In his book titled "On the Edge", Nate Silver introduces the concept of two distinct groups of elites in modern America. The first group, referred to as "the Village," represents traditional elites often associated with "old money". This group includes socialites in New York City, institutions like the New York Times and Washington Post, and Ivy League schools. In contrast, a rising group of elites, collectively referred to as "the River," is gaining prominence. Members of the River are characterized by their affinity for quantitative approaches, contrarian thinking, and a willingness to take calculated risks. This group includes professional gamblers, poker players, sports bettors, crypto enthusiasts, venture capitalists, and even effective altruists.
The distinction between the Village and the River is not always clear-cut. Some individuals operate within both worlds, and each world contains its own internal contradictions. They are not homogeneous either. Within both the Village and the River, diverse schools of thought influence how these groups evolve. Even so, the fundamental differences in motivations and thinking styles between the two make the Village-River distinction a meaningful framework for understanding modern elite dynamics.
The book introduces a lot of the psychology, incentives and mechanics behind gambling, sports betting and venture capital investment that most people don't know about or see from the outside (Nate Silver was a semi-professional poker player for years himself, and for a time has also dabbled in sports betting). The book also introduces several prominent figures from the River, including Sam Bankman-Fried, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, as well as effective altruists like Peter Singer and Toby Ord. All of this makes for a very entertaining and informative read, as the author shares some fascinating details about various subjects that have captivated the public imagination for many decades, but which remain misunderstood by many.
While the book does not fully endorse the River, it offers a balanced assessment of both the benefits, as well as its potential downsides of Riverian thinking. Thus, while fully acknowledging the huge potential benefits of a quantitative, risk-taking mindset, Silver also highlights the significant blind spots that its adherents may possess.
For instance, Riverians often embrace the idea of quantifying everything - a practice that has its merits. Contrary to popular belief, many of our everyday decisions implicitly involve quantification, whether or not we realize it and whether or not we would like to admit it. Consider the dilemma of COVID lockdowns, for example. Some argued that human life is priceless, justifying prolonged lockdowns. However, when individuals chose to go outside in the middle of the pandemic, every such decision implicitly involved a risk-benefit calculation. Economists, insurance companies, and governments routinely apply the concept of "Value of Statistical Life," typically estimated at around $10 million USD based on empirical data. This framework suggests that a sensible tradeoff always existed - a balance less extreme than prolonged lockdowns but still acceptable to most people.
The challenge with Riverians’ quantitative mindset is that they sometimes take it too literally or seriously, even when their calculations are little more than back-of-the-napkin estimates without a clear basis in real-world data. This can occasionally lead to strange conclusions.
For example, an effective altruist might say that if you have $1,000, it's better to give it to a starving child in a 3rd world country than to your own child. Your own child already has everything she needs, at least comparatively, whereas the same money could make a huge difference somewhere else. Sometimes this core idea is also extended by effective altruists to future generations: we have a duty to help them, even at the cost of some potential discomfort now. Clearly, this raises all sorts of questions, like how much risk should one take for the potential benefit of improving the lives of people you’ll never meet or safeguarding the global future? At what point does the pursuit of such lofty goals come at the expense of your own well-being or the well-being of those who depend on you here and now? Furthermore, how reliable are the models used to assess the risks and rewards of any given action that may be risky today but have a huge potential upside in the future? Without sound models, ensuring that decisions are truly principled becomes a significant challenge.
Sam Bankman-Fried serves as a prime example of someone who either (A) took his assessments far too literally and seriously, despite them being wildly off the mark, or (B) recognized the risks but chose to embrace them anyway, gambling on a long-shot upside for the greater good of humanity in some distant future. While thinking in terms of probabilities can be useful, it becomes highly dangerous when probabilities are treated as near certainties or when potential negative consequences are heavily discounted. This is especially true in scenarios where there’s only one chance to get things right - mistakes in such cases can have catastrophic consequences.
Similarly, one might question the value of discussing concepts like p(doom) - the probability of catastrophic outcomes - and whether it even makes sense to take any specific estimate seriously when the subject is so complex and inherently difficult to measure. Silver explores this topic in depth, highlighting its many nuances. On the one hand, he is sympathetic to the concept, noting that it challenges experts to back their claims with tangible predictions. On the other hand, he convincingly demonstrates that even among the most knowledgeable individuals, estimates vary widely. These discrepancies often depend on subjective factors, such as how transformational one believes a technology like AI is likely to become.
Despite these inconsistencies, Riverian thinking appears to be gaining the upper hand over the Village, for better or worse. This shift is partly due to the Village’s complacency and its own array of blind spots. It’s also driven by the fact that Riverians are correct in recognizing that, in a world brimming with possibilities and opportunities, taking calculated risks often leads to significant rewards.
A key takeaway from the book is that we, the readers, too, should embrace more risk in our own lives. As Silver emphasizes, risks that don’t jeopardize your well-being and have a positive expected value (+EV) almost always yield benefits in the long run.
To emphasize his point, Silver concludes by reimagining the traditional Enlightenment values of liberté, égalité, and fraternité into three modern principles: agency, plurality, and reciprocity.
The first value, agency, extends beyond mere freedom to include empowering people with real, well-informed choices, enabling them to act meaningfully and independently.
The second one, plurality, involves not allowing any single person, group or ideology to impose itself over all others. Unlike equality, plurality does not imply that all ideas are inherently equal; rather, it acknowledges the need for a diverse and competitive exchange of perspectives.
The third one, reciprocity, involves considering others as equally intelligent and capable of reasonable strategic behavior. This follows from the logic of game-theoretic equilibria, where the optimal strategy of each side is derived based on the assumption that the other side will also play optimally. While this may seem idealistic, the book argues that it helps to assume this in the long-run because others will feel less exploited and will be more cooperative in the long run.
Although I often feel that discussing social concepts like these can be a futile exercise - after all, the chances of seeing one’s own ideas actually implemented in society are slim - I’m inclined to make an exception here. The three social values highlighted by Silver - agency, plurality, and reciprocity - resonate with the book’s core message and make it clearer: that in a world with countless possibilities, where individuals are empowered to make well-informed decisions, there is a unique potential to generate greater prosperity. Perhaps this is a message that can be applied not only to broader societal contexts but also to one’s personal life and interactions with others.