|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2018-03-11 20:38:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Nassim Taleb. "Skin in the game"
Hot off the electronic press:
https://smile.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidde
A very important book, possibly more important than any of his previous books.
The main import of the book is that people's behavior has better outcomes if people are exposed to negative consequences of their decisions (if they have "skin in the game").
Taleb asks the question: does our civilization actually undermine this principle by providing all sorts of safety nets and escape routes for people who might suffer the consequences of their own bad choices or wrong decisions?
One example of a new class of people created by our modern civilization is "administrators" or "bureaucrats". These people, by definition of their role, make decisions about the behavior of third parties and thus are perfectly insulated from the consequences of their decisions.
I'm at chapter 2. So far the most eye-opening information is that empirically, groups of people can support free-riding ("communist") behavior when the group size is below a certain limit, but cannot support it for larger groups. "Universalist" morality does not work. Taleb quotes someone:
"When I'm thinking at US federal level, I'm a libertarian. When I'm at US state level, I'm a republican. When I'm at municipal level, I'm a democrat. When I'm making decisions within my family, I'm a socialist."
This may not be literally precise, but the idea is that due to human behavior patterns, small groups have different properties than large groups, and thus no uniform law or uniform morality can be usefully applied to all groups (least of all, to "all people on Earth").
Hot off the electronic press:
https://smile.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidde
A very important book, possibly more important than any of his previous books.
The main import of the book is that people's behavior has better outcomes if people are exposed to negative consequences of their decisions (if they have "skin in the game").
Taleb asks the question: does our civilization actually undermine this principle by providing all sorts of safety nets and escape routes for people who might suffer the consequences of their own bad choices or wrong decisions?
One example of a new class of people created by our modern civilization is "administrators" or "bureaucrats". These people, by definition of their role, make decisions about the behavior of third parties and thus are perfectly insulated from the consequences of their decisions.
I'm at chapter 2. So far the most eye-opening information is that empirically, groups of people can support free-riding ("communist") behavior when the group size is below a certain limit, but cannot support it for larger groups. "Universalist" morality does not work. Taleb quotes someone:
"When I'm thinking at US federal level, I'm a libertarian. When I'm at US state level, I'm a republican. When I'm at municipal level, I'm a democrat. When I'm making decisions within my family, I'm a socialist."
This may not be literally precise, but the idea is that due to human behavior patterns, small groups have different properties than large groups, and thus no uniform law or uniform morality can be usefully applied to all groups (least of all, to "all people on Earth").
