One way polite society functions is when someone asks: “How are you?” The ‘correct’ response is to keep it brief, often with a more positive spin and higher brevity than is the case.
If you want to give tacit permission for someone to open up, follow up with, “How are you really?”1 However, even then, many won’t open up, perhaps only doing so with one person, such as their partner.2
A friend of mine runs a podcast. He had such rapport with a guest who showed high levels of vulnerability that I wondered whether they had known each other before. Curiosity got the better of me, and I enquired. Beyond a message or two in the build-up, they didn’t.
I remarked it was extraordinary that the guest revealed so much, perhaps more than they would reveal to friends or family, to someone they barely know.
One reason people don’t reveal much, even when asked twice, is not wanting to be perceived as a ‘burden.’
The dynamics of a podcast include a tacit agreement to answer all questions in good faith. Usually, the podcast guest won’t have a deep connection with the host, so the guest is unlikely to perceive being honest and open as burdening someone close to them, and it’s their ‘role’ to do so. Additionally, unlike in polite society, a nuanced answer is wanted.
The dynamics also mean it’s usually inappropriate for the podcast host to judge the guest. So, as long as the guest and host are acting in good faith, and the host isn’t attempting “gotcha journalism,” they can create an environment whereby the podcast can also function as a sort of unqualified ‘therapy’ / ‘therapy-adjacent’ session.3
The bonds formed over a chat are often unusually strong due to the speed at which the interaction ‘goes deep.’ And even if the host does judge you, you usually don’t know them, so it’s likely less painful than making one of your close friendships a bit weird or awkward through oversharing.4
Another condition that encourages guests to speak openly is a specific asymmetrical upside compared to a one-on-one with a friend or family member: Your message or story could help many people, perhaps acting as a salve for them, or spurring them into elevating their lives. This encourages some podcast guests to be more open than if it weren’t uploaded anywhere, perhaps in a ‘dose-response’ manner to the likely exposure. If you’re on a podcast that could garner a million views, you may view the opportunity as having such a high potential upside that you’re willing to be extra vulnerable and open.
However, this comes with the ever-present possibility of an asymmetrical downside of being cancelled. It’s unlikely any one-on-one conversation with a friend or family member could lead to, or resemble, the horror of the mob attacking you.
If you aim to attain the aforementioned asymmetric upside, it seems prudent to be as precise with your words as possible, as you walk a precarious, but potentially rewarding, tightrope. This walk is trickier than writing a carefully constructed article; unfortunately, a sufficiently bad brain fart could be disastrous in the current climate.5
On Joe Rogan’s episode with Coffezilla, Joe said he doesn’t tell guests what they will be covering before the long-form chat. Recurring guests may be acquaintances or friends with Joe, perhaps by ‘going deep’ on a prior podcast, accelerating the degree of closeness between them. It often is, or feels like, a chat between friends, with the difference that the mics are on, and it’s the biggest podcast globally.6
The podcast environment also allows the host to use it as a sort of ‘therapy.’ If the guest discusses things that resonate with the host, they’ll often riff on them.
This isn’t to say that all of this is necessarily good or exclusively good. The fact that this deep sharing often occurs could be a symptom of an increasingly atomised culture.
Parasocial relationships between podcast hosts and listeners and the willingness of guests to share no-holds-barred suggest a longing for more of these deep, curious, and oftentimes respectful interactions in their day-to-day lives. Is this part of the reason for the meteoric rise of podcasts? Does it indicate that these chats are largely absent from our lives, not just mainstream media? Are they partly acting as a salve to this? If so, could they also be part of the solution?
It’s probably preferable to listen to a stimulating discussion than doomscrolling, or a whole host of other activities used to distract oneself from the void. Perhaps there’s a sort of parasocial, low-resolution ‘therapy’ viewers can receive by tuning in.
Consuming podcasts could be viewed as a sort of stop-gap, providing some nourishment as you aim to develop the ability to discuss the things that stimulate you and your curiosity IRL. Perhaps consuming fewer podcasts could be viewed as progressing towards a better balance of being the hungry observer and the focused contributor, each aspect fuelling the other in an upward spiral.
Podcast guests and hosts can use the podcast vehicle to meet individuals they resonate with and perhaps have more stimulating conversations in IRL, acting as an accelerator towards a richer life.
This isn’t an issue. Having high levels of privacy is a sort of rebellion against the chronically online, oversharing zeitgeist. People have different privacy preferences, and it’s not a good idea to be fully open with everyone—most people don’t even want you to.
I’m using the word “therapy” loosely, not in a clinical sense, but a less exalted interpretation of someone feeling better due to the interaction. “Therapy-adjacent” would probably be more appropriate. I’m not saying that speaking to Joe Rogan is akin to talking to a qualified therapist. (Some suggest therapy is more affirming and less challenging/confrontational than it used to be. If this is the case, it mirrors the approach many podcast hosts follow.) Also, podcasts don’t only function as a form of ‘therapy’—many mimic a debate and can be more ‘challenging’ to one another than affirming; Jordan Peterson’s podcast, for example, is often akin to a wrestling of ideas.
A friend may even see the podcast, so it could act as an indirect, lower-stakes way of letting those close to you know more about you without an intense one-on-one where they may feel confused about what to say and how to respond.
More grace should be given to those brave enough to riff and messily explore ideas on podcasts and the like in a stream-of-consciousness manner. I explore this idea further in this article:
Joe’s podcast shows the variety of forms podcasts can take: from the more ‘therapy-adjacent’ relaxed episodes to the more in-depth, serious journalistic episodes, such as with Mike Benz. This dovetails with the article’s thesis—podcasts can sometimes function a bit like ‘therapy.’