If you don't want to give an answer it's very easy to demur in a polite and conversationally enjoyable way. All of the conventional advice on getting people to like you emphasizes getting people to talk about themselves.
I'm a little astounded that so many find such an inquiry so abnormal.
Also, results are not all that matters; you can be a critic of the methods even if they bring the desired outcome.
I think if you define interviewing in the strictest sense, then sure. But personally I find this all pretty applicable. I do far better in conversation (with strangers) when I apply most of this. One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given was "nobody cares about you, but everyone loves speaking about themselves". If you can get someone to open up and _start_ talking, and you are genuinely curious without seemingly like you're looking for an opportunity to talk about yourself, in my experience that person goes away with a generally positive opinion of you.
I suppose you could also argue that any conversation with someone new IS an interview - be it date, work, new friend. Ultimately you're checking as to whether you want a second encounter with that person, right?
Asking about work seems to define the direction of the conversation, and some people don't work, which makes it a little awkward. Everyone does _something_ so this gives whoever you're talking to an opportunity to pick what they want to talk about - "I work in marketing" or "I'm trying to get my black belt in karate". Then you just starting picking around that topic and ever so often drop in a short annecdote or story of your own (followed by another question - "has that ever happened to you?!") to keep the conversation going.
"Tell me about yourself" is something else entirely. I look forward to your description of how it goes with strangers.
Edit: by badly, I mean badly for me. I'm getting a bunch of downvotes above - obviously this is just my opinion, based on my interactions with people over the last few years.
And I know people for whom this question is really anxiety inducing.
I’ve known people who have tended to respond to that question with sarcasm or hostility. They also tend to be the most socially shut out. And then they wonder why people don’t like them. It’s one of those things where you expect society to be better but it isn’t. The choice then is either to become bitter or to redirect it into something more positive and gracious.
If one is unemployed or one doesn’t have a career a good neutral response is “I’m in transition”. Any number of creative responses will work, and will keep the conversation going. But one responds with hostility because one hates that question, one will invariably pay the social costs and may be killing potential budding friendships. I can tell you, most of the time it is not worth it. The downside is greater than the upside.
On the initiator’s part, a good alternative to it is “what keeps you busy?”
I would encourage others to avoid asking "what do you do?" As well. Ask what the person's favorite book is, their favorite trip/place, their favorite memory from childhood, etc. I promise the resulting conversation will be much more interesting and also give you a better view of the person.
I'm always disappointed when these dismissive appeal to authority ad-hominems [1] are not only posted on HN comments but voted to the very top. These types of comments take no effort and don't add any information to the discussion. Isn't HN supposed to be better than that?
Why not instead respond to the actual specific arguments people have put up in objection to Terry Gross's advice? Then the insufficiency of her experience is plain to see: She has 40+ years of experience indeed, but in a relatively narrow form of conversational interview, and commenters here are rightfully pointing out that her advice doesn't generalize.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
> "DH1. Ad Hominem. ... Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem."
>Tell me about yourself?
At best that question is a clear demonstration of lack of both and a plain vanilla diplomatic type question.
At worst it tells me this person doesn’t care and is just waiting to be asked the same question to rattle off their prerehearsed answer which will no doubt incorporate some fine oneupmanship (in other words that questions tells me that person is just waiting for their time to talk).
The only proper answer to such a question: “I live off the fat of the land, how about you?” Then as they struggle to begin their prerehearsed response, excuse yourself to a more interesting conversation.
Certainly when talking to people we won’t have the same resources and ability to research the person we speak with the same way Ms. Gross has with the persons she interviews. And in the context of “talking to people” I don’t think this particular question is going to make a good reflection on the asker. If you have literally nothing else to say, then fine, but again that typically shows lack of wit and charisma. I’d recommend starting with a personal observation of the person that is clearly meaningful to the person you engage, in which you have a guinuine interest.
here's something for the "cave dwellers" to ponder: do you think maybe the tone and body language with which you say something like "tell me about yourself" mediates the effect?
As a testament to this, I usually check the comments before clicking through to an article. As a result I virtually never click through to the article -- I just end up reading all the reasons it's wrong.
Also reminds me of an anecdote. Talking with a tech VP from a telco recently, I offer an opinion to advance the discussion and his response was simply “No, that’s wrong, you’re so wrong.” Period, full stop. End of discussion, no explanation, no offer of what direction he might agree with. All that mattered was that I was wrong and that he had the right answer. Great talk.
HN is like UChicago. Cerebral, academic, rigorous and always ready to shoot down sloppy thinking.
Quora is more like Northwestern. Intelligent, emotionally savvy, and projects a sense of polish.
There is a thin line between critical and contrarian, and HN has good days and bad days.
Unfortunately, if you spend too much time in the comments then it's easy to leave with an unfair impression of a topic or author: "Gosh, {topic/author} sure is (misguided|hyperbolic|reductionist|obvious|ignorant|wrong|malicious|unnecessary), tsk tsk"
As for how to fix it, I dunno.
Sorry, couldn’t resist a jab at the HN community.