When a possibility is unfamiliar to us, we do not even think about it.

I have to think about how to not spread myself too thin. It's a really great problem to have.

I view my role now as providing more of a macro-level skepticism, rather than saying this poll is good or this poll is evil.

Distinguishing the signal from the noise requires both scientific knowledge and self-knowledge: the serenity to accept the things we cannot predict, the courage to predict the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I prefer more to kind of show people different things than tell them 'oh, here's what you should believe' and, over time, you can build up a rapport with your audience.

A lot of journalism wants to have what they call objectivity without them having a commitment to pursuing the truth, but that doesn't work. Objectivity requires belief in and a commitment toward pursuing the truth - having an object outside of our personal point of view.

I've just always been a bit of a dork.