I think Ethan missed the mark on the comparison of the Bolshevik vanguard and the Yarvin types. Say what you will about America, and it's many imperfections, but our civil society is still more thickly layered and robust than the Russia of a miniscule aristocracy and masses of illiterate peasants and semi-literate urban prols. I believe the last few years have shown that our society cannot be re-routed with any permanence. Are we slouching towards a sclerotic debt spiral? Sure, but it is slow and aimless. There is simply no constituency for Yarvin's movement and not much potential for radical acceleration in any direction.
I could be wrong, and am no expert, but it seems that our society is too divided, for a vanguard of elites or the passionate to set us on a permanent course. In other words we seem to go back and forth between extremes AND the masses one would need for revolutionary change, are not interested in significant change or disruption. Which is probably for the best, all things considered.
1- I really enjoyed this conversation a great deal! I found Nate Silver much more at ease with Ethan during this appearance then the first time he came on the House of Strauss Show.
2 - Ethan, your ability and skill-set in interviewing a whole wide-range of people is truly underrated.
3 - I'm a Nate Silver fan. I have enjoyed his posts immensely. I have found him to be a great source of info, and has a really good pulse on American Politics today.
4 - I'm a bit shocked by the criticism I'm reading on this thread. It makes me wonder why it's often the least intellectual of us that are often the loudest among us.
Really nicely done Ethan and Nate. I really enjoyed reading the "Signal and the Noise" (a book I have been meaning to re-read) and I'm really looking forward to reading "On the Edge".
Maybe it was a case of chemistry between host and guest, but I couldn't believe how unremittingly dull of an interview subject Nate Silver came across as here, even when tackling interesting topics. I mean the guy has had the textbook definition of an interesting life, and yet it's excruciating to hear him talk about it. Also, the "gee wiz, billionaires are, um, weird!" angle is about as facile and skin-deep as it gets. And I thought Silver's analysis of the risk/reward with Shapiro was so understated I had to question how substantial his grasp on politics actually is. (I had assumed his grasp was basically unassailable.) Perhaps Silver is just someone who benefitted from the pop-culturefication of politics at a time when the Grantland paradigm played a role in shaping culture. That was a long time ago, and maybe Silver's moment has passed. As someone who firmly believes that no human being is boring, I walked away from this episode wondering whether Silver actually has anything to say.
He may or may not be politically astute, but he basically became famous by predicting 49 of 50 states in 08. Since anyone could predict around 43 states, he went 6 for 7 on close races and predicted the guy he wanted to win. It's something, but its really not that impressive. Then the media who also wanted that guy to win and absolutely loves pop science (ie stuff that makes them feel smart without having to actually engage in anything resembling math or science) trumpeter him as a soothsayer. And the rest is history.
I do think he's probably fairly smart and a lot more interesting than the typical pundit. But he is swimming in very shallow waters
I think Ethan missed the mark on the comparison of the Bolshevik vanguard and the Yarvin types. Say what you will about America, and it's many imperfections, but our civil society is still more thickly layered and robust than the Russia of a miniscule aristocracy and masses of illiterate peasants and semi-literate urban prols. I believe the last few years have shown that our society cannot be re-routed with any permanence. Are we slouching towards a sclerotic debt spiral? Sure, but it is slow and aimless. There is simply no constituency for Yarvin's movement and not much potential for radical acceleration in any direction.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "our society cannot be re-routed with any permanence?" I'm curious to hear more, thx.
I could be wrong, and am no expert, but it seems that our society is too divided, for a vanguard of elites or the passionate to set us on a permanent course. In other words we seem to go back and forth between extremes AND the masses one would need for revolutionary change, are not interested in significant change or disruption. Which is probably for the best, all things considered.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Makes sense.
1- I really enjoyed this conversation a great deal! I found Nate Silver much more at ease with Ethan during this appearance then the first time he came on the House of Strauss Show.
2 - Ethan, your ability and skill-set in interviewing a whole wide-range of people is truly underrated.
3 - I'm a Nate Silver fan. I have enjoyed his posts immensely. I have found him to be a great source of info, and has a really good pulse on American Politics today.
4 - I'm a bit shocked by the criticism I'm reading on this thread. It makes me wonder why it's often the least intellectual of us that are often the loudest among us.
Really nicely done Ethan and Nate. I really enjoyed reading the "Signal and the Noise" (a book I have been meaning to re-read) and I'm really looking forward to reading "On the Edge".
Maybe it was a case of chemistry between host and guest, but I couldn't believe how unremittingly dull of an interview subject Nate Silver came across as here, even when tackling interesting topics. I mean the guy has had the textbook definition of an interesting life, and yet it's excruciating to hear him talk about it. Also, the "gee wiz, billionaires are, um, weird!" angle is about as facile and skin-deep as it gets. And I thought Silver's analysis of the risk/reward with Shapiro was so understated I had to question how substantial his grasp on politics actually is. (I had assumed his grasp was basically unassailable.) Perhaps Silver is just someone who benefitted from the pop-culturefication of politics at a time when the Grantland paradigm played a role in shaping culture. That was a long time ago, and maybe Silver's moment has passed. As someone who firmly believes that no human being is boring, I walked away from this episode wondering whether Silver actually has anything to say.
He may or may not be politically astute, but he basically became famous by predicting 49 of 50 states in 08. Since anyone could predict around 43 states, he went 6 for 7 on close races and predicted the guy he wanted to win. It's something, but its really not that impressive. Then the media who also wanted that guy to win and absolutely loves pop science (ie stuff that makes them feel smart without having to actually engage in anything resembling math or science) trumpeter him as a soothsayer. And the rest is history.
I do think he's probably fairly smart and a lot more interesting than the typical pundit. But he is swimming in very shallow waters
Silver and SBF emerged from similar backgrounds - boy genius “stars” with family visible in academia.
Will be interesting to read the book and see how far Silver is willing to go. Some are reticent to even call SBF a con artist.
Nate, I don't subscribe to your Substack, but can I still ask you a question?
So you use Zangief over Chung Li?