Hey David, thanks for this one. What an incredible interview! Fleshman is so amazingly thoughtful, candid, and insightful. I hadn't heard of her before, so I'm really grateful you helped me learn about her story. Since I teach and coach young boys and girls, I found this one to be especially relevant for my life.
Can I ask a weird question about interviewing? Let me know if this doesn't make sense: one thing I've noticed you do here is an example of what I've seen others do both in written and oral interviews (like a podcast). Lauren would repeatedly have amazingly long and rich answers, and my inclination would be to respond to or engage with that answer in some way that probably doesn't read very well on a newsletter ("Wow that was so reflective" or "I can't believe your dad did that" or "Thanks for sharing that really difficult memory). But you (and talented podcasters/interviewers like Derek Thompson I've seen) don't do that at all. Instead you cut through that verbal fluff and jump right to your next question. How are you able to transition that smoothly while still keep the conversation flowing normally? I imagine you have a list of questions, but I also can see that you're good enough at this to avoid the trap of just reciting them one after the next. Did that question make sense? Thanks again.
That's a really good question. And I think there are sort of two (at least) components here. First, I do exactly what you're saying in most interviews. I treat them much more like conversations than interviews, so I respond like a normal human, not jumping to the next question. But there are a few differences in some interviews, and this one is a good example. I wasn't really trying to learn from Lauren here. I've read (and blurbed) the book already, and I've known her for years. So I was just trying to get her to bring out points that she makes in the book, that I already know. In fact, you might have noticed that I quoted from the book heavily in my own questions; I'm just trying to get many interesting points from the book in both my questions and her answers. So this was more like a series of prompts for her to make interesting points that I was aware of, and less a real probe for new information. So I think that colored the interview and made it sound more sort of like bullet-point questions. Second, my newsletter posts aren't that frequent, but they do tend to be substantially longer (especially the Q&As) than the typical newsletter I'm aware of. So I worry about the length a bit (and this interview was edited down...I dropped a fun exchange about her denigrating the 800;) Because of that, I'm probably trying to keep things really tight, so less space for normal human banter. Third, and this is an important one, sometimes I'll edit out some of my own normal reactions, again for length, but in this case we did the interview via Google doc, so it actually was more formal than a live interview. And we emailed about what approach to take and so on, but the actual interview part wasn't my normal verbal back and forth. Regarding podcasts...I was a podcast host for six months at one point, and I worked on a documentary with the BBC, and one thing I learned in those arenas is that (if you want, and I generally don't) you can be a lot more bullet-point formal with questioning if you want. When people are being recorded in those ways, they just talk differently...they're trying to get their ideas out, almost. One interview subject for the BBC program was really difficult for me when doing background interviewing, and then when the lights and the camera went on, it was like suddenly he was talking in complete stories. I started to think maybe I should take a camera around everywhere. So I think podcasting and TV can often be easier in a certain way, but it's also (as this interview was) usually featuring someone who wants publicity at that moment, whether for a project or to talk about their research or some news event. When I randomly contact some scientist who has no clue why I'd be interested in their work, or some person who hasn't been in the news to tell their story, it's a whole different ballgame. In those case, I'm often with someone in person, going through their day, and I ask questions, but the large majority of what I'd say wouldn't sound anything like this interview. I'd just be trying to have a conversation, and then slow them down and go deeper on interesting points, and then later go back and fill things in. If someone I'm with in person lets me record, I'll still constantly be taking notes in a notebook, but none of it will be what they're saying, it'll be questions they're making me think of as we go. But I have had the experience in those cases of being with someone for hours, or even days, and them asking when we'd do the interview, and I'm like: "it's happening." Those are cases where I'm really trying to learn new stuff, as opposed to (like with Lauren) having just read her book and just wanting to bring out points for readers. This my all add up to the idea that I'm not as deft as Derek at going bullet-point, bullet-point. It depends on the medium, and I think both the interviewer and interviewee are more amenable to that for a podcast or a TV program. For my book interviews, honestly, I'm not even sure exactly what I'm looking for much of the time, especially early in the project. So it's all conversation, and I try to be a participant, rather than an interviewer. It takes a lot more time, which is why I often go in person, because then you can hang around longer. ...Long answer. Anything interesting there? I always enjoy these craft questions! I've been interviewed quite a few times, and you're constantly bringing new questions, which is fun for me. I've definitely never been asked this before.
...I'm back because I thought of one more thing I wanted to mention. From doing a bit of work with or around Gary Smith and Selena Roberts (both were at SI, and Gary is the only four-time national magazine award winner), I learned that they would really spend a lot of time with interviewees, and much of that was basically asking the same questioning repeatedly, maybe minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even months apart. They might word it differently, but same idea. I wouldn't have thought that would be a useful thing to do, but people do often move to deeper layers each time they're asked a similar question. So I started doing some of that myself, again when I'm not doing a Q&A like this. One thing about Gary, he was just so comfortable with himself that he'd basically move in with people he was writing about, and had no problem asking the same question over and over and over. His comfort with himself, and feeling that the experience was important for both him and the interviewee, was definitely an important part of his toolbox.
Wow what a fascinating answer. A bunch of things really struck me. First, in college, my reporter friend once mentioned something similar to me about your point on asking the same question multiple times. I agree that I didn't think this was obvious, but the proof is in the pudding. And just earlier today I just read the part of Thinking Fast & Slow where Kahneman mentions the research on radiologists and other predictors making completely different (and often contradicting) predictions when presented with the same data on two different occasions. (This book is great. Have you read it? One funny thought I've had a few times is that he's brought up evidence/anecdotes that I know from Range and other places (e.g., Tetlock and the fox/hedgehog -- this also makes me think of your response to the comment on this post about the criticism of seeing the same few anecdotes. Very generous response!). Maybe I'm biased because Kahneman doesn't take time to respond in depth to every musing I have, but honestly I think you do it better. It took him 3 whole chapters to handle predictors and I'm pretty sure you did it in just 1. But I digress...)
Thought 2: I would love to know if you took any other lessons away from being a podcast host! Did this specific medium teach you anything or surprise you in any ways? I tried to dig up your post about the lessons from editing tv/film but I couldn't find it.
Thought 3: it's interesting to hear that none of this was new for you. I'm thinking back now about different q&a's I've heard, and I'm guessing that insight explains how someone like Derek just bounces around. From my listening, I can't detect any instances of when they edit out his human response, so I'm wondering if he just pretty much knows most of what the response will be. There are moments where he will note his surprise, and I'm guessing when he doesn't do that it means he just isn't surprised. And your response makes me think that this is a lot more common than I realized.
Thought 4: your point about Gary's comfort with himself helping him do what he did reminded me of something Cal Newport wrote about Walter Isaacson's writing style in Deep Work. Apparently Isaacson is so confident in his abilities that he will take any hour at any time of the day to just flip a switch and jump in and out of writing. I've read about the habits of so many other writers who talk about their strict habits that help them write, but Newport said Isaacson was confident in himself because he knew he was capable of such great writing since his books had done so well. So this confidence freed him in a way?
I feel like I say this every time, but thank you for taking the time, thought, and energy to really dive in. I know you say you enjoy it, but still! It's things like this that make me promise to myself that I'll do the same if the day comes when someone is ever asking me for advice. You're a really good role model. In the mean time, I'll try to come up with some more original questions.
Hey Matt, I'm hoping to respond to these points in more detail, but just wanted to leave something here quickly. I was thinking about the process questions you ask, and why I enjoy them, and also why I find myself fumbling through coming up with answers. And I stumbled on this point from novelist Sheila Heti, that resonated: "...people want to know how it comes to be. The artist wants to know too, so part of the pleasure of giving a craft or process talk is trying to track for yourself how it happened."
David, the two sentences in Lauren's reply to you at the end stunned me. You made the right choice to use the first sentence as the title of your post.
"The love from success is always temporary. You have to find satisfaction with yourself on your average day."
In your last question for her, you included the reference to Alain de Botton's writing and how, for many, "great triumph doesn’t fix the deepest problem they’re grappling with."
It sounds like Lauren's self-awareness started to break through with a lap-and-a-half to go at nationals in the 5,000 when she stopped running. "I started again because I hated that voice and it didn’t match my values and I didn’t want to let it win."
That's a story that many of us can relate to.
In my life, there have been many tiny "achievements/triumphs" that I've mistakenly attached to my ego/identity. And most of the time, this helped to reinforce my problematic behavior related to my "deepest problem." It took way too long for me to become more self-aware and start making changes.
Thank you for bringing that part of her story to our attention.
Griff, I especially appreciate that comment because I definitely struggle with titles. (And I'm sure I often choose poorly.)
And you can lump me in with those of us who can relate to the story. I think there was a period where I probably felt that NOT attaching achievements to identity was silly or lazy or something like that. But, I can see now, that stunted my personal growth for a while. I hope you don't blame yourself for taking "way too long to become more self-aware." I think it's just hard, and often contrary to our intuition and a lot of environmental cues. You made me think of Dan Pink's book on regret, where he frames the purpose of regret as learning — what does it mean that I felt this way? A bit of a non sequitur, but I really enjoyed it, and it helped me ease up on myself a bit about things that I felt took too long to realize.
Thanks for the tip on Dan Pink's book with that pithy "he frames the purpose of regret as learning." I'd better read it now!
Are you aware of any famous male athletes (living or dead) who've publicly told their story of waking up from their love of success and their subsequent journey on, um, The Road to Character?
I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but first that came to mind was the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards, who has held the world record for coming up on 30 years now. His athlete identity was very much tied to his feeling that it gave him a platform to spread his religion. But once the structure of sports disappeared, he had a literal crisis of faith, and would talk about how he felt like he was someone else living a different life. By his own account, he became a much more centered person. But actually I think stories of athletes letting go of some of their deathgrip on success are kind of common if you're around them, but not so often told in books or films. Occasionally they do make some good coverage, like this: https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/06/30/si-vault-jake-plummer-retirement-handball-denver-broncos ...but usually they're happening privately. But, having been around a lot of pro athletes, I can tell you it's not an uncommon transition at all. But it is uncommon to read about it.
There's a similar in today's NYTimes about the golfer Anthony Kim -- the next Tiger Woods -- who walked away after 4 years.
The story also includes a two-paragraph mention of tennis great Bjorn Borg who retired at 26. "Basically, over the years, I was practicing, playing my matches, eating and sleeping,” he told The New York Times in 1983. “But there’s other things besides those four things.”
This is not a criticism, I enjoyed reading this interview and Lauren has done the world an incredible service by writing her book and sharing her experiences. That being said, I can't help but feel like I range narrowly despite my best efforts. As I started in on reading the discussion I immediately said - wait, didn't I just read a talk with Lauren on Emily Oster's wonderful parenting substack? Of course it fits in with both writer's field of interest and makes perfect sense, but it reminded me of the dozens of books I've read over the last few years that invariably use the same events to make their points (e.g., the Challenger Disaster, Ernest Shackleton's Trans-Antarctic Expedition). Even doing primarily long-form reading to get ideas and information, I still feel like I sometimes find myself in an information bubble.
Hey Derek, I appreciate that insight. I think of course the timing of Lauren's book means she'll be in a lot of places because people like me and Emily who are interested will have read it before it came out, and now can do an interview on it. I probably actually have a lot of overlap with Emily Oster in terms of interests, even if I'm not often pursuing some of those here. (Emily and I both blurbed the book...) But running is a big part of my life, so I'll probably find regular excuses to bring it up here. In any case, as far as famous events that come up repeatedly, I find that too. In fact, there's a specific painting I feel like I've read about a half-dozen times in books about creativity. Sometimes I mind it, but often I don't. Often I feel like hearing of an event once primes me to think about it, and then I really remember it when I get it again. But it really depends on the treatment. I think one obvious point is that, for writers: 1) those events are really interesting — the Challenger is my seminal news memory of my very early childhood — and as a writer I don't really veer away from a topic I find interesting because others have written about it, unless they really covered the angle I was interested in. 2) I think there's a balance between using obscure and super-famous events. The former require more explanation for the reader, but can be totally fresh. The latter are easier to use because they don't require nearly as much backstory for a reader to relate, but run the risk of being overdone. I'm not sure what the right balance is. If you tell me what you're interested in, I'm very happy to give some reading recommendations that I think are quite different from the things I write about;) If you use social media for reading recommendations purposes, I'd recommend dropping a person or three and replacing them every week with people you find by search topics. A few years ago I read some MIT research on how this can help counteract the filter bubble. ....Last thing I'll add: if you already read about Lauren (or whatever the topic) elsewhere, maybe just skip! You can alter the filter on your end as well. I know some people feel a strong urge to finish everything they start reading. I think reading parts of things and finding that very useful is actually a great tactic. I don't finish most books I read, and still value most of them. So I don't know if that's an issue for you, but sharing just in case.
Just wanted to say that I resonated with Derek's comment (not about this interview particularly, but the repetition of stories in general), while simultaneously loving your response, David. It's really helpful to hear a writer's perspective on when to go for the famous vs the obscure stories. As someone who reads a lot, I have found that story repetition is more topical than timing. Within the topics I read about regularly, like business and the future of work, it's astonishing how often certain stories are retold. I suspect it's because business writers feel talking about celebrity CEOs or executives at big, well-known Fortune 500 companies gives their ideas more credence. But I'll have to rethink that based on your commentary. All that said, as a reader, I really do appreciate when writers highlight the obscure. I think I've mentioned what a delight Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything was, primarily due to the surprise at encountering so many unknown but fascinating stories. Safi Bahcall's Loonshots was similar, even if I came away disagreeing with some of his conclusions (ha!). In short form pieces, the benefit may lean towards more well known stories, but in long form, I'm going to argue authors should lean the other way. Thank you both for the chance to reflect!
Jen, I think that's very well put. And Safi is a friend so I'll let him know. I actually think he'll be especially delighted with the idea that you appreciated new material even when you didn't agree. ...I should say, some of the default to big-well-known-Fortune-500-story is, I think, exactly what you say. It lends credence. I also think some of it is typical human "availability bias," it's just the story that jumps to mind, and it takes digging to find new stuff. Of course, in the best case, that digging is exactly our job! This is such an interesting discussion point, I'm glad Derek raised it and you expanded. I'm not even sure entirely what I think but many thoughts are happening;) If I reflect on my last book, it was definitely the "Roger versus Tiger" part that gets repeated back to me the most, and it's not even close. They're obviously quite famous. I guess my hope was to tell those stories in a way that illuminated an aspect that people didn't necessarily know. So maybe I could get the best of both worlds — familiarity with and interest in the characters, so I didn't have to do as much introducing, but also possibility of telling the story differently. (I guess I did that with Van Gogh too.) Gladwell does a lot of that, telling a story you recognize but giving you new eyeballs through which to see it. ...All that said, my favorite stories from my last book were probably Frances Hesselbein and the Venetian orphan musicians. Gosh, I'm starting on another book, and you've got me thinking, what will the balance be? I'm sure I'll look for some familiar stories but that I can do the "provide you with new eyeballs" approach, but also look for obscure stuff. The obscure stuff is the most fun for me. ...Last thing: Gary Smith was a writer at Sports Illustrated who is the only person to have won the National Magazine Award four times. He would do these incredibly in-depth psychological profiles of sports figures. (And he only wrote four articles a year.) As it became harder to get that kind of sustained access to really famous people, he shifted to more obscure figures. I thought those were some of his most interesting stories, but they certainly didn't spread out in the world the same way. But people who loved them REALLY loved them. I'm not sure what the right recipe is here, but I do think we writers should be looking to bring attention to worthy stories that aren't well known. I'm going to think more about this...
Ah, but telling a familiar story with an entirely new perspective is not just the best of both worlds, it is THE BEST! Gladwell's retelling of David & Goliath is my favorite example of that--just masterful. Alex Hutchinson's book Endure, which I read on your recommendation, does that as well (like with the Shackleton story). I think your retelling of Roger vs Tiger also threaded that needle well. As I think about it, what nails a book for me is a feeling of surprise--that can be from a new perspective or a new character/story, and I'm not sure it matters which one it is. So perhaps the rubric is: how much surprise does this story/book elicit for the well-read reader? Related to this, I shared with my Facebook friends recently the observation that I was quitting more nonfiction books than ever before and I couldn't quite put my finger on the reason why. Turns out I'm not alone. We had a rousing discussion on the topic, but the general conclusions were: nonfiction books increasingly felt like a slog to get through, either due to too much prescription or too much of a sales pitch for a singular idea. But as we're talking about this, I wonder if it just felt too much like work and not enough like a delightful surprise? I wonder if book authors aren't going overboard trying to sell a single idea, where all the dots must be connected? I don't know if that makes any sense--this is an issue I'm still mulling over and it seemed relevant. I doubt it's an issue for you, since I've just never had this experience reading your writing at any length. But if you ever want an early reader to provide feedback, know that I'm more than willing!
Hey Jen, per the issue of the same stories coming up. I just the other day came across a WSJ article on a Challenger whistleblower, written apparently because it was the 37th anniversary of the tragedy. Some of these things, I think, just fascinate a lot of people, or stick in our minds, and so it's a low bar for finding an excuse to write about them. Anyway, just thought it was interesting to see it right after our discussion:
I suspect another reason they are so often retold is because they feel like larger cautionary tales, don't they? I mean, it's a fascinating story in its own right, but it also feels representative of what's happening elsewhere, just less identifiable without an O-ring and an engineer to point to. That being said, I had to remind myself that the power readers are not representative of the population. And with the ever increasing amount of readable content available, the chances that someone has heard any particular story may be quite small. I'm guessing many (most?) of the WSJ's readers had not yet heard this story, and so it works. I'm glad this has been such a fruitful question to think about for us both!
Interesting! I think a lot of non-fiction books could basically be long magazine articles. So I think there's one path: a very cohesive idea; so cohesive that it can be a magazine article but instead is a book that requires more material so you hammer the same point over and over and it can become a droning sales pitch. The other path: an idea that is more amorphous, and that you come at from different angles which provides more freshness and less long-magazine-article feel, but now the challenge is making the idea feel cohesive at all. It's not a single magazine article overblown, but could feel like a bunch of only lighted related articles stapled together, and not a cohesive book. (I fall into that latter category of challenge, btw;) I like (or at least am drawn to) picking an amorphous question that doesn't have a perfect answer and poking at it from all these different angles and disciplines. But it can be hard to draw boundaries. I don't know what the right answer is, but I know what interests me. I also think that non-fiction writing alone isn't a livelihood for many people at this point, and so many (perhaps most) authors are writing a book in the hope it will generate speaking invitations. So the book is less for readers than it is an advertisement of a very cohesive idea they could present at a conference. ...As an aside, I love the "new eyeballs" approach, and the intro to David and Goliath: greatest intro ever!
Excellent as always. I shared this with my volleyball coaching colleagues because we coach all women and all the themes are mostly left unsaid and not understood.
Pete, thanks so much for reading, and it means a lot to me to here that. I'm sure it will mean a lot to Lauren too! I'll definitely share this comment with her.
Jonathan, that is such a cool comment. I love the "on like five different levels," and will share this with Lauren too. Really appreciate the kind words from a fellow writer, and looking forward to checking out your Substack!
I appreciated this so much, especially as a father of 5 daughters who wants them to both succeed and to embrace who they are rather then trying to be someone for somebody else. Lauren’s candor about her past trauma is welcome and I’m likely to add the book because of this.
James, 5 daughters, wow! Good for you, and sounds like they're lucky to have you as a dad. (I feel like I've got my hands full with one son!) Really appreciate the kind words, especially from a prolific girl-dad;)
Another great article! Love the title, and is so true. My goals, as you well know now, have changed dramatically. My daily success is any day I can get a chance to run and achieve it. That way I maintain a constant satisfaction.
Fun to hear about Vin Lanana, he was my coach for a while too. There were a couple of workouts that I questioned his parentage. Only in my head!
I hope that many read Lauren's book, as I certainly will. Watched her compete at Stanford and read her blogs back in the day. I think a lot of people will learn about what it means to be a professional athlete (and runner). Which will give context to those Olympics watchers who only see that brief pinnacle of achievement, before returning to their regular schedule. As a fellow runner/competitor, I have some of that context and appreciation.
Haha...love that note about Vin. He's a legend. ...This is a great note: "My daily success is any day I can get a chance to run and achieve it. That way I maintain a constant satisfaction." Being present and having that daily success may be a simple concept, but not always an easy one to execute, so I think we all need constant reminders like this.
Such an inspiring read and amazing athlete who's exemplified what
growing with grace and perspective is all about!
Hey David, thanks for this one. What an incredible interview! Fleshman is so amazingly thoughtful, candid, and insightful. I hadn't heard of her before, so I'm really grateful you helped me learn about her story. Since I teach and coach young boys and girls, I found this one to be especially relevant for my life.
Can I ask a weird question about interviewing? Let me know if this doesn't make sense: one thing I've noticed you do here is an example of what I've seen others do both in written and oral interviews (like a podcast). Lauren would repeatedly have amazingly long and rich answers, and my inclination would be to respond to or engage with that answer in some way that probably doesn't read very well on a newsletter ("Wow that was so reflective" or "I can't believe your dad did that" or "Thanks for sharing that really difficult memory). But you (and talented podcasters/interviewers like Derek Thompson I've seen) don't do that at all. Instead you cut through that verbal fluff and jump right to your next question. How are you able to transition that smoothly while still keep the conversation flowing normally? I imagine you have a list of questions, but I also can see that you're good enough at this to avoid the trap of just reciting them one after the next. Did that question make sense? Thanks again.
That's a really good question. And I think there are sort of two (at least) components here. First, I do exactly what you're saying in most interviews. I treat them much more like conversations than interviews, so I respond like a normal human, not jumping to the next question. But there are a few differences in some interviews, and this one is a good example. I wasn't really trying to learn from Lauren here. I've read (and blurbed) the book already, and I've known her for years. So I was just trying to get her to bring out points that she makes in the book, that I already know. In fact, you might have noticed that I quoted from the book heavily in my own questions; I'm just trying to get many interesting points from the book in both my questions and her answers. So this was more like a series of prompts for her to make interesting points that I was aware of, and less a real probe for new information. So I think that colored the interview and made it sound more sort of like bullet-point questions. Second, my newsletter posts aren't that frequent, but they do tend to be substantially longer (especially the Q&As) than the typical newsletter I'm aware of. So I worry about the length a bit (and this interview was edited down...I dropped a fun exchange about her denigrating the 800;) Because of that, I'm probably trying to keep things really tight, so less space for normal human banter. Third, and this is an important one, sometimes I'll edit out some of my own normal reactions, again for length, but in this case we did the interview via Google doc, so it actually was more formal than a live interview. And we emailed about what approach to take and so on, but the actual interview part wasn't my normal verbal back and forth. Regarding podcasts...I was a podcast host for six months at one point, and I worked on a documentary with the BBC, and one thing I learned in those arenas is that (if you want, and I generally don't) you can be a lot more bullet-point formal with questioning if you want. When people are being recorded in those ways, they just talk differently...they're trying to get their ideas out, almost. One interview subject for the BBC program was really difficult for me when doing background interviewing, and then when the lights and the camera went on, it was like suddenly he was talking in complete stories. I started to think maybe I should take a camera around everywhere. So I think podcasting and TV can often be easier in a certain way, but it's also (as this interview was) usually featuring someone who wants publicity at that moment, whether for a project or to talk about their research or some news event. When I randomly contact some scientist who has no clue why I'd be interested in their work, or some person who hasn't been in the news to tell their story, it's a whole different ballgame. In those case, I'm often with someone in person, going through their day, and I ask questions, but the large majority of what I'd say wouldn't sound anything like this interview. I'd just be trying to have a conversation, and then slow them down and go deeper on interesting points, and then later go back and fill things in. If someone I'm with in person lets me record, I'll still constantly be taking notes in a notebook, but none of it will be what they're saying, it'll be questions they're making me think of as we go. But I have had the experience in those cases of being with someone for hours, or even days, and them asking when we'd do the interview, and I'm like: "it's happening." Those are cases where I'm really trying to learn new stuff, as opposed to (like with Lauren) having just read her book and just wanting to bring out points for readers. This my all add up to the idea that I'm not as deft as Derek at going bullet-point, bullet-point. It depends on the medium, and I think both the interviewer and interviewee are more amenable to that for a podcast or a TV program. For my book interviews, honestly, I'm not even sure exactly what I'm looking for much of the time, especially early in the project. So it's all conversation, and I try to be a participant, rather than an interviewer. It takes a lot more time, which is why I often go in person, because then you can hang around longer. ...Long answer. Anything interesting there? I always enjoy these craft questions! I've been interviewed quite a few times, and you're constantly bringing new questions, which is fun for me. I've definitely never been asked this before.
...I'm back because I thought of one more thing I wanted to mention. From doing a bit of work with or around Gary Smith and Selena Roberts (both were at SI, and Gary is the only four-time national magazine award winner), I learned that they would really spend a lot of time with interviewees, and much of that was basically asking the same questioning repeatedly, maybe minutes, hours, days, weeks, or even months apart. They might word it differently, but same idea. I wouldn't have thought that would be a useful thing to do, but people do often move to deeper layers each time they're asked a similar question. So I started doing some of that myself, again when I'm not doing a Q&A like this. One thing about Gary, he was just so comfortable with himself that he'd basically move in with people he was writing about, and had no problem asking the same question over and over and over. His comfort with himself, and feeling that the experience was important for both him and the interviewee, was definitely an important part of his toolbox.
Wow what a fascinating answer. A bunch of things really struck me. First, in college, my reporter friend once mentioned something similar to me about your point on asking the same question multiple times. I agree that I didn't think this was obvious, but the proof is in the pudding. And just earlier today I just read the part of Thinking Fast & Slow where Kahneman mentions the research on radiologists and other predictors making completely different (and often contradicting) predictions when presented with the same data on two different occasions. (This book is great. Have you read it? One funny thought I've had a few times is that he's brought up evidence/anecdotes that I know from Range and other places (e.g., Tetlock and the fox/hedgehog -- this also makes me think of your response to the comment on this post about the criticism of seeing the same few anecdotes. Very generous response!). Maybe I'm biased because Kahneman doesn't take time to respond in depth to every musing I have, but honestly I think you do it better. It took him 3 whole chapters to handle predictors and I'm pretty sure you did it in just 1. But I digress...)
Thought 2: I would love to know if you took any other lessons away from being a podcast host! Did this specific medium teach you anything or surprise you in any ways? I tried to dig up your post about the lessons from editing tv/film but I couldn't find it.
Thought 3: it's interesting to hear that none of this was new for you. I'm thinking back now about different q&a's I've heard, and I'm guessing that insight explains how someone like Derek just bounces around. From my listening, I can't detect any instances of when they edit out his human response, so I'm wondering if he just pretty much knows most of what the response will be. There are moments where he will note his surprise, and I'm guessing when he doesn't do that it means he just isn't surprised. And your response makes me think that this is a lot more common than I realized.
Thought 4: your point about Gary's comfort with himself helping him do what he did reminded me of something Cal Newport wrote about Walter Isaacson's writing style in Deep Work. Apparently Isaacson is so confident in his abilities that he will take any hour at any time of the day to just flip a switch and jump in and out of writing. I've read about the habits of so many other writers who talk about their strict habits that help them write, but Newport said Isaacson was confident in himself because he knew he was capable of such great writing since his books had done so well. So this confidence freed him in a way?
I feel like I say this every time, but thank you for taking the time, thought, and energy to really dive in. I know you say you enjoy it, but still! It's things like this that make me promise to myself that I'll do the same if the day comes when someone is ever asking me for advice. You're a really good role model. In the mean time, I'll try to come up with some more original questions.
Hey Matt, I'm hoping to respond to these points in more detail, but just wanted to leave something here quickly. I was thinking about the process questions you ask, and why I enjoy them, and also why I find myself fumbling through coming up with answers. And I stumbled on this point from novelist Sheila Heti, that resonated: "...people want to know how it comes to be. The artist wants to know too, so part of the pleasure of giving a craft or process talk is trying to track for yourself how it happened."
Wow what a quote. Thanks, David! It's always so cool to hear when something makes you think of me or another commenter.
David, the two sentences in Lauren's reply to you at the end stunned me. You made the right choice to use the first sentence as the title of your post.
"The love from success is always temporary. You have to find satisfaction with yourself on your average day."
In your last question for her, you included the reference to Alain de Botton's writing and how, for many, "great triumph doesn’t fix the deepest problem they’re grappling with."
It sounds like Lauren's self-awareness started to break through with a lap-and-a-half to go at nationals in the 5,000 when she stopped running. "I started again because I hated that voice and it didn’t match my values and I didn’t want to let it win."
That's a story that many of us can relate to.
In my life, there have been many tiny "achievements/triumphs" that I've mistakenly attached to my ego/identity. And most of the time, this helped to reinforce my problematic behavior related to my "deepest problem." It took way too long for me to become more self-aware and start making changes.
Thank you for bringing that part of her story to our attention.
Griff, I especially appreciate that comment because I definitely struggle with titles. (And I'm sure I often choose poorly.)
And you can lump me in with those of us who can relate to the story. I think there was a period where I probably felt that NOT attaching achievements to identity was silly or lazy or something like that. But, I can see now, that stunted my personal growth for a while. I hope you don't blame yourself for taking "way too long to become more self-aware." I think it's just hard, and often contrary to our intuition and a lot of environmental cues. You made me think of Dan Pink's book on regret, where he frames the purpose of regret as learning — what does it mean that I felt this way? A bit of a non sequitur, but I really enjoyed it, and it helped me ease up on myself a bit about things that I felt took too long to realize.
Thanks for the tip on Dan Pink's book with that pithy "he frames the purpose of regret as learning." I'd better read it now!
Are you aware of any famous male athletes (living or dead) who've publicly told their story of waking up from their love of success and their subsequent journey on, um, The Road to Character?
I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but first that came to mind was the triple jumper Jonathan Edwards, who has held the world record for coming up on 30 years now. His athlete identity was very much tied to his feeling that it gave him a platform to spread his religion. But once the structure of sports disappeared, he had a literal crisis of faith, and would talk about how he felt like he was someone else living a different life. By his own account, he became a much more centered person. But actually I think stories of athletes letting go of some of their deathgrip on success are kind of common if you're around them, but not so often told in books or films. Occasionally they do make some good coverage, like this: https://www.si.com/nfl/2015/06/30/si-vault-jake-plummer-retirement-handball-denver-broncos ...but usually they're happening privately. But, having been around a lot of pro athletes, I can tell you it's not an uncommon transition at all. But it is uncommon to read about it.
That's a great story about Jake Plummer, David.
There's a similar in today's NYTimes about the golfer Anthony Kim -- the next Tiger Woods -- who walked away after 4 years.
The story also includes a two-paragraph mention of tennis great Bjorn Borg who retired at 26. "Basically, over the years, I was practicing, playing my matches, eating and sleeping,” he told The New York Times in 1983. “But there’s other things besides those four things.”
Here's the gift link to the NYT story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/26/sports/golf/anthony-kim-tiger-woods.html?unlocked_article_code=m2za_4bCGZbP-37-LfowRyEas4XlyA0e4Ubv9HteV-qsUNoG1MjTAdGmyZOGYRWUl5TMtt7EbqvzwrGN5PshXqwD3HTv0rwBXxSQaEp13opreL9e6EwkxrV38kHZnvfzCoMtZtse_1yMQhQ5dfi-FaN9twwaBHpLqAQQYMWHc9jJhIryPwrSSR2zgzRJHGQh5b0qsW7YiyG1RAzm6U2g5saRqC5C3o2MzPEAEFzF47SSyaBra4XC5pPR_MDf-XC31m8Wk20XR7nEkgvh226f2ZN5yObXkApVrqpEnEBBbBtG09f95Wv9-34nDgmEZVxbUep_SVWG0Da5uqgQgqx9PmQIgWHf&smid=share-url
This is not a criticism, I enjoyed reading this interview and Lauren has done the world an incredible service by writing her book and sharing her experiences. That being said, I can't help but feel like I range narrowly despite my best efforts. As I started in on reading the discussion I immediately said - wait, didn't I just read a talk with Lauren on Emily Oster's wonderful parenting substack? Of course it fits in with both writer's field of interest and makes perfect sense, but it reminded me of the dozens of books I've read over the last few years that invariably use the same events to make their points (e.g., the Challenger Disaster, Ernest Shackleton's Trans-Antarctic Expedition). Even doing primarily long-form reading to get ideas and information, I still feel like I sometimes find myself in an information bubble.
Hey Derek, I appreciate that insight. I think of course the timing of Lauren's book means she'll be in a lot of places because people like me and Emily who are interested will have read it before it came out, and now can do an interview on it. I probably actually have a lot of overlap with Emily Oster in terms of interests, even if I'm not often pursuing some of those here. (Emily and I both blurbed the book...) But running is a big part of my life, so I'll probably find regular excuses to bring it up here. In any case, as far as famous events that come up repeatedly, I find that too. In fact, there's a specific painting I feel like I've read about a half-dozen times in books about creativity. Sometimes I mind it, but often I don't. Often I feel like hearing of an event once primes me to think about it, and then I really remember it when I get it again. But it really depends on the treatment. I think one obvious point is that, for writers: 1) those events are really interesting — the Challenger is my seminal news memory of my very early childhood — and as a writer I don't really veer away from a topic I find interesting because others have written about it, unless they really covered the angle I was interested in. 2) I think there's a balance between using obscure and super-famous events. The former require more explanation for the reader, but can be totally fresh. The latter are easier to use because they don't require nearly as much backstory for a reader to relate, but run the risk of being overdone. I'm not sure what the right balance is. If you tell me what you're interested in, I'm very happy to give some reading recommendations that I think are quite different from the things I write about;) If you use social media for reading recommendations purposes, I'd recommend dropping a person or three and replacing them every week with people you find by search topics. A few years ago I read some MIT research on how this can help counteract the filter bubble. ....Last thing I'll add: if you already read about Lauren (or whatever the topic) elsewhere, maybe just skip! You can alter the filter on your end as well. I know some people feel a strong urge to finish everything they start reading. I think reading parts of things and finding that very useful is actually a great tactic. I don't finish most books I read, and still value most of them. So I don't know if that's an issue for you, but sharing just in case.
Just wanted to say that I resonated with Derek's comment (not about this interview particularly, but the repetition of stories in general), while simultaneously loving your response, David. It's really helpful to hear a writer's perspective on when to go for the famous vs the obscure stories. As someone who reads a lot, I have found that story repetition is more topical than timing. Within the topics I read about regularly, like business and the future of work, it's astonishing how often certain stories are retold. I suspect it's because business writers feel talking about celebrity CEOs or executives at big, well-known Fortune 500 companies gives their ideas more credence. But I'll have to rethink that based on your commentary. All that said, as a reader, I really do appreciate when writers highlight the obscure. I think I've mentioned what a delight Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything was, primarily due to the surprise at encountering so many unknown but fascinating stories. Safi Bahcall's Loonshots was similar, even if I came away disagreeing with some of his conclusions (ha!). In short form pieces, the benefit may lean towards more well known stories, but in long form, I'm going to argue authors should lean the other way. Thank you both for the chance to reflect!
Jen, I think that's very well put. And Safi is a friend so I'll let him know. I actually think he'll be especially delighted with the idea that you appreciated new material even when you didn't agree. ...I should say, some of the default to big-well-known-Fortune-500-story is, I think, exactly what you say. It lends credence. I also think some of it is typical human "availability bias," it's just the story that jumps to mind, and it takes digging to find new stuff. Of course, in the best case, that digging is exactly our job! This is such an interesting discussion point, I'm glad Derek raised it and you expanded. I'm not even sure entirely what I think but many thoughts are happening;) If I reflect on my last book, it was definitely the "Roger versus Tiger" part that gets repeated back to me the most, and it's not even close. They're obviously quite famous. I guess my hope was to tell those stories in a way that illuminated an aspect that people didn't necessarily know. So maybe I could get the best of both worlds — familiarity with and interest in the characters, so I didn't have to do as much introducing, but also possibility of telling the story differently. (I guess I did that with Van Gogh too.) Gladwell does a lot of that, telling a story you recognize but giving you new eyeballs through which to see it. ...All that said, my favorite stories from my last book were probably Frances Hesselbein and the Venetian orphan musicians. Gosh, I'm starting on another book, and you've got me thinking, what will the balance be? I'm sure I'll look for some familiar stories but that I can do the "provide you with new eyeballs" approach, but also look for obscure stuff. The obscure stuff is the most fun for me. ...Last thing: Gary Smith was a writer at Sports Illustrated who is the only person to have won the National Magazine Award four times. He would do these incredibly in-depth psychological profiles of sports figures. (And he only wrote four articles a year.) As it became harder to get that kind of sustained access to really famous people, he shifted to more obscure figures. I thought those were some of his most interesting stories, but they certainly didn't spread out in the world the same way. But people who loved them REALLY loved them. I'm not sure what the right recipe is here, but I do think we writers should be looking to bring attention to worthy stories that aren't well known. I'm going to think more about this...
Ah, but telling a familiar story with an entirely new perspective is not just the best of both worlds, it is THE BEST! Gladwell's retelling of David & Goliath is my favorite example of that--just masterful. Alex Hutchinson's book Endure, which I read on your recommendation, does that as well (like with the Shackleton story). I think your retelling of Roger vs Tiger also threaded that needle well. As I think about it, what nails a book for me is a feeling of surprise--that can be from a new perspective or a new character/story, and I'm not sure it matters which one it is. So perhaps the rubric is: how much surprise does this story/book elicit for the well-read reader? Related to this, I shared with my Facebook friends recently the observation that I was quitting more nonfiction books than ever before and I couldn't quite put my finger on the reason why. Turns out I'm not alone. We had a rousing discussion on the topic, but the general conclusions were: nonfiction books increasingly felt like a slog to get through, either due to too much prescription or too much of a sales pitch for a singular idea. But as we're talking about this, I wonder if it just felt too much like work and not enough like a delightful surprise? I wonder if book authors aren't going overboard trying to sell a single idea, where all the dots must be connected? I don't know if that makes any sense--this is an issue I'm still mulling over and it seemed relevant. I doubt it's an issue for you, since I've just never had this experience reading your writing at any length. But if you ever want an early reader to provide feedback, know that I'm more than willing!
Hey Jen, per the issue of the same stories coming up. I just the other day came across a WSJ article on a Challenger whistleblower, written apparently because it was the 37th anniversary of the tragedy. Some of these things, I think, just fascinate a lot of people, or stick in our minds, and so it's a low bar for finding an excuse to write about them. Anyway, just thought it was interesting to see it right after our discussion:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-man-who-tried-to-stop-the-challenger-launch-space-shuttle-exploration-roger-boisjoly-moral-injury-11674857494
I suspect another reason they are so often retold is because they feel like larger cautionary tales, don't they? I mean, it's a fascinating story in its own right, but it also feels representative of what's happening elsewhere, just less identifiable without an O-ring and an engineer to point to. That being said, I had to remind myself that the power readers are not representative of the population. And with the ever increasing amount of readable content available, the chances that someone has heard any particular story may be quite small. I'm guessing many (most?) of the WSJ's readers had not yet heard this story, and so it works. I'm glad this has been such a fruitful question to think about for us both!
Interesting! I think a lot of non-fiction books could basically be long magazine articles. So I think there's one path: a very cohesive idea; so cohesive that it can be a magazine article but instead is a book that requires more material so you hammer the same point over and over and it can become a droning sales pitch. The other path: an idea that is more amorphous, and that you come at from different angles which provides more freshness and less long-magazine-article feel, but now the challenge is making the idea feel cohesive at all. It's not a single magazine article overblown, but could feel like a bunch of only lighted related articles stapled together, and not a cohesive book. (I fall into that latter category of challenge, btw;) I like (or at least am drawn to) picking an amorphous question that doesn't have a perfect answer and poking at it from all these different angles and disciplines. But it can be hard to draw boundaries. I don't know what the right answer is, but I know what interests me. I also think that non-fiction writing alone isn't a livelihood for many people at this point, and so many (perhaps most) authors are writing a book in the hope it will generate speaking invitations. So the book is less for readers than it is an advertisement of a very cohesive idea they could present at a conference. ...As an aside, I love the "new eyeballs" approach, and the intro to David and Goliath: greatest intro ever!
Excellent as always. I shared this with my volleyball coaching colleagues because we coach all women and all the themes are mostly left unsaid and not understood.
Pete, thanks so much for reading, and it means a lot to me to here that. I'm sure it will mean a lot to Lauren too! I'll definitely share this comment with her.
This is an important piece on like five different levels. Thanks for talking with her and helping to share her insights.
Good interviews are hard to do and this is a *great* interview.
Jonathan, that is such a cool comment. I love the "on like five different levels," and will share this with Lauren too. Really appreciate the kind words from a fellow writer, and looking forward to checking out your Substack!
I appreciated this so much, especially as a father of 5 daughters who wants them to both succeed and to embrace who they are rather then trying to be someone for somebody else. Lauren’s candor about her past trauma is welcome and I’m likely to add the book because of this.
James, 5 daughters, wow! Good for you, and sounds like they're lucky to have you as a dad. (I feel like I've got my hands full with one son!) Really appreciate the kind words, especially from a prolific girl-dad;)
Finally finished the book after grabbing from the library. Was a hard read emotionally but well worth it.
Just had our fourth granddaughter as well over the weekend!
Another great article! Love the title, and is so true. My goals, as you well know now, have changed dramatically. My daily success is any day I can get a chance to run and achieve it. That way I maintain a constant satisfaction.
Fun to hear about Vin Lanana, he was my coach for a while too. There were a couple of workouts that I questioned his parentage. Only in my head!
I hope that many read Lauren's book, as I certainly will. Watched her compete at Stanford and read her blogs back in the day. I think a lot of people will learn about what it means to be a professional athlete (and runner). Which will give context to those Olympics watchers who only see that brief pinnacle of achievement, before returning to their regular schedule. As a fellow runner/competitor, I have some of that context and appreciation.
Thank you Lauren and David!
Haha...love that note about Vin. He's a legend. ...This is a great note: "My daily success is any day I can get a chance to run and achieve it. That way I maintain a constant satisfaction." Being present and having that daily success may be a simple concept, but not always an easy one to execute, so I think we all need constant reminders like this.