A lot of your stories deal with the idea of competing truths. When I read your story about that University of Pennsylvania student I think I've landed pretty clearly on the she was wronged by the university truth. But when I read about Ray Osheroff I think I ended up more in the middle maybe that one's a little bit more of the sympathy for the institution's side of the equation. One of the things I liked about writing a book was that to like be aware of the fact that each story wasn't building on the next but actually complicating or challenging the ideas in the previous one.
Rachel Aviv is a staff writer for The New Yorker. Her new book is Strangers to Ourselves: Unsettled Minds and the Stories That Make Us.
“I used to feel that if I knew everything, that was a good sign. And I've become more aware that if you know everything you want to argue, that's not such a good sign…. Do I have a genuine question? Is there something I’m trying to figure out? Then the story is worth telling. But if I don’t really have a question or if my question is already answered, then maybe that should give you pause.”
Show notes:
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices