I’ve been reading Silver’s 2024 book. I think it is very good. An excerpt from the book is given in the post below.. Some online critics disagree; he certainly likes to namedrop and “risk” is used generously to unite very different discussions on professional poker, betting on sports, and AI and rationalist and effective altruism philosophies.
But I find him erudite and interesting. The fact he can personally interview leading folks in these fields, and offer his generally different opinions is useful. I find the book topic coherent.
In order to discuss these things, Silver makes a big deal about philosophical differences between “Villagers” who are caricatured as woke, educated, East Coast establishment types who like rules and consensus and avoid risk (maybe found in universities, media, etc.) Versus “River” gamblers, Silicon Valley types and those more inclined to embrace risk (especially “expected value”) and distrust or disrespect academics, officials and their rules, preferring data and being contrary; and talking free speech and unfettered capitalism.
It is as reductive a division as “Foxes versus Hedgehogs” was in Silver’s first book The Signal And The Noise. It is a simple caricature. But it has some elements of truth, and is somewhat useful for the purposes of politics or approach to probability.
I am curious if other Dopers have read this book, what they think of Silver, excesses from the debate between effective altruists and rationalists - both of which have their ridiculous side. But most of all, whether it is useful to categorize people by their approach to risk or being on a spectrum from “Village” traditionalists to those on “the River” who claim to be data driven and who sometimes dislike traditional media and institutions.