A Quote by Muriel Spark

Interviews can be stimulating. It depends on the intelligence of the interviewer. — © Muriel Spark
Interviews can be stimulating. It depends on the intelligence of the interviewer.
Interviews, when they are just simply an exercise in hearing what you want to hear, are of no interest. And many, many, if not most interviews have that character. The interviewer who comes in with a list of bullet points they're going to address one after the other. Interviews, properly considered, should be investigative. You should not know what you're going to hear. You should be surprised.
I have a hard time with interviews, because I'd rather hear about the interviewer.
Interviews are vital, but you cannot allow an interviewer to take your life and disturb it.
I've done a lot of interviews of the last few years, and I've actually started a list of questions that it would be fun to ask an author, but no respectable interviewer would ever ask. Since I'm not respectable, I'm going to start doing interviews with some authors I know, just for fun.
Rarely does an interviewer ask questions you did not expect. I have given a lot of interviews, and I have concluded that the questions always look alike. I could always give the same answers.
Interviewer: "What keeps you grounded?" Bieber: "Gravity." Interviewer: "What's up, Justin?" Bieber: "The sky, man."
Denmark and the UK are in agreement that our future prosperity depends on stimulating green growth, and getting off the oil hook.
Although the House Intelligence Committee report claims to be the definitive statement of the House of Representatives on matters of Benghazi and intelligence, interviews over the past week make clear that it's not even the consensus position of Republicans on the committee.
I'm not a go-in-for-the-kill kind of interviewer. It's a great thing to me, that kind of interviewer, but I'm not it. It doesn't play to my strengths at all. I like to interview people who are interested in telling their story and tell it as truthfully as they can.
Technologies for stimulating the brain and controlling the mind can have benefits, but they have a dark side that military and intelligence planners have been exploiting for decades
I remember when 'A League of Their Own' was coming out in '92, when I was doing interviews, it seemed like every interviewer at some point would say, 'So... would you consider this a feminist movie?' People are worried that it's a taboo thing, so I took great relish in saying, 'Yes, I would. Write that, yes.'
What I always tell people about Trump, or Kellyanne Conway, or Sarah Sanders, is that when you are interviewing these people, it is really more about the interviewer than the interviewee. What I mean by that is that the interviewer has to be ready to interrupt, fact-check, challenge, rebut.
It depends. When it's the right scenario, it's just as stimulating and just as exciting for me. It's just a question of finding a piece of material that lights a fire under you.
A reason to have computers understand natural language is that it's an extremely effective way of communicating. What I came to realize is that the success of the communication depends on the real intelligence on the part of the listener, and that there are many other ways of communicating with a computer that can be more effective, given that it doesn't have the intelligence.
I am always fully in tune with the interviewer, who is usually trying to make me look silly. My objective is quite the opposite during an interview: I never use my wit or my intellect to make the interviewer look silly.
If you look up 'Intelligence' in the new volumes of the Encyclopeadia Britannica, you'll find it classified under the following three heads: Intelligence, Human; Intelligence, Animal; Intelligence, Military. My stepfather's a perfect specimen of Intelligence, Military.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!