A critique of self-help book “Skin in the Game”
With great power comes great responsibility — or it should,
in theory. Nassim Taleb, author of “Skin in the Game,” takes this to another
level: we must be prepared to face potential consequences for every action we
take and every word we say. If we don’t wish to incur the backlash, we should
have no say in the matter. But what would happen to our discourse if we weren’t
allowed to express our opinions unless we had personal stake in the matter at
hand?
The majority of Taleb’s argument is self-contradictory —
we’re to be wary of anyone giving unsolicited advice — which is exactly what
“Skin in the Game” is. We’re to distrust academics and supposed intellectual
discussion, while SITG is at its core an intellectual discussion. As other
reviewers have noted, Taleb would face no repercussions for having extreme or
incorrect philosophy; he’d then fail to have skin in the game of his own
argument.
Throughout his analysis, rules that appear sound have scant
evidence, and appear to be personal attacks rather than part of the overall
argument. As he criticizes Thomas Picketty, Steven Pinker, Hillary Clinton,
Monsanto, Salafi Muslims, academics and even book reviewers, Taleb begins to
drift into an argument founded more on personal beliefs than universal truths.
Still, SITG occasionally presents logical precepts that follow lines of
reasoning.
In the discussion of trusting the advice of others, SITG is
strong — conceptually. Do we trust the advice of those we know nothing about —
that aren’t invested in us? Just like a bad relationship, caring about the
opinion of someone who doesn’t care about you can only end up in heartbreak.
Without facing the consequences of potentially destructive advice, words are
nothing more than empty space. Invest in yourself and seek results from those
you trust, not advice from a so-called “expert.”
Another counterintuitive — but logical — point argued by
Taleb is that stubborn minorities force society to comply with their standards
rather than majority rule. An example of minority dominance: it is easier for a
family to eat vegan due to one person’s beliefs than prepare all meals with and
without meat options. As the scale has increased, veganism has expanded to
apartment living, office parties and the Golden Globes. On campus, minority
rule is a way for smaller organizations to be heard; noncompliant groups with
strong arguments are historically the ones that have enacted change here. A
dynamic minority is then stronger than a stagnant majority.
However, Taleb’s
dialogue on rationality — that what is rational is that which furthers survival
of the self — can be disputed. We better understand rationality in terms of
choosing pleasure and happiness, not survival. One would be more inclined to
choose 10 years of happiness over 100 years of pain and suffering — choosing
longevity and survival over happiness is therefore not always “rational.” In
choosing how to develop our relationships, we look for what makes us happiest,
not always what’s sustainable. We trust and invest in others, hoping —
rationally — that they choose to trust us too.
“Skin in the Game” is
therefore not a mantra to live by, but more a concept to understand in transaction
with ourselves and others. Whether it’s at the individual or organization
level, our interactions with others are governed by both trust and consequence.
By trusting the opinions of others, we’re seeking success guided by our peers,
while risking loss to ourselves or our groups lest they be wrong. Taleb’s
argument of consequence may come from a place of personal interest, but we
should still understand that when we choose to take risks, we’d better develop
thicker skin.