Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life Hardcover – February 27, 2018

Skin in the Game is at the same time thought-provoking and original but also contradictory and sometimes absurd.

Let’s start with the cons:

1. I certainly won’t be the first to notice that Taleb can be mean-spirited. But why does he insist on presenting his views in this way? The communication of his ideas, often profound, does not require a mean-spirited or condescending tone. For however brilliant Taleb thinks he is, his skills in persuasion are severely lacking; he’s alienating a significant readership that may have otherwise been more receptive to his ideas.

Not very far into the book we see Taleb take cheap shots at Steven Pinker, out of nowhere, discussing a topic that has nothing to do with any of Pinker’s actual ideas or positions. One wonders why Taleb cannot just present his ideas without the incessant personal attacks and condescension.

2. His overall philosophy appears to be self-refuting. He reviles “intellectuals,” professors, and thinkers while praising “doers” and men of practice. He’s particularly distrustful of those who give advice for a living. Here’s Taleb:

“Avoid taking advice from someone who gives advice for a living, unless there is a penalty for their advice.”

So should we then ignore THIS advice? As far as I can tell, Skin in the Game is a work of philosophy, an intellectual exercise that argues against the value of intellectual exercise. This is the same self-refuting logic of relativism—in that the statement “everything is relative” is self-refuting because the statement itself needs to be absolute.

If Taleb is wrong in any part of his philosophy it doesn’t appear that he would incur any penalty (no skin in the game). The upside for him is book sales with little to no downside risk, so by using his own logic we should conclude to not trust him.

Also, to the extent that you believe ideas have power you might find yourself disagreeing with Taleb’s extreme position that no good ideas could possibly come from someone in an academic position (particularly from the reviled economists).

Except that Taleb uses economic theories to frame his thinking. The Tragedy of the Commons, something Taleb discusses in his book, was developed by the economist William Forster Lloyd in his armchair. Even Taleb’s Black Swan concept is a reformulation of the Peso problem developed by...economists.

I’m sure anyone can think up examples, rather easily, of useful ideas that were discovered by intellectuals or from university research.

3. Taleb obsesses about the superiority of practice over academics and theory. This is a questionable proposition.

As just one example, a recent study in the American Journal of Medicine concluded that “patients whose doctors had practiced for at least 20 years stayed longer in the hospital and were more likely to die compared to those whose doctors got their medical license in the past five years.”

My own personal experience corroborates this, as a medical student was able to correctly diagnose what the attending physician had missed on a trip to the ER. Very experienced, practical individuals sometimes perpetuate bad habits and fail to keep informed of the theories and academics that lead to better practice. This point is completely lost on Taleb.

4. Taleb’s definition of rationality as any action that promotes survival is patently false, as a simple thought experiment can show. Imagine a hypothetical survival machine is available for your use. By plugging yourself in, it will guarantee and maximize your life span and, on a social scale, maximizes reproduction. The price is that the machine also inflicts a high degree of pain and cuts you off from contact with other people.

According to the logic of Taleb, the rational thing to do would be to plug into this machine. Of course, no one would volunteer to do this because survival is not what motivates rational behavior. Any rational agent would choose one year of pleasant life over 100 years in the survival machine, because actions have value according to how they promote or are perceived to promote well-being or pleasure.

Taleb, using this more believable definition of rationality, could have used it to argue the same points, namely how religious belief cannot be called irrational if it promotes well-being, which includes psychological well-being and survival but not survival alone.

The pros:

That Taleb is antagonistic and holds some questionable views does not mean that he’s wrong about everything. When not being demeaning or taking extreme positions, Taleb writes about some of the most original, thought-provoking, and profound ideas. And even when you find yourself disagreeing with him, he makes you think. For this reason alone, the book is worth checking out.

The idea that the extent of people’s stakes in particular outcomes is a critical yet underrated determinant of events is a profound idea with several implications, which Taleb skillfully explores throughout the book. And his idea that you should have to pay some kind of penalty for decisions that negatively impact others—risk sharing vs. risk transfer—is a solid framework for thinking about a host of issues. Of course, these ideas would be easier to swallow if presented with a little more humility, but I suppose we should know what to expect from Taleb by now.

If you hate BS, this is the book for you. Stop being "bullied" for what you think by academics and journalists who have no skin in the game. They have nothing to lose by being wrong (Think Viet Nam, Syrian, the 2008 economic melt down). Trust the do-ers who suffer the consequences for being wrong ( business people who take risks), This book has to be studied. It follows from Mr. Taleb's previous work which provides the science and mathematics behinds this work. It requires a "deep dive" and understanding. A casual book reviewer or journalist would not have an easy time reviewing this book. Be prepared to study, the results are very rewarding not matter what your field of interest.

Taleb is a master. I read it and gave it to my son to read as well. At about 1/4 of the way through reading, I suddenly saw the inefficiencies of government and corporate bureaucracy in an entirely new light. Eye-opening, and also very useful for my own business.

Nassim Taleb is the author who has influenced my thinking more than any other that I have read. His approach, grounded in statistical rigor, is contrarian but also intuitive. I first encountered his work when I read the Black Swan in 2006 while working a summer in Geneva. I remember being struck by the truth in his descriptions of how Wall Street forecasting is done and how misleading and often incorrect it is. Reading The Black Swan led me to read Fooled By Randomness, the Bed of Procrustes, and Antifragile. Each one further reinforcing and refining his ideas. Not only are the books insightful, they are also entertaining and I relished each opportunity to read his work. Following him on twitter is one of my guilty pleasures.

His latest book, Skin in The Game, is more of a work of moral philosophy than one of probability and statistics. In my opinion, its most valuable aspect is that it provides a framework though which to judge the arguments, assertions, and most importantly the actions of others. That framework is skin in the game. To have skin in the game is to have a stake in the outcome of any given circumstance (upside and downside). This framework only ascribes value to the opinions of people who have skin in the game and makes judgements based on other people’s actions and not their words. In the end the determination of right and wrong is left up to the passage of time, with survival being the highest badge of success. This has applications not just in investing but also in politics, religion, medicine, and may other arenas.

My only gripe about the book is that there is no update on the life and times of Nero Tulip. One of Taleb’s most interesting characters and a mainstay in all of his other books.

Fooled by Randomness truly changed the way I think about many things in life and I've been a fan of Taleb's ever since. I don't necessarily agree with everything he is saying or, particularly, the way he is saying sometimes, but there is no denying that Taleb is a highly original and profound thinker. This is actually (and unfortunately) harder than it should be to find in this day & age of 100s of new non-fiction books published per month who all in many cases seem to just echo each other. Taleb is also a good writer, although this book is a more dense and has less interesting anecdotes than his prior books. I've read all of them and very much recommend them all.