Freakonomics Radio
Hosted by Stephen J. Dubner
Original podcast
America's favorite statistical guru answers our FREAK-quently Asked Questions, and more.
7,852 words · 6 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet, time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture-changing
happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it, which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example? Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank: brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Amica. You know what they say, if you want to go fast, go alone.
If you want to go far, go together. So, go with Amica and get coverage from a mutual insurer that's built for their customers, one that looks after what's important to you together. Auto, home, life, and more, coverage that fits your unique needs. Amica helps you protect what matters most. Visit amica.com and get a quote today. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work.
You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time, you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.
Hey Nate.
Hey.
Hey, it's Stephen Dubner. How's it going?
Good. Good to talk to you.
First off, just tell us in, you know, 60 seconds or less, what you actually do now in a given day.
So I am the editor in chief of the website 538.com, and I don't know that I have a lot of consistency from day to day. Sometimes I'm writing, sometimes I'm running models, sometimes I'm editing, sometimes I'm managing, sometimes doing media. So it's a job that is always really fun and challenging in the sense that you're not doing too much of the same thing, but I have to think carefully about how to budget my time.
Nate Silver is America's favorite statistical guru of the past, well, maybe ever. He has been devilishly accurate in predicting electoral outcomes. Before that, he joined the small but influential fraternity of stat heads who work with data in sports, particularly in baseball. He's written an excellent book called The Signal and the Noise, which is essentially about the folly of prediction. And today, he is our guest on the latest installment of Frequently Asked Questions, in which we compel a noteworthy person to tell us some important truths, such as their favorite sport.
I don't know, bowling, I suppose.
Just how devoted they are to their work.
I don't even always watch, like, the State of the Union, for example.
And what you learn about life as you get a bit older.
One of the most profound lessons to me about adulthood is that everyone's kind of weird.
From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.
What do we do on the show? Pretty simple. We ask questions, hopefully the sort of questions you might like to ask. And we ask them to the sort of people that you might like to hear from. Nate Silver, for instance. He is chiefly known as the proprietor of 538.com.
Yeah, so the kind of elevator pitch is that 538 is data journalism. The problem is once you get past the first five words, then it becomes a little bit more complicated to define, right? But really, we think it's empirical analysis, quote unquote, the scientific method as applied to journalism, but it's entirely compatible with traditional reporting approaches, too. But the idea is just it's kind of, we believe there are skillsets that are underused in journalism, including computer programming, coding, statistical analysis, of course, in particular. And we think that journalists could benefit from having more of that.
These days, 538 covers a lot of territory: sports, the economy, pop culture. But it is politics, especially political elections, that make up its foundation. That is where the site got its name, from the number of votes in the Electoral College, which determines who wins the presidency of the United States.
I started just as kind of a blogger.com blog back in 2008 during the campaign then. It kind of blew up during 2008. I licensed it to New York Times from 2010 to 2013, and then it was acquired by ESPN after that. I'm kind of a big poker player, and I've played in the World Series of Poker a couple of times, never done extraordinarily well. But to win the World Series of Poker, when there are like 7,000 entrants, you have to get really, really lucky a couple of times, right? And it kind of feels like in 2008 and again in 2012, I won a couple of really big pots in key circumstances when things got broken against me.
During those elections, Silver compiled polling and demographic data from many sources. He aggregated, weighted, and analyzed these data, forging predictions that turned out to be remarkably accurate.
So, you know, sometimes I feel like I'm playing on house money a little bit, but, you know, I'm also trying to turn that into something more sustainable and, you know, build out a staff of really talented journalists and really great people. And that's kind of where I'm mostly focused on right now.
We spoke back in early March when Nate Silver had two things to celebrate: the one-year anniversary of 538 on ESPN.com and the paperback publication of his book, The Signal and the Noise. First and foremost, congratulations. Does it feel like a time to sit back and appreciate yourself or not really?
That's the problem is like you can't really stay still. And we have like, you know, March Madness this month and the UK election coming up. And so, yeah, there's, I mean, you can kind of be content or happy, but kind of not both at the same time, I've found, is one of the consequences of being, having a lot to do and kind of being people's boss and stuff.
Where do you find people that fit your worldview? Because your worldview, while it's pretty popular in some circles, including, I should say, the circle of people who listen to a show like this, it's not overwhelmingly popular. It's certainly not quite mainstream yet. And furthermore, it's new-ish. So how do you find people that you think will fit?
I mean, I think one, one sort of problem we have is that the skill set that we're hiring for is a place where people would have a lot of options in addition to journalism. I tend to buy into the notion that there's a shortage in the United States of STEM talent, and we're hiring from that pool a little bit. But still, you know, there are a lot of organizations, news organizations, that are trying to be more data-driven. You know, a lot of college programs are training people in coding and computer programming and statistics in addition to journalism as part of their curriculum. So it's getting better over time. But, you know, we do sometimes feel like we have more ideas than we have the capacity
to execute on right now. But that's also kind of part of being a startup and having a lot of creative people on board.
And let's say you find a perfect candidate, or ten perfect candidates, who are all the perfect data nerds, who are really good with the math and the statistics, and even have good taste, but don't do journalism at all. Is that more coachable than the inverse?
I'm not sure. I mean, I think there are a lot of parts to being a journalist that are hard to teach other than through experience. You know, one of them that we noticed our people have that maybe some people in academia lack is just a sense for how other people see the world. So, no, I'm not sure it's been our experience so far that that one skill set is easier than the other to teach. Obviously, a lot of the work is collaborative, too. You might have someone who's more experienced in getting on the phone, or traveling somewhere and talking to people, and someone else who's more versed in the number crunching.
You are the perfect person for me to ask this question of. In the last, I don't know, three, four, five years, the phrase "big data" has become so used, maybe abused, that it really has become a cliche in a pretty short time, and it's used in corporate advertising slogans and so on. And to me, and I may be totally wrong on this, but to me, it's received in some quarters as a sort of magic bullet.
No, I agree with almost all of that, really. It's kind of one of the themes of my book, and there are a couple of things to unpack. You know, one is the term "big data" itself, and there are some people who would say, "Well, big data has to be really large, not the sort of stuff you could crunch on a regular computer." You know, for example, we launched Interactive recently, where it looks at a different way of looking at which flights actually get you there the fastest, what's the best airline for logistics, and that relies on data from about six million flights. That sounds impressive, but you can still run that program in about 10 or 12 minutes on a laptop, right? People wouldn't really say it's big data when all those records are pretty carefully
scrutinized. But that said, you know, people, I think, when they say "big data," often mean analytics, really, and statistical analysis, applied statistics. You know, it's not all about the data, necessarily. You know, oftentimes, it's not about the amount of data you have, but how much you vetted. That data, if a data set is virginal, as I call it, no one's looked at it before, really, you're going to have a lot of problems. And one problem with a really large data set is that if you're running some algorithms, some quick and dirty way to find the most influential data points, a lot of times those are bugs and outliers, right? And the reason why you have big anomalies is because someone coded it in wrong, or you made some mistake in the analysis. You know, I also think there aren't necessarily the skills and the training.
So one thing I talk about in my book is how, when the personal computer became commonplace in the workforce, the 1970s, then in the home in the early 1980s, it took a while before there were any tangible signs of productivity gains in the economy, meaning like 10 or 15 or 20 years even. So I think people love new technology, but they overestimate how much the kind of human factor gets in the way. I'm not trying to be cute about that. I just mean that, you know, people need to learn how to use these tools, what they can do, what they can't do. You know, no amount of data is a substitute for scientific inference and hypothesis testing and kind of structured analysis of a system. I think one of the
false promises that was made early on is that, well, if you have a billion data points or trillion data points, you're going to find lots and lots of correlations through brute force. And you will, but the problem is that a high percentage of those, maybe the vast majority, are false correlations, are false positives, where they're statistically significant, but you have so many lottery tickets when you can run analysis on a trillion data points that you're going to have some one in a million coincidences just by chance alone. If you bet all your money on them, you might wind up looking very foolish in the end.
How's 538 doing, I guess, overall, editorial, but also from a traffic and business perspective? You know, whenever there's a web debut as high profile as yours, leaving the New York Times for ESPN, there's a lot of noise, but then the noise recedes. And I'm curious, are you making boatloads of money for ESPN? Are they having mega buyers remorse because you're so expensive? How's that working?
You know, in the first year, I mean, it's a pretty young staff and a lot of people were doing what they were doing for the first time and the expectations were pretty high, so it kind of took some time to hit a groove, I think. It's, you know, I try to make analogies sometimes to opening a new restaurant where you might have a lot of ambition for it, but to reproduce something every day, it's very much, I mean, we after the first day we published, which was March 17th, 2014, we kind of all got beers after work and we were really pleased and we'd like literally, or at least I had, I won't blame my employees.
We're done.
Yeah, I'd forgotten that, oh crap, we have to publish this website every day for the rest of our lives, right? And so achieving that kind of consistency takes a little bit more time. But, you know, if you are looking at kind of indicators, I mean, traffic is up about, about two times year over year. It often happens when you launch a product, but that's good. It's happened to us too. We're growing our staff in a slow but sustainable way. We have, you know, 25 or 30 people now, depending on how you count. But we're just able to do more things at once. I mean, in this period here in the kind of early spring, we're launching interactive on airlines and the NCAA tournament and the UK election and a historical perspective on NBA basketball. So four or five things
in addition to the work we're doing from day to day.
So that success thus far notwithstanding, at the New York Times, 538, which was a much, much, much smaller operation than it is at ESPN, 538 was more essential certainly to the New York Times website than 538 is to ESPN, which is a sports behemoth. What's the difference for you being, you know, now you're a prominent and I don't know what size fish in a really big pond. At the Times, you were a prominent and gigantic fish in a big pond, which came about, I know, organically and maybe even surprisingly to you, but it did happen where you were driving so much traffic, you personally with a couple colleagues to the, to the New York Times website. What's the difference now for you psychically and editorially?
It's funny, I mean, in terms of, and we don't obsess too much over traffic, right? But the election day peak was really high at the times, and that's the People Figure site. And the median month, though, we now get, you know, five or six times more traffic, more visitors than we did at the time. So, you know, I think sometimes people grasp onto outliers, including when they talk about us in 538. So ESPN, when it signs a deal with a sports league like the NPA, that's a 10-year deal, and they literally will be contemplating technologies that don't even exist yet. The thing about traffic now is that you can measure so much in real time, you know, so we might be able to say, hey, if we wanted to publish a story that would maximize page
views right now, we would say, oh, there's been an alien invasion, right? And President Obama has been kidnapped and beamed up to Mars. I mean, everyone on the internet would look at that story for about five minutes, and then no one, hopefully, would ever read our site again. And there's no metric yet for kind of what's the long-term value that you're generating from a stupid article that you post today to get a lot of page views, or the loyalty you develop with your customers. So we saw this in baseball a little bit, where for a while, people were able to measure offense really well and not defense really well. And so the sloppy conclusion there is that, oh, we can't measure defense, therefore it doesn't matter. Well, it turned out that when people actually found better ways to measure defensive ability,
it turned out to matter at least as much, maybe more, than the conventional wisdom had held. So we're aware of that, and that, you know, it's some things you can judge with metrics, some things you can't, and that's a tricky part of the media business now.
How long do you think you'll do 538 for?
Hopefully for the foreseeable future. I mean, obviously, we have a big election coming up in 2016, but, you know, people, when they're taking jobs here, assume it's going to be an organization that builds and grows for the long term.
Is it my imagination, or has ESPN loosened up on talking about sports gambling, which traditionally the NFL, among others, has been really nervous about? But it feels like this past NFL season, there was a lot more discussion on ESPN about betting lines.
Well, look, I mean, Grantland, which is our sister brand, and Bill Simmons, I mean, they've always talked a lot about sports gambling. And, I mean, look, you can kind of see from the examples you cite that I don't think ESPN has too many hangups about it. The leagues increasingly, especially the NBA, have fewer hangups about it, too. But this is one of those weird things that Americans are pretty puritanical about. I mean, before I started 538, I made my living playing poker for a couple of years. So, you know, they knew what they were getting into. And, you know, gambling and betting is very important in markets, too. And where that line is drawn, I'm not quite sure. But, you know, I mean, they're not saying, hey, go give me your Vegas picks. But we get no pushback
at all from our bosses or from readers when things are framed in that way.
What do you think will be the first of the four major sports leagues to have a franchise in Vegas?
The NHL, that's kind of not a trick question, but the NHL is actively pursuing placing a team in Las Vegas. You know, I'd say the NBA, since it seems more gambling friendly. They've had, I believe, an All-Star game or two in Vegas. Seems like the next most likely. I'm not sure that baseball, where you need to turn out, you know, 30,000 or 40,000 people 81 times a year, is as good an area where the population isn't that high necessarily. And I don't think baseball has become an event in the same way that an NBA game has, for example. One of my questions, too, is when are you going to have the first major
political convention in Las Vegas? Because you'd think, hey, it's a swing state. You could not have more hotel space there, especially in the midsummer. But I think both parties are terrified of what might happen or the implications of the story.
God, can you imagine the prop bets day of? That would be so much fun, right?
Yeah. It'd be a lot of fun. Maybe, I'm sure the libertarians do lots of fun things in Las Vegas, but not Democrats or Republicans yet.
Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, we put our standard set of frequently asked questions to Nate Silver. Even if you're a hardcore Nate Silver fan, you'll learn a thing or two.
So I was born on a Friday, the 13th. I've been thinking about trying to formulate like a kind of Friday the 13th birthday club or organization or something.
And if you're a hardcore Freakonomics fan, you should circle on your calendar Tuesday, May 5th. That's the day we release our latest book. It is called When to Rob a Bank and 131 More Warped Suggestions and Well-Intended Rants. It's a compilation of our favorite posts from 10 years of blogging at Freakonomics.com. Among the questions we try to answer, why don't flight attendants get tipped? If you were a terrorist, how would you attack? And why does KFC always run out of fried chicken? That's When to Rob a Bank, published on May 5th and available now for preorder at booksellers everywhere.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Granola. You know that moment when a meeting ends and someone says, let's circle back on this next week and everyone nods, but no one writes it down? Then next week rolls around and it's radio silence? That's why Granola exists. Granola is an AI-powered notepad built for the way real people actually meet. You take rough notes like you normally would, and in the background, Granola securely transcribes the meeting. Then it turns everything into clean, structured, actually useful notes when the meeting ends. And the best part? Granola works through your device's audio, which means it integrates seamlessly into the video conferencing tools you already use. No setup, no awkward bots. It's just your normal meeting with superpowers. If meetings are eating up your day, Granola is a no-brainer. You can try it totally free.
Just head to granola.ai/freakonomics. That's granola.ai/freakonomics to get your time back. Try it for free at granola.ai/freakonomics.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern New Hampshire University. The best investments are the ones you make in yourself, and no one knows that better than Southern New Hampshire University. With more than 200 online degree programs, no set class times, and low online tuition, Southern New Hampshire University is built to fit your life today and set you up for success tomorrow. Education is an investment. Why not make it a smart one? Apply for free at SNHU.edu/freakonomics. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves, like gym access or breakfast, just
once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.
From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.
Today, we are talking with Nate Silver. He's the editor in chief of 538.com, the author of The Signal and the Noise, and, as you will hear soon, a would be curler, is in the sport of curling, seriously. We are now about to subject Silver to what we call our frequently asked questions. In the past, we've tried this with Boris Johnson, the mayor of London. You plan to make this a regular feature, but this is the first time that you've tried it on some guinea pig. We did it with Kevin Kelly, the technology maverick. I tell you, there's nothing more boring than hearing someone's acid trip. And now, it's Nate Silver's turn.
Who would you say has been the biggest influence on your life and work and why? And I guess I mean here not so much personally, but professionally. So maybe it's the intellectual influence.
I mean, you know, I admire Bill James a lot for what he did with baseball statistics. In part because he was way, way ahead of his time. I mean, you know, kind of preceded Moneyball literally by 20 years or thereabouts. But also because he's a good communicator and kind of a humanist at heart, right? You know, he's not just interested in statistics for statistics sake, but how they're used to kind of vest life and our understanding of sports and other things with a lot of meaning instead.
And also wasn't operating at the white hot center of either statistics or baseball or media for that matter, and quite the opposite.
No, he did not jump on the wagon, right? He kind of jumped into the row when there was no bandwagon even approaching at all. And maybe got run over a couple of times and then led the bandwagon now.
What's one thing you spend or have spent way too much on but don't regret? And I realize as I ask you that question now, it sounds like I'm talking about money, but I guess spending could also be time.
I mean, I invest a lot of time and a lot of money in eating well. It's one of those things that I think in a market like New York where I live really rewards effort, where if you spend the time to try different places and sometimes spend the money, although there's great cheap eats in New York too, you know, I just find that it's a product where it's a fun way to experiment and something where you have to eat every day, right? So you might as well put some thought into it.
Mm-hmm. What's your favorite food? I know you're partial to burritos, but are they your favorite or are there many?
I mean, I particularly like Mexican food, Japanese food, and Italian food. I kind of see as being pretty iconic. You know, in part because they're cuisines that emphasize not a lot of pretense, really, right? It's kind of fresh and simple ingredients a lot of the time, as opposed to sort of the kind of French classical tradition where I think they're sometimes trying to dazzle you with presentation and style. So it's elegantly simple, those cuisines, I think.
What, in your view, is the perfect burrito?
So I went to a place called La Taqueria in San Francisco, which won our first national burrito bracket last year, and that was the best burrito I ever had.
And what kind of burrito did you have?
So it had chorizo, but it was kind of cooked. It was called Dorado style, so it's kind of golden brown on the outside and just kind of, you know, it's California, so all the produce is really fresh and the ingredients are perfectly mixed. There's not kind of lumping in a bunch of guacamole where it shouldn't be and whatnot. So on kind of both artistic achievement and technical merit, it scored very highly.
What is one story that your family always tells about you?
When I was in nursery school or pre-k, one day I decided to just count numbers, just to see how high I could count. I was pretty insistent about it. I think I got to like 2,000 or something before my mom picked me up that afternoon.
And they realized then what your future contained, yes?
Yeah, I think that was an early sign.
What do you collect, if anything, and why?
I used to collect baseball cards when I was a kid. I'm trying to think, you know, I kind of collect books. I mean, I have a pretty significant bookshelf that kind of keeps growing over time. One of the things about writing a book, as you probably know, is that you get sent an awful lot of books, too.
And do you keep most of those ones you're sent, or do you start to triage?
Yeah, I still have an issue with throwing away books. I just think it's bad karma. Giving away, maybe, but throwing away, no.
Favorite book or author?
You know, I kind of often talk about Daniel Kahneman and thinking fast and slow was kind of just, I think, a really great overall kind of modern guide to thinking, if that if that isn't a little too pretentious, or too precious, rather. But that's one of my favorite books.
Good choice. Favorite music, artist, band, singer, songwriter?
I used to be really into My Buddy Valentine in college. This is kind of shoegazer, post-punk band.
Right.
You know, so but I think music is maybe one of those things where it gets frozen in time a little bit, where kind of the favorite bands I have now at 37 are the same ones I might have said at 2021.
Favorite sport to play?
You know, I like to watch sports. I don't know, bowling, I suppose, or my partner actually owns a bowling ball.
Oh, I thought you were gonna say an alley. A ball, a ball's not that much.
Oh, an alley, that would be, that'd be quite something, yeah. You know, I've never been curling. I really want to go curling. My partner and I had this idea one time to capitalize on like the curling frenzy.
Which was when I missed that?
Well, every four years, people, there's a kind of cultish affection for the sport of curling, which having grown up in Michigan with Canadian television on all the time, I appreciated. But the idea was to have some hideously expensive plan for building a curling rink in Central Park, and just having such good like design and PR around it that people wouldn't realize it was just kind of a very elaborate inside joke.
Now, let me ask you this. Don't you think you have the creativity and reputation to go to Donald Trump and say, look, Wolman Rink, once it's up, it's up all winter, and you could just carve out a nice little curling, I don't know what you call it, a curling lane? What do you call it? The area where one curls?
That's a good, yeah, is it, I don't think it's an alley, right, or a rink or something.
I have no idea.
You know, I think if Donald Trump kind of carefully read what we wrote about him when he was quote-unquote running for president in 2011, he probably wouldn't return my phone call.
Okay, so sport, your favorite sport to play, your official answer seemed to be bowling, is that right?
Sure, we'll go with, we'll go with bowling.
What's the highest you've ever bowled?
Um, I think I got like a 180 one time, which is not good for a highest ever score.
You know, I was with Levitt once. He bowled a 222, which is, you know, but for a few pins, he was close to perfect, actually. And, and this was bowling kind of cross lane, like wrong way for a right-hander with a, like a 12-pound ball that didn't curve at all. And he just, he just threw it very, very, very straight repeatedly, kind of like an automaton. And it was, uh, we were convinced he was ready for the senior PBA after that.
I've tried to figure out what the relationship is between bowling and, and beer consumption. It's kind of a, a Laffer curve, I think, or something, right? But like after like 1.8 beers, I think you're in peak bowling shape.
Well, although you can probably identify the peak of that curve a little bit more easily with bowling than with the Laffer curve, no? Does anyone really know where the Laffer curve peaks?
Um, I think not. I mean, there is a curve, it seems to me. Um, but you know, I guess even with bowling, there's some complications where you probably warm up to the lane and feel a little bit better. So you'd have to do a control. This could be another 538 thing.
Tell us something that most people, even if they think they know quite a bit about you, don't know about you.
Um, so I was born on a Friday, the 13th. I've been thinking about trying to formulate like a kind of Friday the 13th birthday club or organization or something. Um, John Walsh, who's the former president of ESPN, I think, was at least a, also a January 13th birthday. I think it was a Friday the 13th, too. But, you know, kind of from my very beginning, I guess there was some kind of, something slightly cosmic about, about numbers in me.
What is one thing that people seem to know about you that is in fact not true?
Maybe not to listen to this interview, but I think people think that I take myself way more seriously than, than I do. You know, I mean, for some reason, when you, when you're associated with numbers and, and data, you know, and look, there are other places out there where, where they can be a little bit pedantic sometimes. But, you know, I'm kind of a little anti-establishment and still anti-authoritarian. That kind of goes back a long way. And we try in our newsroom at 538 to, to have a lot of fun and to poke fun at, at one another. Um, you know, to see kind of the, the reader as a peer and not someone who you're educating. Um, and that doesn't always-
Come through, I think, in kind of how 538 or how kind of my career is portrayed.
You are just a regular burrito-loving wannabe curler who bowls once in a while and drinks.
Yeah, I mean, you know, it's, it's pretty normal in, in some respects and completely strange in, in other respects. But, you know, it's one thing you learn, one of the most profound lessons to me about adulthood is that everyone's kind of weird.
What's the biggest upside of being well-known?
Gosh, I mean, you know, sometimes you get, I think, slightly better service at restaurants.
Since I mentioned food before, right? Where, you know, one time I had a waiter kind of tip me off that, oh, someone, I think she was on her first day on the job, he's like, she was like, oh, my manager handed me a card saying I'm supposed to treat you well. I guess she was kind of very literal-minded and explicit about it. So I would imagine that for every time that happens, there's 100 times that, that it doesn't happen potentially. But, you know, in my perfect world, I would be like, kind of, you know, influential without being famous, if that makes any sense. You know, I don't mind if I get recognized out somewhere. By the way, it follows a lot when you're on TV. If you're on TV, you'll have like a half-life where people recognize you.
But that half-life is pretty fast, isn't it? It really?
It's really fast.
Because by seven days later, they've seen 1,000 other faces and yours is starting to recede.
At some point, you're kind of on the hedonistic treadmill, I guess, where it kind of becomes normalized pretty fast, right? And you're like, okay, so now, you know, every 18th time I go out, someone will say hello to me and it's almost always friendly and, and it's a nice thing. It would be jarring if it had never happened to you before. But, you know, but then you also get in environments where, so, so a year ago, I went to the Vanity Fair. Oscar party, where you just realize that like, there are whole orders of magnitudes of fame that I, you know, I am just like totally by as kind of a quasi nerd celebrity, you're just dwarfed by, you know, it's not like people are 20 times more famous or like
20,000 times more famous. And you get in a room like that and you're like kind of literally the least famous person there. And it's, it's kind of fun to be a fly on the wall again.
What's something that you believed for a long time to be true and then decided that you'd been wrong?
Oh gosh, this is a tricky, a tricky question. I mean, you know, a little bit of it kind of gets into the critique we were talking about a bit about big data earlier, where, where I kind of thought, well, just be quantitative and then that's better categorically than being qualitative and that'll solve all your problems. And I still believe to a very rough approximation, people need to be more quantitative, but, but I think it needs to be a much more kind of structured investigation of the data. And kind of realizing, this is one of the challenges, one of the reasons that kind of betting and markets are interesting is that whenever you have a belief that kind of differs a lot from the consensus,
then that's a very complicated place to be.
We are more than two years out, but I'd be an idiot not to ask you, if you today had to bet a thousand dollars with, let's say me, which if you were still at the New York Times, you wouldn't be allowed to bet with me, I guess, but you could now presumably. Who's going to be president in 2016?
Well, you know, I don't know that anyone has more than a 50% chance. You know, I think the plurality favorite is, is a pretty easy question, which is Hillary Clinton. If you figure to a 50/50, well, to an approximation, it's 50/50 in the general election, which is probably about right in these circumstances. She is the dominant contender for the Democratic nomination where the GOP field is quite split. So she, you know, she would certainly be the, the frontrunner in that sense.
Does political data analysis start to bore you after a while?
A little bit, but I think I'll be reinvigorated by 2016. So midterm elections are big letdowns relative to how fun presidential years are. 2010 happened to be super interesting because you had this very large Republican wave that had very tangible consequences as far as President Obama's ability to continue to enact and affect his agenda. So that almost had kind of a presidential-type storyline to it. The midterms last year were pretty dull, I gotta be honest. They were interesting from a forecasting standpoint in that there was some uncertainty about what the polls said and which party would win the Senate. But I don't expect any problems like that in 2016. We're gonna have at least one really compelling primary.
We should have a close general election. There's kind of the cottage industry to covering Hillary Clinton, even if it's sort of a field of one. So, you know, that's really fun. In some ways, the presidential primaries are much more interesting and in some ways kind of a better design process than the general election in that you have to perform well continuously over time. It requires more organization. You can't get hot on one day. It's like having to win a seven-game series instead of just one game.
Right, yeah. But it sounds like you, and maybe I'm wrong on this, but just from this conversation, from what else I've read of yours, it just sounds as though sports is more fun generally than politics, or you like sports more than you like politics, as shallow a characterization that is.
Yeah, I mean, look, I am really into kind of election data, but I'm not like a fan of politics per se, right? Like, I don't take any-
You didn't collect political cards when you were a kid, in other words?
No, you know, I didn't kind of take joy in, you know, I don't even always watch, like, the State of the Union, for example, whereas I very much do enjoy watching and spending income on going to sports games. You know, I think in some ways the fact that I'm not kind of a, I mean, I'm a politics geek, right? But I don't love politics. I think that's helpful, potentially. I think in Washington in particular, there's a lot of reverence for the political system that leads to less criticality in coverage that leads, I think, really to people sometimes lacking perspective on which stories resonate or not. So one interesting thing is, at the time of recording this, there's a big- Controversy over Hillary Clinton's email records.
There's good reporting on that, excellent reporting from the New York Times. But you have some pundits who are saying, oh, this is a huge blow to her candidacy. If you go to betting markets, and they have these in the UK now, some of the US ones were shut down, but Hillary Clinton's probability of winning the nomination or the general election haven't budged one bit. I'm not promising you the markets are right. They can be slow to pick up on information. But it's interesting that the scandal that is considered to be a huge deal by the political press, bettors are kind of saying this is literally nothing at all. And so I think sometimes people don't realize that things that are great reported stories, right? And deserve to be, you know, I believe in transparency in government and everything else, right?
But they might lack perspective on what things people outside of the proverbial cocktail party are really talking about.
Nate, thanks. This was a blast. You were great, and it was a lot of fun. But most of all, just congratulations. I'm super happy for all your successes, and I hope they just keep going.
Absolutely. I really appreciate it.
And remember, on May 5th, Steve Levitt and I publish our latest Freakonomics book. It's called When to Rob a Bank. If you want to learn more, keep up on our public appearances and so on, you can visit Freakonomics.com, where you will also find an archive of more than 200 episodes of Freakonomics Radio. Also, would you like to appear in a future episode? We're producing one right now about the economics of sleep, so we'd like to hear from you about your sleep routine. How many hours do you need? How many do you get? What do you do to try to ensure a good night's rest? Be specific. What's your optimal room temperature for sleeping? Do you do anything to block out light or noise? Or maybe you like background music? What are your pillow habits? Sleep position?
What are you wearing, if anything? Do you sleep best alone or with someone else? Or maybe many someone elses? What do you do about eating or drinking or taking drugs before you sleep? How are you affected by stress or travel or the weather? What is the very best night's sleep you ever had? What's the worst? So if you're willing to share any parts of your sleep story, use your phone to make a short audio recording. Just use whatever voice memo app is on your phone and email us the file at [email protected]. Tell us your name, where you live, and also what you do when you are not sleeping. And coming up next week on the podcast.
Sometimes doing things differently and simply and with a kind of joy and triviality leads you to a really special place that, as an adult, you don't get to go to very often.
How thinking like a child can make you a better problem solver. That's next time on Freakonomics Radio.
Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes Greg Rosalsky, Caroline English, Susie Lechtenberg, Merritt Jacob, and Christopher Wirth, with help from David Herman, Anna Hyatt, Rick Kwan, Daniel Zuzula, and Paul Schneider. If you want more Freakonomics Radio, you can subscribe to our podcasts on iTunes or go to Freakonomics.com. You'll find lots of radio, a blog, the books, and more.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9 milligrams, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.
Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility. It's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.
This podcast is supported by Nurtec ODT. Remedy Pant. We know you didn't ask for an interruption, but migraine doesn't wait for the right moment to interrupt either. It just barges in, takes your time, and throws everything off. So when migraine takes your time, take Nurtec. It's for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. Nurtec can provide pain relief in two hours, which can last up to two days. Ask your healthcare provider if Nurtec is right for you, because your time is for you, not migraine. Don't take if allergic to Nurtec ODT. Allergic reactions can occur even days after use. Get help right away for trouble breathing, rash, swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or throat. High blood pressure and Raynaud's syndrome can occur. Get help for high blood pressure, numbness, coolness, pain,
or color changes in fingers and toes. Common side effect is nausea. For full prescribing information, call 1-833-4-NURTEC or visit Nurtec.com. All right, back to your podcast, playlist, or whatever's keeping you going today.
This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often, your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.
Page updated September 30, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
