Category: Psychology

$700 Million Deployed for Harris by an “Elusive” Expert on Randomized Clinical-Trials

“The biggest super PAC in American politics” (p. 1) is spending $700 million on ads to elect Harris, more than the combined expenditures of both the official campaign of Harris and the official campaign of Trump (p. 1). “Leading the group” (p. 19) is an “elusive” PhD named Chauncy McLean, who has “ascended in the party by displaying encyclopedic knowledge of randomized controlled-trials” (p. 19). If Harris wins will that be more due to her overwhelming advantage in funding or more due to the methods used to spend the funds? (Or will the results depend more on how much Americans remember the record of Trump compared to how much they remember the record of Biden-Harris?)

For the full story see:

Theodore Schleifer and Shane Goldmacher. “Super PAC Places $700 Million Bet On Harris’s Bid.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, October 20, 2024): 1 & 19.

“Mass Deportation” Is Not in Trump’s Heart, but Is a Warning to Future Illegal Aliens

I am stressed by the image of the “mass deportation” of those who entered the U.S. illegally, but otherwise have been decent hard-working people. My plausible hope is that deep in his heart, Trump does not really mean it or plan it. Why “plausible”? Read the passage quoted below describing Trump’s visit with The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

At this year’s Republican National Convention, Mr. Trump vowed to undertake “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” Editorial board member Kyle Peterson asks how large—does Mr. Trump intend to deport aliens who are law-abiding except for their illegal presence in the country, even if they have American spouses and children? Maybe not, Mr. Trump says: “We have a lot of good people in this country, and we have to do something about it, and I’d like to see if we can do it.”

Pressed for specifics, he demurs: “Well, I don’t want to go too much into clarification, because the nicer I become, the more people that come over illegally.” When he was president, “I said, ‘We’re going to separate your family.’ . . . It doesn’t sound nice, but when a family hears they’re going to be separated, you know what they do? They stay where they are, because we couldn’t handle it. . . . But the interest from the heart, yeah, something’s going to be done. . . . I mean, there’s some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too. OK?”

The implication is that the optimal immigration policy is a happy medium between restriction and openness. That’s certainly true and perhaps a truism. Mr. Trump suggests that he, the bully with a heart of gold, is just the man to strike the balance.

For the full commentary/interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; Trump Tangles With the Journal’s Editors.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, October 18, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses in original.)

AI Algorithms Lack Intelligence Since They Are “Just Predicting the Next Word in a Text”

(p. B5) Yann LeCun helped give birth to today’s artificial-intelligence boom. But he thinks many experts are exaggerating its power and peril, and he wants people to know it.

. . .

On social media, in speeches and at debates, the college professor and Meta Platforms AI guru has sparred with the boosters and Cassandras who talk up generative AI’s superhuman potential, from Elon Musk to two of LeCun’s fellow pioneers, who share with him the unofficial title of “godfather” of the field. They include Geoffrey Hinton, a friend of nearly 40 years who on Tuesday was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics, and who has warned repeatedly about AI’s existential threats.

. . .

LeCun thinks AI is a powerful tool.

. . .

At the same time, he is convinced that today’s AIs aren’t, in any meaningful sense, intelligent—and that many others in the field, especially at AI startups, are ready to extrapolate its recent development in ways that he finds ridiculous.

If LeCun’s views are right, it spells trouble for some of today’s hottest startups, not to mention the tech giants pouring tens of billions of dollars into AI. Many of them are banking on the idea that today’s large language model-based AIs, like those from OpenAI, are on the near-term path to creating so-called “artificial general intelligence,” or AGI, that broadly exceeds human-level intelligence.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman last month said we could have AGI within “a few thousand days.” Elon Musk has said it could happen by 2026.

LeCun says such talk is likely premature. When a departing OpenAI researcher in May talked up the need to learn how to control ultra-intelligent AI, LeCun pounced. “It seems to me that before ‘urgently figuring out how to control AI systems much smarter than us’ we need to have the beginning of a hint of a design for a system smarter than a house cat,” he replied on X.

He likes the cat metaphor. Felines, after all, have a mental model of the physical world, persistent memory, some reasoning ability and a capacity for planning, he says. None of these qualities are present in today’s “frontier” AIs, including those made by Meta itself.

Léon Bottou, who has known LeCun since 1986, says LeCun is “stubborn in a good way”—that is, willing to listen to others’ views, but single-minded in his pursuit of what he believes is the right approach to building artificial intelligence.

Alexander Rives, a former Ph.D. student of LeCun’s who has since founded an AI startup, says his provocations are well thought out. “He has a history of really being able to see gaps in how the field is thinking about a problem, and pointing that out,” Rives says.

. . .

The large language models, or LLMs, used for ChatGPT and other bots might someday have only a small role in systems with common sense and humanlike abilities, built using an array of other techniques and algorithms.

Today’s models are really just predicting the next word in a text, he says. But they’re so good at this that they fool us. And because of their enormous memory capacity, they can seem to be reasoning, when in fact they’re merely regurgitating information they’ve already been trained on.

“We are used to the idea that people or entities that can express themselves, or manipulate language, are smart—but that’s not true,” says LeCun. “You can manipulate language and not be smart, and that’s basically what LLMs are demonstrating.”

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Pet Cat.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Oct. 12, 2024): B5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Oct. 11, 2024, and has the title “Keywords: This AI Pioneer Thinks AI Is Dumber Than a Cat.” The sentence starting with “Léon Bottou” appears in the online, but not the print, version. Where there are small differences between the versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

People Thinking about the Rules They Have to Obey, Are Not Thinking about the Problems They Have to Solve

(p. A18) . . . I looked into the growing bureaucratization of American life. It’s not only that growing bureaucracies cost a lot of money; they also enervate American society. They redistribute power from workers to rule makers, and in so doing sap initiative, discretion, creativity and drive.

Once you start poking around, the statistics are staggering. Over a third of all health care costs go to administration. As the health care expert David Himmelstein put it in 2020, “The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy.” All of us who have been entangled in the medical system know why administrators are there: to wrangle over coverage for the treatments doctors think patients need.

. . .

In every organization I’ve interacted with, the administrators genuinely want to serve the mission of the organization, but the nature of their jobs is to enforce compliance with this or that rule.

Their power is similar to what Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has called the “time tax.” If you’ve ever fought a health care, corporate or university bureaucracy, you quickly realize you don’t have the time for it, so you give up. I don’t know about you, but my health insurer sometimes denies my family coverage for things that seem like obvious necessities, but I let it go unless it’s a major expense. I calculate that my time is more valuable.

As Philip K. Howard has been arguing for years, good organizations give people discretion to do what is right. But the trend in public and private sector organizations has been to write rules that rob people of the power of discretion. These are two different mentalities. As Howard writes, “Studies of cognitive overload suggest that the real problem is that people who are thinking about rules actually have diminished capacity to think about solving problems.”

. . .

. . ., Mark Edmundson teaches literature at the University of Virginia. The annual self-evaluations he had to submit used to be one page. Now he has to fill out about 15 electronic pages of bureaucratese that include demonstrating how his work advances D.E.I., to make sure his every waking moment conforms to the reigning ideology.

In a recent essay in Liberties Journal, he illustrates how administrators control campus life . . .

. . .

Organizations are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits, but the whole administrative apparatus comes with an implied view of human nature. People are weak, fragile, vulnerable and kind of stupid. They need administrators to run their lives. They have to be trained never to take initiative, lest they wander off into activities that are deemed by the authorities to be out of bounds.

The result is the soft despotism that Tocqueville warned us about centuries ago, a power that “is absolute, minute, regular, provident and mild.” In his Liberties essay, Edmundson writes that this kind of power is now centerless. Presidents and executives don’t run companies, universities or nations. Power is now held by everyone who issues work surveys and annual reports, the people who create H.R. trainings and collect data. He concludes: “They are using the terms of liberation to bring more and more free people closer to mental serfdom. Some day they will awaken in a cage of their own devising, so harshly confining that even they, drunk on their own virtue, will have to notice how their lives are the lives of snails tucked in their shells.”

Trumpian populism is about many things, but one of them is this: working-class people rebelling against administrators. It is about people who want to lead lives of freedom, creativity and vitality, who find themselves working at jobs, sending their kids to schools and visiting hospitals, where they confront “an immense and tutelary power” (Tocqueville’s words) that is out to diminish them.

For the full commentary see:

David Brooks. “Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts.” The New York Times (Friday, January 18, 2024): A18.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date January 19, 2024, and has the title “Lessons of the Trump Assassination Attempt.”)

The article by Lowrey mentioned above is:

Lowrey, Annie. “The Time Tax; Why Is So Much American Bureaucracy Left to Average Citizens?” The Atlantic, July 27, 2021. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/07/how-government-learned-waste-your-time-tax/619568/

The academic paper co-authored by Himmelstein that underlies the Reuters article cited by Brooks above is:

Himmelstein, David, Terry Campbell, and Steffie Woolhandler. “Health Care Administrative Costs in the United States and Canada, 2017.” Annals of Internal Medicine (2020) doi:10.7326/M19-2818.

The article by Howard mentioned above is:

Howard, Philip K. “Bureaucracy Vs. Democracy.” The American Interest (Jan. 31, 2019) Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/opinion/american-life-bureaucracy.html?searchResultPosition=1.

The article by Edmundson mentioned above is:

Edmundson, Mark. “Good People: The New Discipline.” Liberties Journal 3, no. 4 (2023) Available at: https://libertiesjournal.com/articles/good-people-the-new-discipline/.

The two Tocqueville quotes are from Book 4, Chapter 6 of:

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 (1st ed. 1835).

Facing Death in a Seaplane Accident, Bertrand Russell’s Thoughts Were Not Philosophical: “I Thought the Water Was Cold”

For a year or two in grad school at Chicago, I was a member of a Bertrand Russell book club. I didn’t like Russell’s politics, but I did like his down-to-earth clarity, his sense of humor, and his optimistic defense of secular humanism.

(p. 10) “I am human, and consider nothing human alien to me”: The famous line from the Roman playwright Terence, written more than two millenniums ago, is easy to assert but hard to live by, at least with any consistency. The attitude it suggests is adamantly open-minded and resolutely pluralist: Even the most annoying, the most confounding, the most atrocious example of anyone’s behavior is necessarily part of the human experience. There are points of connection between all of us weirdos, no matter how different we are. Michel de Montaigne liked the line so much that he had the Latin original — Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto — inscribed on a ceiling joist in his library.

. . .

Humanism, . . ., has always had to negotiate between noble ideals of humanity and the peculiarities of actual humans. Paradox and ambiguity aren’t to be rejected but embraced. “Dispute and contradiction, not veneration and obedience, are the essence of intellectual life,” Bakewell writes.

. . .

. . ., Bakewell practices what she preaches — or, since preaching would be anathema to a humanist, she does what she suggests. She puts her entire self into this book, linking philosophical reflections with vibrant anecdotes. She delights in the paradoxical and the particular, reminding us that every human being contains multitudes.

This can lead her to some wonderful asides.  . . .  When Bertrand Russell was in a seaplane accident in Norway and a journalist called him afterward to ask whether his brush with death had led him to think about such high-flown concepts as mysticism and logic, he said no, it had not. “I thought the water was cold.”

For the full review see:

Jennifer Szalai. “Oh, the Humanity.” The New York Times Book Review (Sunday, April 16, 2023 [sic]): 10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 29, 2023 [sic], and has the title “The Tricky Thing With Humanism, This Book Implies, Is Humans.” In the original, the Latin phrase in the first quoted paragraph is in italics.)

The book under review is:

Bakewell, Sarah. Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope. New York: Penguin Press, 2023.

Fingarette Provoked Thought on Alcohol and Death

When I was a graduate student in the late 1970s I attended a small seminar in Santa Barbara presented by Henry Fingarette on his thoughts on alcoholism. I do not know if I agree with those thoughts, or his thoughts on death, mentioned in the obituary quoted below. But I enjoyed his non-politically-correct seminar and still find his thoughts on both topics to be worth pondering. [I participated in the seminar as part of a month or two residency in Santa Barbara organized by the philosopher Tibor Machan and funded by the Reason Foundation. Other participants included David Levy, Doug Rasmussen, and Doug Den Uyl. Gary Becker told me that it was a mistake for me to attend; he said those weeks would be better spent staying in Chicago and improving my math skills. Becker’s advice was sincere and well-intentioned, but even now I am conflicted on whether I should have followed his advice.]

(p. 26) Herbert Fingarette, a contrarian philosopher who, while plumbing the perplexities of personal responsibility, defined heavy drinking as willful behavior rather than as a potential disease, died on Nov. 2 at his home in Berkeley, Calif. He was 97.

. . .

In “Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease” (1988), Professor Fingarette all but accused the treatment industry of conspiring to profit from the conventional theory that alcoholism is a disease. He maintained that heavy use of alcohol is a “way of life,” that many heavy drinkers can choose to reduce their drinking to moderate levels, and that most definitions of the word “alcoholic” are phony.

“Some people can drink very heavily and get into no trouble whatsoever,” he told The New York Times in 1989.

. . .

At his death, he was completing an essay on how the dead continue to shape the lives of the living, a topic he had written about in “Death: Philosophical Soundings” (1996). . . .

“Never in my life will I experience death,” he wrote. “I will never know an end to my life, this life of mine right here on earth.” He added: “People hope never to know the end of consciousness. But why merely hope? It’s a certainty. They never will!”

For the full obituary, see:

Sam Roberts. “Herbert Fingarette, 97, Contrarian on Alcoholism.” The New York Times, First Section (Sunday, November 18, 2018 [sic]): 26.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date Nov. 15, 2018 [sic], and has the title “Herbert Fingarette, Contrarian Philosopher on Alcoholism, Dies at 97.”)

Fingarette’s book on alcoholism, mentioned above, is:

Fingarette, Herbert. Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989.

Fingarette’s book on death, mentioned above, is:

Fingarette, Herbert. Death: Philosophical Soundings. Chicago: Open Court, 1999.

Patient-Reported Health Information Deserves Respect

Patients may have more accurate knowledge of their health than the information found in doctors’ blood tests, as reported in the study summarized below. The credibility of patient self-knowledge provides an added reason, besides respect for freedom, why government should not mandate an individual’s food and drug decisions.

(p. D4) . . . a . . . study . . . suggests that how patients say they feel may be a better predictor of health than objective measures like a blood test. The study, published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, used data from 1,500 people who took part in the Texas City Stress and Health Study, which tracked the stress and health levels of people living near Houston.

. . .

The study found that when people said they felt poorly, they had high virus and inflammation levels. People who reported feeling well had low virus and inflammation levels.

“I think the take-home message is that self-reported health matters,” said Christopher P. Fagundes, an assistant psychology professor at Rice University and a co-author of the study. “Physicians should pay close to attention to their patients. There are likely biological mechanisms underlying why they feel their health is poor.”

For the full story see:

Tara Parker-Pope. “Doctors, Listen to Patients.” The New York Times (Tuesday, July 19, 2016 [sic]): D4.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 15, 2016 [sic], and has the title “Doctors Should Listen to Patient Instincts.”)

The academic paper co-authored by Fagundes and mentioned above is:

Murdock, Kyle W., Christopher P. Fagundes, M. Kristen Peek, Vansh Vohra, and Raymond P. Stowe. “The Effect of Self-Reported Health on Latent Herpesvirus Reactivation and Inflammation in an Ethnically Diverse Sample.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 72 (Oct. 2016): 113-18.

Kahneman’s “Adversarial Collaboration” Might Bring Us More Joy and Better Science

(p. A19) Professor Kahneman, who died . . . at the age of 90, is best known for his pathbreaking explorations of human judgment and decision making and of how people deviate from perfect rationality. He should also be remembered for a living and working philosophy that has never been more relevant: his enthusiasm for collaborating with his intellectual adversaries. This enthusiasm was deeply personal. He experienced real joy working with others to discover the truth, even if he learned that he was wrong (something that often delighted him).

. . .

Professor Kahneman saw . . . “angry science,” which he described as a “nasty world of critiques, replies and rejoinders” and “as a contest, where the aim is to embarrass.” As Professor Kahneman put it, those who live in that nasty world offer “a summary caricature of the target position, refute the weakest argument in that caricature and declare the total destruction of the adversary’s position.” In his account, angry science is “a demeaning experience.”

. . .

Professor Kahneman meant both to encourage better science and to strengthen the better angels of our nature.

For the full commentary see:

Cass R. Sunstein. “The Value of Collaborating With Adversaries.” The New York Times (Wednesday, April 3, 2024): A19.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 1, 2024, and has the title “The Nobel Winner Who Liked to Collaborate With His Adversaries.”)

The Absence of a Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial Is Used as an Excuse to Ignore an Emergency Procedure That Saves Lives

In an urgent emergency the son and wife of a man with a stopped heart, improvised the use of a toilet plunger to get his heart to start pumping again. In his wonderful account of the sources of insight, Gary Klein told a different example of urgent emergency improvisation: “Wag” Dodge saved himself from a massive wildfire racing toward him by lighting a match to the grass at his feet to pre-burn a patch he could lie down in. When the wildfire reached him, it passed on both sides, avoiding the patch that now had no fuel. Neither the son-and-mother, nor Wag Dodge, got their insight from collaboration or a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

(p. D5) In 1988, a 65-year-old man’s heart stopped at home. His wife and son didn’t know CPR, so in desperation they grabbed a toilet plunger to get his heart going until an ambulance showed up.

Later, after the man recovered at San Francisco General Hospital, his son gave the doctors there some advice: Put toilet plungers next to all of the beds in the coronary unit.

The hospital didn’t do that, but the idea got the doctors thinking about better ways to do CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the conventional method for chest compressions after cardiac arrest. More than three decades later, at a meeting of emergency medical services directors this week in Hollywood, Fla., researchers presented data showing that using a plunger-like setup leads to remarkably better outcomes for reviving patients.

. . .

The new procedure, known as neuroprotective CPR, has three components. First, a silicone plunger forces the chest up and down, not only pushing blood out to the body, but drawing it back in to refill the heart. A plastic valve fits over a face mask or breathing tube to control pressure in the lungs.

The third piece is a body-positioning device sold by AdvancedCPR Solutions, a firm in Edina, Minn., that was founded by Dr. Lurie. A hinged support slowly elevates a supine patient into a partial sitting position. This allows oxygen-starved blood in the brain to drain more effectively and to be replenished more quickly with oxygenated blood.

. . .

. . ., a study carried out in four states found . . . [p]atients who received neuroprotective CPR within 11 minutes of a 911 call were about three times as likely to survive with good brain function as those who received conventional CPR.

. . .

Dr. Karen Hirsch, a neurologist at Stanford University and a member of the CPR standards committee for the American Heart Association, said that the new approach was interesting and made physiological sense, but that the committee needed to see more research on patients before it could formally recommend it as a treatment option.

“We’re limited to the available data,” she said, adding that the committee would like to see a clinical trial in which people undergoing cardiac arrests are randomly assigned to conventional CPR or neuroprotective CPR. No such trials are happening in the United States.

Dr. Joe Holley, the medical director for the emergency medical service that serves Memphis and several surrounding communities, isn’t waiting for a larger trial. Two of his teams, he said, were getting neurologically intact survival rates of about 7 percent with conventional CPR. With neuroprotective CPR, the rates rose to around 23 percent.

His crews are coming back from emergency calls much happier these days, too, and patients are even showing up at fire stations to thank them for their help.

“That was a rare occurrence,” Dr. Holley said. “Now it’s almost a regular thing.”

For the full story see:

Joanne Silberner. “How a Plunger Improved CPR.” The New York Times (Tuesday, June 27, 2023 [sic]): D5.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date June 15, 2023 [sic], and has the title “How a Toilet Plunger Improved CPR.”)

The Gary Klein book that I praised above is:

Klein, Gary. Seeing What Others Don’t: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2013.

The “study carried out in four states,” and mentioned above, is:

Moore, Johanna C., Paul E. Pepe, Kenneth A. Scheppke, Charles Lick, Sue Duval, Joseph Holley, Bayert Salverda, Michael Jacobs, Paul Nystrom, Ryan Quinn, Paul J. Adams, Mack Hutchison, Charles Mason, Eduardo Martinez, Steven Mason, Armando Clift, Peter M. Antevy, Charles Coyle, Eric Grizzard, Sebastian Garay, Remle P. Crowe, Keith G. Lurie, Guillaume P. Debaty, and José Labarère. “Head and Thorax Elevation During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Using Circulatory Adjuncts Is Associated with Improved Survival.” Resuscitation 179 (2022): 9-17.

Babies’ Curiosity Leads Them to Prefer Persons Who Inform

(p. C2) . . . Katarina Begus of Birkbeck, University of London and her colleagues . . . started out exploring the origins of curiosity. When grown-ups think that they are about to learn something new, their brains exhibit a pattern of activity called a theta wave. The researchers fitted out 45 11-month-old babies with little caps covered with electrodes to record brain activity. The researchers wanted to see if the babies would also produce theta waves when they thought that they might learn something new.

The babies saw two very similar-looking people interact with a familiar toy like a rubber duck. One experimenter pointed at the toy and said, “That’s a duck.” The other just pointed at the object and instead of naming it made a noise: She said “oooh” in an uninformative way.

Then the babies saw one of the experimenters pick up an unfamiliar gadget. You would expect that the person who told you the name of the duck could also tell you about this new thing. And, sure enough, when the babies saw the informative experimenter, their brains produced theta waves, as if they expected to learn something. On the other hand, you might expect that the experimenter who didn’t tell you anything about the duck would also be unlikely to help you learn more about the new object. Indeed, the babies didn’t produce theta waves when they saw this uninformative person.

. . .

Babies leap at the chance to learn something new—and can figure out who is likely to teach them. The babies did prefer the person in their own group, but that may have reflected curiosity, not bias. They thought that someone who spoke the same language could tell them the most about the world around them.

For the full commentary see:

Alison Gopnik. “Mind & Matter; Babies Show a Clear Bias—To Learn New Things.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Oct. 29, 2016 [sic]): C2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary was updated Oct. 26, 2016 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

Begus’s co-authored academic paper is:

Begus, Katarina, Teodora Gliga, and Victoria Southgate. “Infants’ Preferences for Native Speakers Are Associated with an Expectation of Information.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 44 (2016): 12397-402.

Conservatives Are Better Than Liberals at “the Separation of Facts from Feelings”

(p. A13) I don’t know who’s going to win the presidential election, and neither do you. Neither, for that matter, does Nate Silver, notwithstanding his reputation as a political prognosticator. He is more accurately characterized as a forecaster, which is to say that he deals in probabilities, not outright predictions.

. . .

. . . since I first encountered his work in 2009, Mr. Silver has always struck me as an honest practitioner. Although he describes himself as a “center-left liberal,” he frequently provokes antagonism from fellow liberals when his data and analysis point in directions they’d rather not go.

. . .

Mr. Silver’s career as a political pundit is something of an accident. After earning a bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago in 2000, he went to work as a KPMG consultant. Bored with his job, he started playing online poker, at first for fun. He says he “eventually deposited money at a real-money site and ran it up from 25 bucks to 15,000 bucks.” He quit KPMG and got a part-time job writing about baseball statistics, but 80% of his income came from poker winnings.

Then in 2006 Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which effectively banned online poker by making it unlawful for the sites to accept payments. “That killed my livelihood,” Mr. Silver says. “I started following politics. I had more time on my hands. I also wanted to see the people behind the bill ousted from office, which they were.” Its primary sponsor, Rep. Jim Leach (R., Iowa), lost his bid for a 16th term.

Mr. Silver still plays poker semiprofessionally—in person—and has earned $855,800 in tournaments, according to the Hendon Mob database. He has a new book out next week, “On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything,” in which he interviews professional gamblers, venture capitalists, adventurers and others known for their “mastery of risk” and develops a philosophical framework around their insights.

The book touches only lightly on politics, but some of its concepts have obvious application. One of them is “decoupling,” which means, roughly, thinking with analytical detachment, including the separation of facts from feelings. Journalists used to call it objectivity, an aspiration that has fallen out of fashion in recent decades, especially in the Trump era.

A failure to decouple explains the widespread denial of Mr. Biden’s decline in the months before his withdrawal. Clear evidence became mistakable when distorted through the lenses of partisanship, ideology and antipathy toward Mr. Trump. There is no reason to believe people on the left are intrinsically more prone to this sort of error, but Mr. Silver thinks that “liberal bubbles are bigger than conservative bubbles.” Domination of big cities and influential institutions makes it easier for those on the left simply to ignore opposing views.

For the full interview see:

James Taranto. “The Weekend Interview; President Kamala Harris? What Are the Odds?” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Aug 10, 2024): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the interview has the date August 9, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

The “new book” by Silver mentioned above is:

Silver, Nate. On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything. New York: The Penguin Press, 2024.