On the Edge to a New Paradigm for Human Behavior – I

One of the more amazing books I have ever read crossed my desk earlier this winter. 

It is Nate Silver’s 2024 On the Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.  The dust jacket notes say it “investigates “the River,” the community of like-minded people whose mastery of risk allows them to shape – and dominate – much of modern life.”  That group is made up of “professional risk-takers” who are “poker players and hedge fund managers, crypto true believers and blue-chip art collectors.” With “high tolerance for risk, appreciation of uncertainty, affinity for numbers,” and “an instinctive distrust of conventional wisdom and a competitive drive so intense it can border on irrational,” they “can teach us much about navigating the uncertainty of the twenty-first century.”  The book explores the mindset of River members, through the remarkably interrelated areas of poker, sports betting, gambling in general, statistics below the surface, Las Vegas as contrasted with other American cities, general principles of risk-taking, artificial intelligence, the search for situations with positive expected value (ones expected to have value over their costs in the long run), venture capital theory and practice, a number of philosophical perspectives, and, above all, how to quantify whether and to what extent an action is worthwhile.  It runs 559 pages, including 24 on a glossary of “how to speak Riverian,” or definitions of about 400 concepts Silver used elsewhere in the book, which might be its most valuable part.  It is complicated but remarkably readable.  It is destined, unless Silver quickly outdoes it, to be a classic, in business, psychology, philosophy, economics, game theory, and probably in other subjects.

As with any great work of art, it also lends itself to different interpretations and branches of thinking not inherent to the original.  One has occurred to me while thinking about, re-reading (and re-re-reading, re-re-re-reading…) sections of it, and applying it to my life.  Here is my spinoff.

The book has a dichotomy, between those Silver classified as being in the River, and others in its rival and in many ways opposite community, the Village, which is “reflected most clearly in intellectual occupations with progressive politics, such as the media, academia, and government (especially when a Democrat is in the White House).”  The two communities “consist overwhelmingly of “elites,”” and “the vast majority of the population doesn’t fall into either group.”  Silver saw problems with each, but clearly was himself a Riverian, so his perception of the value of Village thinking may be too low. 

My different way of looking at people, though, while related to Silver’s scheme, parts company from it importantly and includes most of the people left out.  That I call being “Silver,” for the author, or “Lead,” for the base metal.

What is the difference between Silver and Lead, and how does that vary from this book?  In general, Silver ideas, actions, and general people are not only courageous but prudent about risk-taking.  Unlike the “degens” (out-of-control heavy gamblers) and people who take risks at greatest expense to others (e.g. Donald Trump), Silvers weigh those factors, and make sure, when taking a risk, not only does it have truly positive expected value (or enough recreational value to justify it), but it is sufficiently undamaging to bystanders.  Maybe even more than in the examples in this book, they identify areas, which can be recreational, social, sexual, or non-financially enriching, where the downside is minimal but the potential upside is large.  That they do through assessing the true disadvantages, taking their distrust of conventional wisdom far enough to question the often-perceived inappropriateness of certain actions.  For example, a man may be considered “creepy” for asking a woman he does not know, in whom he has romantic interest, if she is married, whereas if he stops interaction the moment it clearly becomes unwelcome, it may be perfectly innofensive.

Here is a starting list of attributes and people that generally fit in the two categories.  Silver behavior generally or always includes courage, risk-taking, initiative-taking, fantasy fulfillment, independent thinking, saying yes, social openness, trying to involve others, more sex, pushing the envelope in general, remembering “you only live once” (or twice, for your dreams as well?), reevaluating old reasons for not taking action, preferring to beg forgiveness instead of asking permission, much rule-breaking, intensity, vitality in general, most extroversion, being internally honest about what they want and don’t want and don’t care about, questioning whether limitations other people said they have are valid, self-discipline, thinking outside the box (especially way outside the box), and doing things their way.  Lead thinking gets emphasis on protocol, risk-averseness, unwillingness to defy unnecessary-seeming conventions, being other-driven, being stopped by unjustified fear, being only a spectator, watching large amounts of TV, and the opposites of the Silver items.  In general, Silvers soar and let you soar; Leads pull you down.

I also started a list of people in my life who were Silvers and Leads, some of whom were Silvers at some times and Leads at others.  I found it enlightening, especially when considering those I liked or did not like.  If you are interested in this material, think about those you have known – it may be instructive for you as well.

Much more to follow.