Marshall has noted in past episodes that he doesn't believe an interview should involve extreme pushback / argumentation and debate from the interviewer. He specifically cited AoD ep.9 with Mike Doran in which he disagreed with things the guest said, but didn't pushback at the time. Can you expand on what your interviewing philosophy is? Do you think an interview is just a place for an author / guest to get their views out? What is the role of the interviewer? Should you pushback with your own opinions or not? What's the point of having an interview if you never state your disagreements with what's being said and only agree with the guest? And if you hold your disagreements with what the guest said until after the interview, shouldn't you be doing reflective segments where you present your disagreements with what the guest said?
Been a listener since the beginning and a subscriber since subscription was available. My question: How much do you guys think about how to avoid burning out your listeners? I often surprise myself when one day I suddenly realize that I've stopped listening to a podcast that had listened to religiously for years. Then, when I force myself to pick it back up, I can't even make it through a single episode. Personally, I think I get listener fatigue when I'm no longer surprised or learning anything. It seems like this tends to happen when the hosts continually pick topics and guests that bolster whatever reoccurring agenda the host is trying to push forward. Anyways, curious how you think about this, if at all. Thanks for all the hard work! Josh from Oregon