I think that there can be traps here. For example, we know that interviewers can actually place memories in people’s minds (especially children). What looks “deep” may only be deep from the perspective of the interviewer and in fact may arise from that person. (see the research on eye witnesses, for example, especially child witnesses).
I definitely like the idea that one must have deep respect for the human who is willing to give time and thought and caring to a conversation with, usually, a stranger. And I love the idea of empathy. But I worry about fooling myself or others with the idea that I know a causal driver or that what I have heard is what others would have heard in my place or would predict how a given person would act.