perfected at least to some degree, the measure of personality, over the last thirty years, with very advanced statistical models and so what you do is you offer men and women well validated tests of preference and of personality and you do that all across the world with tens of thousands of people in multi-country samples, and then you look at the difference between men and women and you rank order that by wealth and egalitarian social policy. And what you find is, the more egalitarian the society the more different the men and women become.

Skavlan (who has not yet accepted this simple fact), turns to another guest for support for his view (laughing) - Annie Lööf, leader of Swedish Centerpartiet, with the prospect to become Sweden's first female Prime minister.

The normal would have been to ask the politician about her opinion, because politics is about opinions, and ask the prominent professor if that is consistent or not with science. But Skalvan is doing the opposite, putting power over knowledge which basically is honor culture.

Skavlan's approach is equally disturbing as Sackur's approach above. Moreover, even though they apply different styles, the result is thus the same (compare Dr. Peterson's description of opportunity and outcome above). There is no interview or conversation, were the host states open questions to the guest, who then gets the change tell their story.

Lööf, who probably did not understand, or refused to accept, what Dr. Peterson just said, immediately gets into the role of the politician:
I would say that for me it's quite a simple question actually.

This is how you argue when with an argumentative approach  - trying to convince others that you opinion the correct one.

Lööf: -Do we want that our sons and daughters should have the same 'opportunity' (using Dr. Peterson's argument in her argumentation), and the same ... dreams or in hopes of the good thing or, no, for me it is simple to answer that. It is yes of course! So for me, equality and gender equality (turning to equality of outcome), is very, very important for me (Dr. Peterson's facial expression is interestingly calm). Also when we talk about gender equality (looking at the ceiling), is important to learn my daughter (looking at Skavlan), that her mom can lead and show the way and her dad can hug and kiss her and show feelings, and I think that's something very important for them, the hoots (probably meaning hoods) where they grove up to show feelings to these gender equality discussions, to show her a way of opportunities and to (Skavlan now looks as if he is very interested) strive forward and, its important both lonely men, lonely young men but also for women [not lonely though] that feel this roof of glass (ceiling, the roof in on the outside). They need to, to fight and struggle the roof of glass yeah - to be successful in their lives.

Skavlan, who obviously must have understood that Lööf's speech was opposite to Dr. Peterson's, turns to Peterson:

Do you agree on this? (One might wonder why a politician should validate a statement from an expert?)

Dr Peterson: I think that equality of opportunity is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I mean, I have a daughter and a wife and I do everything I have had many many female clients whom I've consulted and helped, and in many cases accelerated the development of their career, tremendously. it's obviously of great utility to encourage forward striving in young people, and people in general ...

Skavlan (who gets back to the topic of interest):

Why do you think the outcome and these countries where the outcome is more equal, why do you think that leads to a bigger differences between ...

Dr. Peterson: Because there are only two reasons that men and women differ. One is cultural and the other is biological, and if you minimize the cultural differences, you maximize the biological differences. (Annie Lööfs facial expression is disgust, meaning she's not accepting what Dr. Peterson is saying, meaning she rejects scientific facts. remember, Lööf maybe Sweden's first female Prime minister).
So, I know every one shocked when they hear this. This is not shocking news. People have known this in the scientific community for at least 25 years. And it has been replicated in the last month three times in three separate samples including in Science, which is the world's greatest scientific journal by a large margin (during Dr. Peterson's presentation, Skavlan has a smirk on his face.)

Read this: Why Aren’t There More Women in Science and Technology?

Being a talk show host may be one important power institutions. You get to meet important people, and also intelligent people. However most important: you get an audience, and with millions of viewers you may be overconfident (Daniel Kahneman: ‘What would I eliminate if I had a magic wand? Overconfidence’).

As the world is getting better by the hour, journalists should follow that trend to report on the good stuff, or at least, suppress polemics and argumentation in favor of reasoning.
But the paradox is that people, in general, are yearning for disaster, a phenomenon called Prevalence-induced concept change.
Even so, a talk show host should apply the principle: facts first.

Facts. There is now a glass ceiling (and sorry Annie Lööf, the roof is one the outside). It's a fictitious conception made up by people who obey 'equality of outcome' which is a fool's game. Instead, politicians en masse should accept the concept of equality of opportunity.
Talk show hosts should train to apply reason - exchange of idea thru language, as well as to use open questions.
'Many says' does not outperform facts and figures (Both Sackur and Skavlan used many in their 'interviewing').
If you have a guest: state open questions and let the guest talk most of the time.

An interesting contrast is to see these professors, Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson, being interviewed by hosts using a less hostile approach.

Dave Rubin interviewing Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson.

Joe Rogan interviewing Steven Pinker and Jordan Peterson.

Here, Fredrik Skavlan visiting another polite talk show host - Graham Norton - pretending to be Swedish!?

Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).