top 200 comments
sorted by:best[–]
vfp15 61 points 13 days ago
Are there cases where Skin-In-The-Game is the wrong heuristic?Should judges, jurors, and prosecutors have skin in the game?Also, the whole idea behind corporations “personnes morales” in French is to remove skin from the game. This has made possible large scale enterprises. Isn’t this a good thing?And thanks for a great book! Vincent Poirier, Quebec City
nntaleb[S] 66 points 13 days agoSkin in the game is about being harmed by an error if it harms others. Managers of large corporations can be forced to lose money beyond their compensation should the firm suffer. As to judges, I don’t know, but hopefully they have sufficient eye contact to suffer shame.
JedTrott 48 points 13 days ago
Shouldn’t there be some sort of heuristic about whether or not the person has an incentive to expose others to risk for his own benefit. A juror has no skin in the game, except a sense of civic duty, but it is not concerning because they also have no benefit for wrongfully convicting or acquitting.
nntaleb[S] 93 points 13 days agoExcellent. I have to take a long walk and think about it… The fact that the juror has no upside mitigates the problem.

via IAm Nassim Taleb, author of Antifragile, AMA : IAmA.