In April 1961, fifty of the most experienced foreign policy minds in America sat in a room and agreed to invade Cuba. The Bay of Pigs was over in three days. Afterward, President Kennedy asked the question that still haunts every organization that gets it wrong: "How could we have been so stupid?"

Thirteen months later, the same president, in the same office, with many of the same advisors, faced Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. He got it right the second time. The difference was the structure of the room.

This episode traces what went wrong in the Bay of Pigs decision. The self-censorship, the mindguards, the assumed consensus. And why a Yale psychologist coined the term "groupthink" specifically to describe it. It traces what Kennedy changed for the Cuban Missile Crisis: removing himself from meetings so his advisors could think without deferring. Turning a mindguard into a devil's advocate. Splitting the group into subgroups. Inviting outside challengers. Building a moot court to stress-test every option.

Same man. Same office. Same advisors. Different structure. Different outcome.

The episode also examines why the groupthink diagnosis may be partly wrong, and why the prescription works regardless.

Episode 6 of The Tenth Man. New episodes weekly.

Show Notes:

This episode covers the Bay of Pigs invasion (April 1961), the Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962), Irving Janis's groupthink theory, and Roderick Kramer's revisionist "politicothink" critique. It traces the structural changes President Kennedy made between the two crises and maps them to the failure modes documented in the first five episodes of the series.

Sources Referenced:

-Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (Houghton Mifflin, 1972; revised edition, Groupthink, 1982)
-Arthur Schlesinger Jr., A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (Houghton Mifflin, 1965)
-Robert F. Kennedy, Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis (W.W. Norton, 1969)
-Roderick M. Kramer, "Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam Decisions 25 Years Later: How Well Has the Groupthink Hypothesis Stood the Test of Time?" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73 (1998): 236–271
-Joshua H. Sandman, "Analyzing Foreign Policy Crisis Situations: The Bay of Pigs," Presidential Studies Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Spring 1986): 310–316
Robert McNamara, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (Times Books, 1995) — for the April 4 meeting account
-Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow, The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis (Belknap Press, 1997) — for ExComm meeting transcripts
-Martin J. Sherwin, "The Cuban Missile Crisis at 50: In Search of Historical Perspective," Prologue Magazine (National Archives, Fall 2012)
-JFK Presidential Library — "The Bay of Pigs," "Cuban Missile Crisis," and "The JFK White House Tape Recordings"
-British Psychological Society — "Groupthink: A Monument to Truthiness?" (2024)

www.tenthman.ai

In 2005, a failed analyst with a last-chance desk job built a chart from decades of housing price data. The chart showed a bubble. His boss bet everything on it. Two years later, the firm made $15 billion.

In between: daily losses, investor revolts, professional ridicule, and a financial system designed to destroy anyone who disagrees with the consensus before the consensus has time to be proven wrong.

This episode is about the structural cost of financial dissent. Short selling - betting against the market - is the only form of dissent that charges you money every day you hold the position. The consensus is free. The challenge compounds. And if your timing is wrong, you are liquidated - often because the market stayed irrational longer than your capital could survive.

Show Notes:

The 1.4% annual inflation-adjusted housing price growth figure (1975-2000) is from Zuckerman's account of Pellegrini's research, which drew on Case-Shiller data. The specific figure is widely cited but represents Pellegrini's own calculation from his compiled database, not a standard published metric.

The "markets can remain irrational" quote attribution is covered in detail by Quote Investigator (2011). The earliest documented print appearance is A. Gary Shilling in Forbes, February 1993, with an earlier likely oral use traced to Shilling in 1986. Keynes received credit by 1999. The episode presents this as a misattribution, consistent with the show's treatment of the "Tenth Man" naming in Episode 1.

The 489% Scion Capital return (net of fees, November 2000 - June 2008) is from Scion's own records as reported in multiple sources including Wikipedia and Lewis. The S&P 500 comparison figure (~2% over the same period) is from Law Street Media's reporting.

Sources Referenced:

-Michael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine (W.W. Norton, 2010) - primary narrative source for Burry's career arc and the investor revolt
-Wikipedia: Isaac Le Maire - for the VOC co-founder context, the 1605 expulsion, the Grote Compagnie, and the government ban
-Investor Amnesia: "A Story of Short-Selling & Revenge: Isaac Le Maire" (2022) - for the 212% to 126% share price decline, the "widows and orphans" framing, and Le Maire's post-ban ruin
worldsfirststockexchange.com: "Going Short in 1608" - for the VOC directors' petition language and the forward contract mechanics
-Capital Ideas Online: "History of Short Selling" - for the Napoleon treason characterization, the French ban timeline, and the New York 1812 ban
-Daily Reckoning: "A Short History of the Bear Market" - for the Napoleon 1802 edict (one year imprisonment), the Philadelphia Public Ledger 1932 scapegoating, and the Daniel Drew/Jacob Little context
-Quote Investigator: "Markets can remain irrational..." (2011) - for the A. Gary Shilling 1986 attribution and the Keynes misattribution timeline
-Newsweek: Zuckerman interview, "John Paulson's Greatest Trade Ever" - for the 66% February 2007 return, investors assuming it was a typo, and the "greatest trade" framing
-NBER Working Paper 18082: "Why Did So Many People Make So Many Ex Post Bad Decisions?" - for the characterization of Paulson and Pellegrini as "complete mortgage industry outsiders" and JPMorgan analyst optimism persisting into 2007
-Seven Pillars Institute: "The Goldman Abacus Deal" - for the Abacus 2007-AC1 structure, the SEC allegations, and the $550 million Goldman settlement
-Bloomberg: "Short Sellers Face End of an Era" (2021) - for Napoleon's "treasonous" characterization and the historical context of short seller persecution
-Yahoo Finance: "Is Michael Burry Shutting His Fund Just Before He's About to Be Proved Right?" (2025) - for the 2025 closure letter language and the AI short position context

www.tenthman.ai

In 1968, your odds of dying on a commercial flight were roughly 1 in 350,000. By 2022, that number was 1 in 13.7 million. Aviation didn't get there by building better planes. It got there by building a system that treats every failure as information - and that makes it structurally impossible for a crash to be documented and then forgotten.

This episode traces that system from Tenerife in 1977 - where a flight engineer asked the right question and was overruled in four words by the most senior pilot at KLM - through Portland in 1978, where a first officer watched the fuel run out because the culture taught him to hint rather than assert. It follows Crew Resource Management from its origin to its proof case: United Flight 232 in 1989, where Captain Al Haynes invited a passenger into the cockpit and asked, "Why would I know more than the other three?" 185 people survived an unsurvivable situation.

Then it follows the NTSB - the independent investigation architecture that turned crash data into mandatory public lessons for fifty years, producing the best safety record of any transportation industry in history.

And then it follows the Boeing 737 MAX. 346 people dead. A flight control system erased from the pilot manual before any pilot could object to it. The safety architecture selectively dismantled for a commercial incentive.

The distance between Tenerife and Sioux City is what institutional design can accomplish. The distance between the NTSB's fifty-year record and the 737 MAX is what happens when that design is selectively abandoned.

Show Notes:

The 1 in 350,000 figure (1968–1977) and 1 in 13.7 million figure (2018-2022) are from the MIT/Barnett study and represent global commercial aviation passenger boarding fatality risk. These are the most rigorous publicly available estimates.

The 96% self-certification figure is sourced from the PMC engineering ethics paper citing Kitroeff et al. 2019 (New York Times reporting). Boeing contests aspects of how this figure was framed publicly; the DOT Inspector General report documents the delegation structure without using this precise percentage.

Sources Referenced:

• MIT News: "Study: Flying Keeps Getting Safer" (2024) - source for the 1-in-13.7-million figure and the decade-doubling safety improvement trend; MIT professor Arnold Barnett
• Cirium: "Flying Safer Than Ever: The Evolution of Aviation Safety" - source for the one-seventeenth figure and the historical passenger fatality rate context
• Incident Prevention: "Lessons Learned from the Tenerife Airport Disaster" - source for van Zanten as head of KLM safety and the first officer's objection to the fuel load
• United Airlines Flight 232 / Haynes quote - from Haynes's widely published public statements and congressional testimony; verify exact wording against primary source
• NTSB: History of the National Transportation Safety Board - for founding, independence, and 15,500 recommendations figures
• Congress.gov / CRS Report R44587: "The National Transportation Safety Board: Background and Possible Issues" - for the 82% implementation rate and the 90-day response requirement
• PMC: "The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for Engineering Ethics" (PMC7351545) - for the 96% self-certification figure, the MCAS failure analysis, and the organizational context
• DOT Inspector General Report AV2021020: "FAA's Certification and Oversight of the 737 MAX" - primary source for the internal-document-only designation and the FAA's incomplete understanding of MCAS at certification
• Seattle Times: "The Inside Story of MCAS" (Dominic Gates, June 2019) - source for the pressure to avoid simulator training and the removal of MCAS from the flight manual

www.tenthman.ai