Paul: I wouldn’t be so quick to write off wackiness and improvisation. We need more of it, and a safe interview like this would be the place to go for it. If Hoffman is wacky, we’re more buttoned-down than I thought. I suspect you meant his arguments aren’t supported in established knowledge, yet he acts as if they are. That’s a problem, but I’ve often had the best ideas come out when there was a high wackiness quotient. I call it irreverence, but there are times wackiness captures the energy more precisely.

The tendency toward agreeability in the interview that you brought up has become a major barrier to real inquiry and depth. In group discussions people “are piggybacking on what so-and-so said” ad infinitum — as if God forbid there was an original thought that could stand on its own. All the better if if has some of that irreverence.