Learning from Real Interviews

1. Introduction: Science. What is it all about technology? Or is that all about? Is it good? Or is it walk? I'm sure you've seen a ton of bad interviews and you've been annoyed by them, but maybe he couldn't quite put your finger on what exactly was wrong. Well, in this course, I'm going to review excerpts from several such annoying interviews. And I'll talk through the issues with these interviews and discuss what can be done about them if you're also interviewing someone. And I will of course, use interviews with celebrities. My name is Zachary risky. I'm a sociologist here in the Netherlands where I conduct research and teach, among other things, qualitative interviewing. In the past, I've worked for years as professional written press journalists. And overall, I've conducted hundreds of interviews. There were short and the long, they were face-to-face and remote. I talked with young and old, rich and poor and people from many walks of life in general and from different countries and cultural backgrounds. You may have seen like crash course on professional interviewing for beginners. And this is its companion course. So maybe you're a college student, dinars culture and media studies, or you're a young professional launching a YouTube or a podcast project. I always say that the next best thing to learn how to interview people than going out there is observing how others do it. So let's analyze some interviews. Or when this is not to make fun of anybody, I, everyone makes mistakes. This is only for educational purposes. 2. Interview #1: Alright, so let's jump into analyzing the interviews. The first one is an interview with Trevor Noah, the famous us talk show, late, late show host, interviewed here by Howard Stern. Howard Stern is of course, an experienced and well-known interviewer with a longstanding career. So let's see what how they handle how he handles the interview and how the interviewee reacts. We don't hear about your relationships. I know you were in a relationship for like three years, right. But you're you're pretty easily like We don't see you walking around with anyone. You keep this all very low-key. You're off the television life. Yeah. So right away, a comment that the voice of the interviewer is very good. Obviously, he has a great microphone there. If you can get one of those, it will really amplify your voice the same way. Well, of course, in your sound engineer as well. But that voice really helps if you're on a radio, if you're doing a podcast. Because it sounds nice. But I'm not, I'm not a fan of celebrity. You're not a part of the yeah. I don't see you on the Daily Mail. I don't see a big fan of Celebrity. How do you keep it all so quiet? How do you fly on the radar? Where do you meet people? I'm lucky. Okay. So the interviewer asked two questions in a row. First, he said, How do you do this? How do you keep it under wraps your relationship? And then he immediately follow this up with another question, where do you meet people? So that's a big no-no. You shouldn't do that because the interviewee will focus only on the last one. I typically on the last question. And also it's completely confuses the person you're talking to when you ask a bunch of different questions in a row. I gravitate towards real people in life. Women everywhere. Okay, so here's a big annoying thing that people sometimes do. He just interrupted him, he asked a question, Trevor started answering and he immediately Howard immediately interrupted him and pose another question, another question. So it's a bit annoying, especially when you are doing it for an audience. Because the ordinance might be interested in the answer and you are just interrupting the person and just I'm asking you your next question right away. Let's say big no-no. I would say big no-no. That's the thing is like, I think you'll ever be married. I will not opposed to it, but it's not going to happen to it. Maybe you'll come down with the work and Viola, I don t know, I can only know where I am now in life, and that's what I've learned to enjoy a poet. And when you meet a woman, you, you lay out your philosophy. So listen, I'm into, I'm open to low, which is what we should all do. Well, Yes. When we meet people, we should tell me who we are. Be honest, you don't. Why? You should have the person love you or hate you for who you are, not for who you portray yourself to be how many people go into relationships like a used car salesman? Yes. So ******** about who they are and what I love long walks on the beach. And yes, I love, I love adventure. You don't like it. Or you hate whitewater rafting. You hate adventure, you hate or leaving the house. Be honest and say, I like sitting on the couch and watching too much TV and I'm a slob. And then if somebody goes, I love that and they're being honest, you have now found true love or happens with people as you go. I'm Tom Cruise. I like hanging on the set of planes and living a good life, right? And then two years and the loves starts fading, that the infatuation starts fading. And then the person goes, you want to go outside and you look why we're always going outside and they're like, Why don't you never want to go outside and you'd like garment and then it's like you change, new change like No, you didn't change, your just weren't on. And really our guys are trained to be salesman where we're trying to seduce all the time. So, oh, I love going to tennis match. You can produce without being dishonest about who you are, who you are. What I'm trying to be honest all the time. That's what I'm trying to be looking at you. Now listen to this. That is true romance when you lose the naivety of like you just enjoy it all. That's why I'm announcing. Living together before you get married. I'm a big advocate for not living together ever even if you're married. Really. I think let me hear this. I think one of the biggest reasons people get divorced and relationships break up is because of this cohabiting ******** that we've come to believe as the way relationships are supposed to be. I'm going to recommend a relationship with Robin, cleverest person who doesn't want to live with anybody want to say. But that's what I'm saying. That's good for you. You cannot tell me that everyone was designed to guide every same way night every and that's why I'm saying our intimacy can wonder, I don t know, beautiful. And here's the next. Another interruption. Really traveled was onto something interesting. And the interviewer may be interested in his own question. Cut him off. And we didn't hear the rest of his answer of Trevor's answer. Big no-no. Try not to do that. It's annoying. And the worst part is that the question, the answer to the question that he did ask was bad. It was boring, so I don't know, that was the answer. So we could have gotten a much better and much more interesting answer if I've traveled, wasn't interrupted. Okay. 3. Interview #2: Okay, For the second interview, let's watch an interview with Elon Musk by Chris Anderson, had of dead. He is a journalist in the past, journalists turned businessman and entrepreneur. And I mean Chris Anderson with that. But let's see how he interviews Elon Musk and what kind of conversation they have. Wants to switch now to think a bit about artificial intelligence, I'm curious about your timelines and how you predict and how come some things are so amazingly on the money and some art when it comes to predicting sales of Tesla vehicles, for example. I mean, you kinda been amazing. I think in 2014 when Tesla had sold that year 60 thousand cars. You said 2020, I think we will do 0.5 million a year. It's exactly half million five years ago. Last time you came to town, I asked you about full self-driving and you say, Yep, this very year, I am confident that we will have a car going from LA to New York without any intervention. Yeah. Alright, so this guy, obviously he's in a professional interviewer working at, despite his a bit of an annoying enthusiasm for speaking with Elon Musk, he's doing a great job introducing or starting the interview. So he's really making eye contact, is nowhere is doing. He's confident. He's speaking fluently as as as if it's a normal conversation and he does make it a normal conversation, he is in the control, but he's not speaking way too long. So that's the perfect amount of introductory statement before he gets to his first question. So that's great. Maybe a bit too much a flattering remarks, but that's just, that's just me. I don't want to blow your mind, but I'm not always right toward the top. One. Example of an arrogant interviewee. And this guy deals with it. Well, it could be more critical, he could be more teasing a little bit here. I think he placed too much along with his arrogance here as to why, why, why has full self-driving and particular been so hard to predict? I mean, the thing that really got me and I think he's gonna get a lot of other people is that there are just so many false dawns with a self-driving where you think, you think you've got the problem, have a handle on the problem, and then it nope, it turns out you just hit a ceiling. And because what if you were to plot the progress? The progress looks like a log curve. So it's like a series of luck curves. So obvious I suppose, but it shows how it goes. It goes up sort of a sort of a fairly straight way and then it starts tailing off, right? Props to the interviewer here for finding quickly solution to a problem. He says, show it with your hands. Instead of making Elon Musk, explain about logarithms and stuff. He just says, Show me your hands and works here at IU start and there's a kind of sharing diminishing returns. In retrospect they seem obvious, but in order to solve for self-driving properly, you actually just have to solve real-world AI. Because he said like, What are the road networks designed to work with? They're designed to work with a biological neural net to our brains, and with vision, our eyes. And so in order to make it work with computers, you basically need to solve real-world AI envision. Because, because we need, we need cameras and silicon neural nets in order to have a self-driving work for a system that was designed for eyes and biological neural nets. I guess when you put it that way, it's quite obvious that the only way to solve for self-driving is to solve real-world ai and sophisticated vision. What do you feel about the current architecture? Do you think you have an architecture now wet, where there is a chance for the logarithmic curve not to tell R for any anytime soon. Well, I mean, so notice here that there's the interviewer has his questions. He kept comes up with his questions on the fly. Or at least it seems this way. So key keeps this a conversation. So probably he has his questions somewhere on the notepad or his phone or wherever. But its promise to him that he comes up with them without breaking eye contact and just as if it's part of a normal conversation. This may be an infamous last words, but I actually am confident that we will solve it this year. That we will exceed the probability of an accident. What points do you exceed that of the average person, right? I think we will exceed that this year. Where you could be here talking again in a year it's like, well, yeah, another year went by and it didn't happen. But I think I think this is the year. Is there an element that you actually deliberately make aggressive prediction timelines too? Dr. People to be ambitious. Without that, nothing gets stopped. So it feels like it's okay. So this was not a question and this was pure flat-out, flattering. And the only thing that's Elon Musk could do it just to, not, of course, yes, I'm a genius indeed. So I would try to avoid that kind of flattering. Unless I'm doing an investigative TV program in that I am trying to expose maybe a corrupt politician or, or some, somebody who, who I want to tease out information from. So I want to first to suspend their guards. I want to lower their guards with a bit of flattery in the beginning so that they are more at ease to answer my more critical questions or yeah, or at least they are a bit less guarded against tricky questions. But normally, otherwise, in all other situations, I would probably not resort to these kind of unnecessary flattering. Some point in the last year, seeing the progress on understanding the AI, the Tesla AI, understanding the world around it led to a kind of an aha moment. It has because you already surprise people recently when you said, probably the most important product development going on at Tesla this year, is this robot optimists? Yes. Is it something that happened in the development of force AB driving that gave you the confidence to say, you know what, we could do, something special here. Yeah, exactly. So alright, So I'm beginning to think that this is kind of a, mostly, mostly a PR for Elon Musk. Maybe he paid for it for the whole thing. Because the interviewer is completely uncritical up till this point. And in this question, he really, in this question here really leads him. Lets the interviewee the question. So how is this, what happened? Is this like the, the thing that made you create this whatever beautiful thing or majors, maybe it made you start to develop this brilliant special idea. Here. Elon Musk readily says, Yeah, this is actually exactly what, what's, what's, what's this all interviewer makes me think this was more of a PR stunt than genuine and interview, which makes sense. This is not an investigative network or whatever. Or critical journalism is literally to showcase cool stuff. So I guess here this is the setting then it serves the purpose. For this line of questioning serves a purpose. It took me a while to sort of realize is that in order to solve self-driving, you really needed to solve real-world AI. The point at which you solve real-world ai for a car which is really a robot on four wheels. You can then generalize that to a robot on legs as well. The thing that the things that are currently missing are enough intelligence and other talent intelligence for the robot to navigate through a world that do useful things without being explicitly instructed. The missing things are basically real-world intelligence and scaling up, manufacturing. Those are two things that Tesla is very good at. And so then we basically just need to design the specialized actuators and sensors that are needed for humanoid robot. People have no idea this is going to be bigger than the car. I mean, I think the first applications you've mentioned are probably going to be manufacturing, but eventually the vision is to, to have these available for people at home. If you had a robot that really understood the 3D architecture of your house and knew where every object in that house was always supposed to be and could recognize all those objects. I mean, that's kind of amazing. Is that like, like that the kind of thing that you could ask a robot to do would be what? Tidy up. Yeah, absolutely. Make make dinner, I guess, mow the lawn, take take a cup of tea to grandma and show her family pictures? Exactly. It. Take care of my grandmother and make sure Yeah, exactly. Okay. So I'm expecting or at least I'm hoping that his next question would be, well, what about the privacy aspects of this robot? What about asking more of more critical questions? So far, he is very, as I said, he's very playing. What's the, what's the term singing into the fluid? Into a mosque solute. So he's being very supportive of the interviewee. And it makes sense because you want to make them comfortable. But you would also, when, when interviewing people with such power Like Elon Musk, you also want to be critical about the products, about their activities because there have been a lot of, if you are a good interviewer, you've done your homework and you know that there are many questions rising surrounding Elon Musk and Tesla and SpaceX and all other businesses that he's running. And also he is he's a public figure. So normally I would expect more critical questions in a good interview over a powerful person such as Elon Musk. But again, within the setting of Ted, It's probably not gonna happen. So I'm not holding my breath. Or you could recognize obviously recognize everyone in the home. Could play catch with your kids? Yes. I mean, obviously we need to be careful that this doesn't become dystopian situation. Like I think one of the things that's going to be important just to have localized ROM chip on the robot that cannot be updated over the air. So he's bringing it up for himself. Okay. Fair enough. But that's I don't think that was the intention of the interviewer. Well, let's see. Because it is a good technique when you're being provocative without actually voicing the question. So it's interesting when you are yeah, influencing the interviewee in such a way, in indirect way. But I kind of doubt that this is what this guy was doing. But yeah, let's see what happens next. Where if you, for example, were to say stop, stop, stop that. If anyone said that, then the robot would stop type of thing. And that's not updateable remotely. I think it's gonna be important to have safety features like that. Yeah. That sounds wise. And I do think there should be a regulatory gray. Yeah, absolutely. I see. So he was a bit of guard. The interviewer was caught off guard by the reaction of the interviewee. Note the reaction of the audience. So this is, this is recorded. So they are not aware of the audience, of course. And this really shows the, how you can be enveloped into the discussion where you're having with the interviewee. And from the outside, it could look very different than what you are, You two are expecting. For video interviews, it's especially important to keep track to be, not be only in your head when you're doing the interview. When you have, when you're doing a video interview, you need to keep in mind that the actual, the end result is not what you are going to proceed from the interview. Maybe you write it up later in written form, but actually what the audience sees later on. So many years, I don't love being regulated, but I think this is an important thing for public safety. Do you think that will be basically like safe to say 2050 or whatever, like a robot in most homes, this is what they will be on people. Well, I think the problem with them and count on them. You have your own Butler basically. Yeah, you'll have your sort of body robot? Probably. Yeah. Alright. See the interviewee now he's holding his hands. That means he's withdrawing a little bit from the conversation so the topic is uncomfortable for him. This means or he wants to hide something. Usually this is what it means. It's unlikely that he's feeling cold here. Probably, Probably not. So I'm wondering what the next steps of this interviewer will be. What kind of questions is he going to ask next to bring back the interviewee to the into the conversation. So what I would do is probably ask a very different kind of question or to change the subject. Or two. You know, to just your behave more warm. I mean, he's quite warm this guy, the interviewer, but maybe his line of questioning is now really not something that's enjoys. So he could try to become even more warm for, for this next question. So let's see what happens. I mean, how much would you like to have having that patients who thought is that can you have a romantic partner, sex part? I did promise the Internet that are red cat girls who could make a robot cargo into that. Here I think what happened is that the interviewer didn't quite understand what Elon was talking about. I also I also have a little bit lost with his whole thing about the cats. But what the interviewer did was he didn't lose rapport with the interviewee. Because of that. She just set a general common which would still be relevant to what he's saying. So he said that be careful what you promised the Internet. That's good. Yeah. I guess it'll be worth whatever if you want really. What's sort of timeline should we be thinking about enough? The first, the first models that are actually made and sold. Well, the first units that we intend to make art for jobs that are dangerous, boring, repetitive, and things that people don't wanna do. And I think we'll have like an interesting prototype sometime this year. We might have something useful next year, but I think quite likely within at least two years. And then we'll see rapid growth year over year of the usefulness of the humanoid robots. And decrease in cost and skin scaling up production helped me on the economics of this. So what do you picture the customer these being? Well, I think the cost is actually not going to be crazy high, like less than a car. But thinking about the economics of this, if you can replace a $30,000.40 thousand dollars a year worker, which you have to pay every year with a onetime payment of $25 thousand for a robot that can work longer hours. It doesn't go on vacation. In that there could be a pretty rapid replacement of certain types of jobs. How worried should be about that? I wouldn't worry about the okay, So he leads the viewer managed to regain their rapport with Elon Musk. Good for him. And yeah. That's sort of putting people out of a job thing. I think we're actually going to have an already do have a massive shortage of labor. So I think we will have NOT, NOT people out of work, but actually still a shortage labor even in the future. But this really won't be a world of abundance. Any goods and services will be available to anyone who wants them. It'll be so cheap to have goods and services will be ridiculous. So this is the end. I do think. Well, the report, their rapport was rediscovered among these two. So the interviewer did his job quite well. I still think it's, it's more of a advertisement for Tesla and Elon Musk than anything else. 4. Interview #3: This is Krishnan Murthy interviewing Quentin Tarantino in 2013. So this is the controversial interviewer who famously outraged or made to Robert Downey Junior Film outrage during an interview. But I think actually my real reason, I've always wanted to explore slavery, but I guess the reason that, that actually made me put pen to paper was to give black American males, a western hero, give them a cool folkloric hero that could actually be empowering and actually payback blood for blood. That's the revenge bits. Is that essential? Well, well, well, in the case of, in the case of laying waste to a genocidal white racist class and the institution of slavery. Yes, that would be the reason to do it, as opposed to just a historical story where this happens, then this happens, then this happens, then this happens, and that happens. So you can't be surprised by the controversy that's come along with it when you can, I don't think you can actually make a movie about slavery in America that it's not going to be controversial or you've already disappointed by some of the reactions slightly as well. I couldn't be happier with the reaction to this movie. It's been fantastic. Good publicity, I suppose. It's true, creating a nice debate, even though the people who don't like the film, alright, are actually work. I am responsible for people talking about slavery in America in a way that they have not and in 30 years. But you must care very deeply that this doesn't become a film that stands out from the rest of your body of work as one that is trashed by more people or anything? It's not trashed by more people. Yeah. What you're saying, isn't that correct? I'm not saying it is. I'm saying Are you concerned? I mean, I'm talking about the movie right now. You're talking about, I'm talking about there is actually a dialogue going on about slavery right now that has not been happening at all. It's a subject people are afraid to talk about. Now because of this movie, people aren't afraid to talk about it. People are talking about it. Somebody likes the movie and they write a review on this. Especially in a world right now where you actually have the Internet, were actually, anybody can actually now speak publicly, which was not the case before. So it's very fortunate when interviewee is very talkative because unlike the previous one, like Elon Musk, they have a lot to say and then you need, don't need to tease out as much or spend as much energy teasing out information from them. So that the other side, of course, is when they are too talkative and then you need to steer them back to the question or back to the topic that you're interested in. Now somebody actually writes a review for the movie and they like it. Then you read the comments sections and some people who don't like it attack them and say they're saying somebody who doesn't like the movie writes a blog about it and the people who liked the movie hold them to task in the comments section, that's an actual dialogue. Let me ask you about violence. I mean, you said Everyone knows you make violent movies. You like violent movie. Why do you like making violent movies? So it's like asking jotted epitope, why do you like making comedy? You just get a kick out of it or you just enjoy it. I think it's okay. So this was a bit of borderline question. Borderline question where the interviewer is provocative to the point of well, threatening to annoy the interviewee, especially if it's a celebrity. I think. I think it's good cinema. I consider a good cinema. You sit there and you sit there in a movie theater when these cathartic violence scenes happened. I'm talking about the cathartic violence scenes. I'm not talking about there's two types of violence in this movie. There's the, there's the brutality of the violence in the day put upon the slaves during the time that there's any rape going on in the movie, alright? But there's, there's brutality to the slaves that hasn't been dealt with in America to the extent that I deal with it. And I'm showing you that there was 5. Interview #4: Alright, And for the last interview to analyze, let's watch and 1997 interview of the British Home, Home Office Minister Michael Howard. Interviewed here by the famous interviewer, Jeremy Pac-Man, famous British interviewer. He's still going. This was on BBC. And let's see how it went. That's pretty famous one. So I'm very sympathetic to you though. Well, not necessarily at all. I have no idea who they came from. If you've looked at the article as a whole, it's not a particularly sympathetic piece. Would you agree that such stories are cheap and nasty and bring shame on anyone who spreads them. I didn't think we should be wasting anybody's time talking about stories like that. I don't think they should ever have appeared in the public prints. I didn't think we should waste our time talking about them. There are serious issues to be discussed since they've been raised about the dismissal of Derek Louis as head of the prison service. A decision which I had to take in the light of an independent report not mentioned in your introduction, which came to the conclusion that there were inexcusable weaknesses in the management of the prison service from top to bottom. Why did you ball out and would account for sending flowers in it, what she calls a Christian gesture to Mrs. Lewis. So this BBC interview is kind of has a confrontational feel to it. It can also be seen even in the positioning of the actors speaking here opposite each other and the very conversational tone of the interviewer and kind of a defensive tone of the guests. There. He is very confident, but he's still different. Mau sounds defensive. So let's see what happens next. I didn't as she indeed has just confirmed, she said You are extremely she said I didn't call her up. She said she objected to the words ball out, but she said You were extremely agitated about it. I thought it was an inappropriate thing to do given that I had just dismissed Mrs. Lewis's husband, but I hope we're not going to spend this week talking about flowers and things like that. Mr. Howard, have you ever lied in any public statement? Certainly not. You have to be impressed by the British interviewing style. And this is from the 90's. Apparently. I wish we had more of that today. Say direct. It's really puts the person, the politician here on the edge of their seats for sure. So normally you, unless you have your questioning and official or some sort of a politician, you don't want to create a confrontation conversational setting. Also, especially with the question, with the style of your questioning. Unless you really want, in a normal interview, you want to you want to that injury to be more of a conversation than, than, than this. Of course, as I said before, reading in the previous example, this is a particular setting targeted towards particular audience. I guess it's a political show here. And it really is grilling. So as the Home Secretary Howard from the UK in the 1997, let's see what happens next. I gave a very full account of the dismissal of Derek Louis to the House of Commons Select Committee. And the House of Commons itself, in a debate that took place, there can have been few decisions that have been subjected to more close and minute scrutiny in recent years than that decision. It was a decision that it was necessary for me to take after terrorists had escaped from white, more other dangerous prisoners had escaped from Parkhurst. An independent reported found that there were serious weaknesses in the management of the prison service from top to bottom. Is there anything you would wish to change about your statement to the House of Commons or any other public statements you made about this matter? No. Nothing. No. I gave a full account of what had happened in relation to my decision. Right. Can you help us with this then? You stated in your statement that the leader of the opposition had said that I that is you personally tell Mr. Lewis, the governor of Parker, should be suspended immediately that where Mr. Lewis objected As it was an operational matter, how threatened to instruct him to do it? Derek Lewis says Howard had certainly told me that the governor of Parker should be suspended and had threatened to overrule me. Are you saying Mr. Lewis's life? I have given a full account of this and the position is what I tell the House of Commons. And let me tell you what the position you are saying that Mr. Lewis, Let me tell you exactly what the position is. I was entitled to be consulted. Yes. And I was consulted. I was entitled to express an opinion. I did express an opinion. I was not entitled to instruct Derek Louis what to do and I did not instruct him what to do. And you will understand and recall that Mr. Marriott was not suspended, he was moved. And Derek Lewis total the Select Committee of the House of Commons, that it was his opinion, Derek Lewis is opinion that he should be removed immediately. That is what happened. Mr. Lewis says I that is MR. Lewis told him what we had decided about Marriott and why he that is you exploded simply moving the governor was politically unpalatable. It sounded indecisive. It would be seen as a fudge if I did not change my mind and suspend Marriott, he would have to consider overruling me. Mr. Marion both be right. Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I was entitled to express my views. I was entitled to be consulted, to threaten to it. I was not entitled to instruct Derek Lewis and I did not instruct him to overrule the truth of the matter is that Mr. Marriott was not suspended. I did not have overruled him. I did not overruled. Derek, you threaten to overrule. I took advice on what I could or could not do fresh and die. Overruled him, Mr. Loosely, in accordance with that advice, I did not have a rule that you address into the Marriott was not suspended, threatened to overrule him. I have accounted. Okay. So this interview is really persistent, busy. I think everybody should do that. So I want to be honest with you guys. But addition to that, for my decision to dismiss Derek Lewis did use aggression to roll him detail before the House of Commons. You're not answering the question whether you threatened to overrule the important aspect of this, which it's very clear to bear in mind. I'm sorry, I'm gonna be rightfully rude, but yes. Sorry. Isn't quite right. If you threaten to overrule him. I discussed this matter with Derek Louis. I gave him the benefit of my opinion. I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language, but I did not instruct him because I was not entitled to instruct him. I was entitled to express my opinion, and that is what I did with respect that is not answering the question of whether you threatened to overrule him. It's dealing with the relevant point, which is what I was entitled to do and what I was not entitled to do. And I have dealt with this in detail before the House of Commons and before the select committee. With respect, you haven't answered the question whether you threaten to overrule them. Well, you see, this is really getting ridiculous. But when you are in such a situation at being an interviewer, I think you should I think he's doing everything, correct. I think you should not back down and continue questioning, especially if it's a, such a public figure and it's a question of public importance. So this is really delving into the journalistic site of interviewing. Here. The question is, what was I entitled to do and what was I not entitled to do? I was not entitled to instruct him and I did not do that. Right. 6. Wrap-up and PROJECT!: This concludes the course on learning from real interviews, a companion course for the crash course for professional interviewing for beginners, which again find here on Skillshare. By now you have a better idea how to tell a bad interview from a good one and how to identify issues with how the interview is going. Now, I would like to ask you to watch or listen to any interview of at least ten minutes long with one interviewee. I'd like to ask you to be critical about what the interviewer does well and where there are shortcomings. So Write a short report describing this and write down the reasons for these issues, as well as what could be improved about this interview. So looking forward to read the reports and wish you success with interviewing.