The Exchanges

Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on four things from 1 to 5: directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow), precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean. Full method →

Andrew Yang no published score: only 3 usable exchanges on raw tape, and a fair score needs 8+ · coarse estimate ≈4.0/5 from 3 raw tape exchanges record → ← everyone

Every exchange below was scored with names hidden, four dimensions each from 1 to 5. An exchange's score is 0.30·directness + 0.30·coherence + 0.25·precision + 0.15·compression. The published score averages the raw tape exchange scores and shrinks small samples toward the cohort mean, so five great answers can't beat twenty good ones. Produced feed rows count only toward coarse estimates, never toward a full score.

clear all ✕
3exchanges match
3on raw tape
0redirected or not addressed
Answered raw tape D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60

Q Because that's a little bit different than some of the companies you were trying to build in the past, right?

A Yeah, I mean, I, I, again, I look back very fondly in my time running a private business because you could reward people. If someone was good, you could be like, hey, like, let's give you a promotion or raise. You could Organize a trip to a concert, or a Knicks game, or a ski resort, and no one gives a shit, because it's like, whatever, your company, you just decide to do that. Yeah, yeah. So the, the, um, trajectory is different. Where on a campaign, then people aren't, uh, you know, trying to get a promotion, hopefully, like as, as their, you know, reason for being there. Um, but then you feel immense pressure to actually try and accomplish whatever the campaign's goals were. Uh, you know, it's, it's a little bit similar to a non-profit, um, where your, um, incentives are different. Um, so I've worked in a lot of different environments. I do miss the small private business, uh, because again, everything makes sense. And then in nonprofits, uh, it's a bit of a hybrid, but there are a lot of people who are supporting your nonprofit because they believe in your mission, and so if you're a good leader, you're not like my way or the highway. It's like you've got myriad stakeholders.

AI assessment note: “I look back very fondly in my time running a private business because you could reward people.”

Answered raw tape D 4 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30

Q Wow. So the incentives are all screwed up. And you guys are pushing for, like, ranked choice voting, of course, for nonpartisan primaries, independent re-disagreeing. That kind of stuff's gonna fix this a little bit, you think?

A Well, so the best example, and by the way, Um, if anyone really is into this, because I sense a lot of people who, uh, listen to you are really, uh, smart. So there's a book, uh, written by Michael Porter and Catherine Gale called The Politics Industry, which ended up guiding my thinking, uh, that, that I, I summarized it in my book. Uh, which is that our political system's incentives are messed up. Uh, it's going to give us bad policy and polarization and dysfunction and people turning on each other by design, um, because again, you're listening to the extremes, then you get polarized by media and social media. Um, uh, and so the way out of this is to change the incentives. And you're like, okay, that seems pretty reasonable, so how do you do it in real life? What you do is you get rid of the party primaries and you say, anyone can vote for any candidate in an, in all party, in all candidate open primary, Uh, and then you choose among the top four or five candidates via Ranked Choice Voting.

AI assessment note: “the way out of this is to change the incentives. And you're like, okay”

Partly raw tape D 3 · C 4 · P 3 · Cm 3 3.30

Q against accountability in government, maybe because they're tied to government and unions, where they're, where they're worried that if we put accountability, we're gonna change things. Like, like, it seems like that's a big problem right now, where we have these special interests who are against accountability. Is this, Is this a battle worth having, and is it a really hard battle? Like, what do we do to get there?

A Yeah, yeah, man. It, it, it's fundamental. Um, so here, again, it's an incentives problem. Check it out. Let's say that I start a new program to help kids learn better. Uh, and then let's say four years later, turns out the program's not working. Um, who gets rewarded by someone looking up and being like, hey guys, you know that program we spent a hundred million dollars on, or hundreds or billions? No results. Uh, like, it's in no one's interest to raise their hand and be like, hey, the, The stuff we've been doing, like, wasn't good, or that person who, who attended the ribbon cutting or whatever the heck, like, turns out, like, there's no accountability in the system.

AI assessment note: “Yeah, yeah, man. It, it, it's fundamental. Um, so here, again, it's an incentives problem.”

page 1
Made with StarZero

Turn any episode into a week of clips.

This entire site, over 150 episodes transcribed, diarized, checked and made playable, runs on the StarZero media pipeline. Drop in your own episode and the podcast clipper finds the moments worth sharing, cuts them, captions them, and reframes them for every feed.