I'm a long-term FiveThirtyEight reader, and I just started reading On the Edge.
As someone who grew up in a very academic environment (father a tenured history professor) who has worked in tech (robotics) in coastal cities for the last couple decades, I think the Village vs. River metaphor perfectly captures the difference between the risk-averse academic environment and risk-embracing high-tech startup culture.
What about, like, medicine or retail management or industrial manufacturing or hospitality or teaching any of the major industries that are hard to fit into the paradigm?
With the caveat that I've only started to read the book, I don't think Nate meant for those categories to be exhaustive. The vast majority of people (doctors, farmers, factory workers) aren't in either the Village or the River.
The way I see it, the Village is like The Paper Chase, and the River is like Halt and Catch Fire. Most people aren't Harvard law students or tech startup founders.
I'm sure Mr. Silver has reasons for not wanting to emphasize this, or even mention it in this excerpt, but to state the obvious: the 'river' is highly masculine, while the 'village' is highly feminine.
While the problem of 'toxic masculinity' is widely recognized and much-debated, the still-powerful 'village' doesn't even want to recognize that 'toxic femininity' exists or even could exist. Nevertheless, the 'toxic femininity' of the Village is arguably one of the reasons that so many men are headed towards the Right... (and why the GOP leads among married women, married men and single men, with the Dems staying in the game only via their Babe Ruth-like numbers with single women)
Neuroticism, shaming, shunning, weaponized propriety, weaponized compassion, criticizing others in the language of care and concern, moralized self-interest, moralized aggression, hostility to differential rewards for differential achievement, hypertrophied concern for the disadvantaged, hostility to freedom that might ‘harm’ anyone anywhere (in the broadest possible sense of ‘harm’), safetyism, emotionalism, avoiding direct interference while disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the community, low risk tolerance, conformism, psychotic insistence on constant affirmation, scolding, that sort of thing
The Village has its own brand of pathology, but I think it's inaccurate to call it "toxic femininity". I'd call it "toxic conformity" -- a pathological need to be accepted by one's peers.
Likewise, I think the idea of "toxic masculinity" is bogus. A better term would be "toxic competitiveness" -- a pathological need to dominate one's rivals.
Even if men are more likely to be competitive and women are more likely to desire acceptance (and that's debatable), it's a mistake to associate those qualities with gender. Women can be competitive, and men can be conformist. And both of those desires are natural to some extent -- it's only when they're taken to extremes that they become harmful.
It's a mistake to assume that the correlation coefficient between sex of an individual and personality traits is always zero. Although it's an oft recited aspect of the contemporary Village mythos, this assumption lacks an empiric base.
Ok, I’ve stopped laughing at your difficulty with self-awareness. Sorry about, reflexive reaction;
You demonstrate why it’s typically such a very, VERY bad idea to decide to create lists of feminine & masculine properties. You just created a rather, frankly, BS list of “things I’m griping about, things I think are bad” & assigned it to the opposite sex.
You come off as a raving misogynist. Whether you are or not.
Further, on “being pushed to the right wing” is the result of widespread calling out the rather anti-social misogyny & rapey/intrinsically-due-sex attitudes is convincing you you’re not welcome somewhere? Well my friend, that’s kinda telling on yourself.
Believe me, as someone involved with effective altruism: there are plenty neurotic people who Nate would class as "river". Indeed, anxiety is a normal feature of autism, which is famously more common in a lot of the communities the book is classing as river, and disproportionately male. (Though it is true that women score higher than men on big-five neuroticism in the whole population.)
As far as I know, women haven't started murdering and raping (nor occupying positions of authority and power in corporate and government structures out there) at anywhere near the same rate that men do (or for that matter, men haven't started doing their fair share of unpaid domestic labor), so no: masculine and feminine toxicities (while they both exists) are nowhere near being on the same level as actual problems in the real world - yet you are already whining and "heading towards the Right". That's not what most people would consider masculine attitude or behavior, and I assure you: nobody (man or woman) does well in The River with analytics skills like yours.
The River can be fun - I worked in currency and derivatives trading for 30 years- people are cynical, contrarian, quick, mathematical, opinionated but flexible (will provide an immediate take, but then will change it as they uncover more info)- really fun working with those people during the day or in crises, but thankful I was able to live and hang out with normal people nights and weekends, amongst whom I rarely shared opinions as they’d be insulted at a cold-hearted mercenary approach to analyzing political or economic events. But there is a lot more to life than opinions and odds- laughs, for one.
I really enjoyed your interviews with Ethan Strauss and Mike Pesca - will have to check out the Ezra Klein show next. Sometimes I feel like after listening to a few of these I don't actually need to buy the book - but fear not! Just bought the audio book, looking forward to listening across walks and dish washing sessions :)
Nate Silver is the founder of FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times bestselling author of The Signal and the Noise. He writes the Substack Silver Bulletin.
COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS: We strongly encourage attendees to wear masks at our events, although they will NOT be required. We will have masks available for attendees who want them. Do NOT attend the event if you, or any member of your family, have any respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, runny nose, and/or sore throat), or have had a significant exposure to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. We have virtual options available, or we can refund your ticket(s)."
For me, you were FiveThirtyEight. The election models made me come, but it was the punditry that made me stay. Some of your pieces on the final two weeks of the 2016 campaign still defy belief that they were written before the event.
So, I was already interested on the book. As someone who is also looking for where I fit and who shares some of your traits, this was the final push to purchase it. Getting it sent to Spain was almost half the purchase price :)
I wouldn't call myself highly competitive, but I struggle more than most at playing non-competitively, to the annoyance of my wife and kids. Analytical is my alias. Can become obsessive over a topic that I like, and accumulate ludicrous amounts of knowledge about it.
I distinctly remember being the only one in my university class who bet, back in 2008 (now I guess it's much more extended), along the usual cries of "addiction!". I made a model for betting on Spanish Liga matches (a pretty terrible one!).
I grew up on a pretty high risk-averse environment, and over the years I've been learning to let my riskier side come out, many times feeling uneasy and even wrong. My riskier decisions so far have been among the most successful ones (survivorship bias here? But I think they just weren't as risky as I felt them at the time under my conditioning).
So, looking ahead to getting the book, currently scheduled for the 23rd :)
As far as I can tell it's Republicans in office for eight years followed by eight years of Democrats followed by eight years of Republivand and so on and so forth. How is either side "good at winning" anything?
The capitalists enjoy Low capital gains and corporate income taxes and a conservative judiciary whilst the progressives control academia, government bureaucracy, the media and the zeitgeist. Maybe both sides are getting what they want? The Repubs are put into power every now and then to stop a descent into full blown socialist autocracy, central planning and asset seizure. Everyone happy…..at least until the bill for fiscal profligacy comes due.
For values of "recent" that include "the last 25 years." It's definitely apropos to Nate's comment in the post about Democrats being slightly better at winning.
There's no evidence of that. Eight presidential elections that split 50-50 isn't evidence that the "real" odds are 53-47. You would need a much larger sample set to demonstrate that.
Any book events in NYC?
+1. Would love to come by
me too!
Reiterating this--I and some friends would love to attend NYC-events!
I'm a long-term FiveThirtyEight reader, and I just started reading On the Edge.
As someone who grew up in a very academic environment (father a tenured history professor) who has worked in tech (robotics) in coastal cities for the last couple decades, I think the Village vs. River metaphor perfectly captures the difference between the risk-averse academic environment and risk-embracing high-tech startup culture.
What about, like, medicine or retail management or industrial manufacturing or hospitality or teaching any of the major industries that are hard to fit into the paradigm?
With the caveat that I've only started to read the book, I don't think Nate meant for those categories to be exhaustive. The vast majority of people (doctors, farmers, factory workers) aren't in either the Village or the River.
The way I see it, the Village is like The Paper Chase, and the River is like Halt and Catch Fire. Most people aren't Harvard law students or tech startup founders.
I'm sure Mr. Silver has reasons for not wanting to emphasize this, or even mention it in this excerpt, but to state the obvious: the 'river' is highly masculine, while the 'village' is highly feminine.
While the problem of 'toxic masculinity' is widely recognized and much-debated, the still-powerful 'village' doesn't even want to recognize that 'toxic femininity' exists or even could exist. Nevertheless, the 'toxic femininity' of the Village is arguably one of the reasons that so many men are headed towards the Right... (and why the GOP leads among married women, married men and single men, with the Dems staying in the game only via their Babe Ruth-like numbers with single women)
Could you explain this further? What “toxicity” you suppose, and why my eyes are lying to me?
PS
If you don’t feel you can without recycling or citing Jordan Peterson, save the time of typing & just let me know you’re out in the weeds
Neuroticism, shaming, shunning, weaponized propriety, weaponized compassion, criticizing others in the language of care and concern, moralized self-interest, moralized aggression, hostility to differential rewards for differential achievement, hypertrophied concern for the disadvantaged, hostility to freedom that might ‘harm’ anyone anywhere (in the broadest possible sense of ‘harm’), safetyism, emotionalism, avoiding direct interference while disguising competition, competing overtly only from a position of high status in the community, enforcing equality within the community, low risk tolerance, conformism, psychotic insistence on constant affirmation, scolding, that sort of thing
Time to touch some grass.
The Village has its own brand of pathology, but I think it's inaccurate to call it "toxic femininity". I'd call it "toxic conformity" -- a pathological need to be accepted by one's peers.
Likewise, I think the idea of "toxic masculinity" is bogus. A better term would be "toxic competitiveness" -- a pathological need to dominate one's rivals.
Even if men are more likely to be competitive and women are more likely to desire acceptance (and that's debatable), it's a mistake to associate those qualities with gender. Women can be competitive, and men can be conformist. And both of those desires are natural to some extent -- it's only when they're taken to extremes that they become harmful.
It's a mistake to assume that the correlation coefficient between sex of an individual and personality traits is always zero. Although it's an oft recited aspect of the contemporary Village mythos, this assumption lacks an empiric base.
Ok, I’ve stopped laughing at your difficulty with self-awareness. Sorry about, reflexive reaction;
You demonstrate why it’s typically such a very, VERY bad idea to decide to create lists of feminine & masculine properties. You just created a rather, frankly, BS list of “things I’m griping about, things I think are bad” & assigned it to the opposite sex.
You come off as a raving misogynist. Whether you are or not.
Further, on “being pushed to the right wing” is the result of widespread calling out the rather anti-social misogyny & rapey/intrinsically-due-sex attitudes is convincing you you’re not welcome somewhere? Well my friend, that’s kinda telling on yourself.
Believe me, as someone involved with effective altruism: there are plenty neurotic people who Nate would class as "river". Indeed, anxiety is a normal feature of autism, which is famously more common in a lot of the communities the book is classing as river, and disproportionately male. (Though it is true that women score higher than men on big-five neuroticism in the whole population.)
I got to “shaming” a needed to go change my pants before resuming.
LOL
🪞
TMI
Tough, but fair 🤣
Immediate resort to personal insult is often a warning flag denoting weak argument and/or indefensible position.
Looks like you accidentally replied to the wrong post?
As far as I know, women haven't started murdering and raping (nor occupying positions of authority and power in corporate and government structures out there) at anywhere near the same rate that men do (or for that matter, men haven't started doing their fair share of unpaid domestic labor), so no: masculine and feminine toxicities (while they both exists) are nowhere near being on the same level as actual problems in the real world - yet you are already whining and "heading towards the Right". That's not what most people would consider masculine attitude or behavior, and I assure you: nobody (man or woman) does well in The River with analytics skills like yours.
Perhaps the viewpoint apparent in the above comment is best described as misandry
The River can be fun - I worked in currency and derivatives trading for 30 years- people are cynical, contrarian, quick, mathematical, opinionated but flexible (will provide an immediate take, but then will change it as they uncover more info)- really fun working with those people during the day or in crises, but thankful I was able to live and hang out with normal people nights and weekends, amongst whom I rarely shared opinions as they’d be insulted at a cold-hearted mercenary approach to analyzing political or economic events. But there is a lot more to life than opinions and odds- laughs, for one.
Money contributed to political campaigns: $1 (one candidate was selling $20 gift cards for a $1 contribution)
Money spent on One The Edge preorder: $35
Interesting you released it on Tisha B'av, a day that traditionally is associated with bad luck for Jews. I see you do like taking risks!
Can't wait to read it. Just read the Signal & the Noise and it became an instant favorite!
Also, I really enjoyed your punditry alongside the stats at 538 so the Bulletin has been great for more independent thought. Cheers!
Just finished re-reading that as well! A good Bayesian statistics refresher.
I have my copy but haven’t read it. As a deeply risk-averse rationalist I’m prepared for it to hurt my feelings.
I really enjoyed your interviews with Ethan Strauss and Mike Pesca - will have to check out the Ezra Klein show next. Sometimes I feel like after listening to a few of these I don't actually need to buy the book - but fear not! Just bought the audio book, looking forward to listening across walks and dish washing sessions :)
Is this actually a good book or is it a love letter to Peter Thiel?
Is the University Club a members-only event?
Any chance of a Los Angeles book event? Would love to see it at a place like www.vromansbookstore.com
The irony -
"About the Author
Nate Silver is the founder of FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times bestselling author of The Signal and the Noise. He writes the Substack Silver Bulletin.
COVID SAFETY PROTOCOLS: We strongly encourage attendees to wear masks at our events, although they will NOT be required. We will have masks available for attendees who want them. Do NOT attend the event if you, or any member of your family, have any respiratory symptoms (e.g. cough, runny nose, and/or sore throat), or have had a significant exposure to someone who has tested positive for COVID-19. We have virtual options available, or we can refund your ticket(s)."
https://www.keplers.org/upcoming-events-internal/nate-silver
Lol these people will be giving out masks until the sun swallows the earth
haha still?
For me, you were FiveThirtyEight. The election models made me come, but it was the punditry that made me stay. Some of your pieces on the final two weeks of the 2016 campaign still defy belief that they were written before the event.
So, I was already interested on the book. As someone who is also looking for where I fit and who shares some of your traits, this was the final push to purchase it. Getting it sent to Spain was almost half the purchase price :)
I wouldn't call myself highly competitive, but I struggle more than most at playing non-competitively, to the annoyance of my wife and kids. Analytical is my alias. Can become obsessive over a topic that I like, and accumulate ludicrous amounts of knowledge about it.
I distinctly remember being the only one in my university class who bet, back in 2008 (now I guess it's much more extended), along the usual cries of "addiction!". I made a model for betting on Spanish Liga matches (a pretty terrible one!).
I grew up on a pretty high risk-averse environment, and over the years I've been learning to let my riskier side come out, many times feeling uneasy and even wrong. My riskier decisions so far have been among the most successful ones (survivorship bias here? But I think they just weren't as risky as I felt them at the time under my conditioning).
So, looking ahead to getting the book, currently scheduled for the 23rd :)
Congrats! Can’t wait to read my copy when it arrives today
As far as I can tell it's Republicans in office for eight years followed by eight years of Democrats followed by eight years of Republivand and so on and so forth. How is either side "good at winning" anything?
How does each side define winning?
The capitalists enjoy Low capital gains and corporate income taxes and a conservative judiciary whilst the progressives control academia, government bureaucracy, the media and the zeitgeist. Maybe both sides are getting what they want? The Repubs are put into power every now and then to stop a descent into full blown socialist autocracy, central planning and asset seizure. Everyone happy…..at least until the bill for fiscal profligacy comes due.
The electoral college gives a built in disadvantage to Democrats. Democrats are winning even money even with a 52/48 house advantage.
That is a recent development. See David Shor.
For values of "recent" that include "the last 25 years." It's definitely apropos to Nate's comment in the post about Democrats being slightly better at winning.
There's no evidence of that. Eight presidential elections that split 50-50 isn't evidence that the "real" odds are 53-47. You would need a much larger sample set to demonstrate that.
Judging by the appearance on the Ezra Klein podcast, “the Village” also includes mainstream Republicans in some sense (“the indigo Blob”).
Whether that renders the question squishy to the point of meaningless is up to you.