What an annoying reporter doing the interview. Ask an open-ended question and let him talk about it, don't constantly interrupt him and put words into his mouth...
It might interest you to know that this is how women generally talk amongst themselves (not to other men). It's a skill and the Woz seems to be great at it. I feel he actually pushed the interviewer into this mode when he upped the emotional content to a very high level (not sticking to the usual male platitudes) and she was quite caught up by it. It was a moment of human connection. And I thoroughly enjoyed it too. Possibly most women would say this was an exciting interview and that a normal question answer thing would sound dull and boring to them in comparison.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the woman in the video felt a physical attraction to Woz and also felt a need to touch/hold him just to release the pressure of the emotions they were generating. I felt that too.
It was excruciating to listen to the interviewer's little interjections. These little affirmations are what you're supposedly "supposed to do" in conversation, but boy does it sound _awful_ for an interview.
It was eye opening for me in this regard as well - know your setting.
I thought the questions were great, and I suspect you're being a little sexist and ageist. Sexist in that if Charlie Rose asked exactly the same questions with his Charlie Rose manner, you wouldn't be as upset, and ageist in that the interviewer was clearly quite young. Woz is a lifelong teacher, and is as dedicated to supporting young people learn as anyone, and you're here shitting on their work. She's not Oprah yet, because she's not 40 yet.
My hunch is that you are all objecting, in part, to the fact that a woman is interjecting and according to our cultural norms, women aren't supposed to do that. If a man was doing it, you'd care less. It's a hunch based on 30 years of listening to people, and I'm hopeful you or someone will take this suggestion seriously, although if history is any guide you'll interpret this as a personal attack, go into defense mode and deny any wrongdoing. Fun times.
Also worth noting is that neither TechCrunch nor C|net gave credit to this woman for doing the interview. That's great journalism there, fellas.
Sorry, you couldn't be further from the truth. I was objecting to her because she was bad, not because she's a young woman.
Also, as to the whole "taking it seriously" part: please don't confuse genuine disagreement (I think you're very, very wrong) with prejudice. I don't take your comment as a personal attack, but rather as grossly misguided. I'm not offended by the labels of sexism and ageism, principally because I think they have no merit.
There're plenty of young women who could have done a great job in this interview; she is not one of them.
Thanks for your reply. Like I said, all I have is my suspicions. I don't claim to know the truth. I don't think any of us really does.
However, when you say "you couldn't be further from the truth", is that the result of you rewatching the video, while considering the possibility that you might, in part, as I qualified from the beginning, be seeing her differently than you'd see a man? Or is it the result of your immediate reaction, because of your uninterruptable certainty that you surely would never do something so sexist?
Just curious. If you've genuinely considered the possibility, that's all I can reasonably ask. For my part, I'm happy to have raised my suspicion, even though HN obviously thinks quite lowly of this line of thought.
Man up and own your words. You went on for several paragraphs calling hkmurakami out for sexism and ageism, yet you now backpedal and claim not to know the truth and that nobody does. If you really believed that you would not have posted your original reply since you wouldn't have known the truth about what hkmurakami was thinking.
And I stand by it. Feel free to email me if you want to discuss further (erik@snowedin.net) but I'm backpedaling on nothing. And all three of them of course were thinking totally innocent thoughts. Sexism is rarely conscious these days.
Isn't it best to judge someone not on the color of their skin or what they have in their pants, but by the quality of their work? If their work (in this case, an interview) is bad, then it's bad. It doesn't matter if the interviewer is 14 or 40, male or female.
A fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subject. That's why every internet argument eventually turns into a debate about the merits of some popular fanaticism, be it libertarianism, feminism, or whatever else.
I think your speculation is too contaminated with a certain view you think society as a whole has.. it's quite.. immature. Also, I'm hopeful you don't take this comment seriously, although if history is any guide, you'll interpret this as a personal attack, go into defense mode and deny and wrongdoing. Fun times.
No, I take it to heart. I can't really say any more than my suspicions. None of us will really know the truth. I'm happy with that. I just want to put my suspicions out there. Thanks for your thoughts.
I don't think they're insults, but rather statements of (possible) fact. I'm aware of my sexism, living in a sexist society; have acted sexist and will continue to be sexist. It's like someone pointing out that I have bad habits when programming. Always useful to identify points of improvement. Especially in a male-dominated industry like software development, it's always something to reflect upon.
TC has an addendum saying the woman asking the questions was just another member of the public, not a reporter. The interrupting (and misreading) of Wozniak does seem very callow.
