Minority rule in action
Category: Skin in the Game
Bernanke
Some confusion about the silver rule as I presented it two days ago, to an extremely active and rich debate (if it is troll free it is because trolls and “uninformed” commentators are vanishing from this page thanks to systematic zapping). The Silver Rule Under Uncertainty requires *skin-in-the game*, so “you can only expose others to risks that you are taking yourself”, in the sense that “we cannot see adverse consequences of all actions, but should there be a negative one I will pay the price and will be eventually incapacitated”. So there is an evolutionary argument that those who systematically cause harm to others, willingly or unwillingly, will eventually exit the system –along with their genes. “I share the opacity of future consequences if there are potential benefits to me”. — Broadly seen, this is (probabilistic) SYMMETRY, the working title of the short book I am now working on.
Some clarity. The Golden Rule (do to others what you want them to do to you) is an invitation to interventionism, utopianism, and meddling into other people’s affairs, particularly poor nations, as represented by the the NGO clowns at TED conferences trying to “save the world”, and causing more harm with unseen side effects. Remember that Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and were following the positive Golden rule. At the personal level, I may feel good trying to nudge a vegetarian to eat raw kebbeh (Lebanese steak tartare) because I like it myself. — The Silver rule (do NOT do to others what you don’t want them to do to you) leads to a systematic way to live “doing no harm” and gives rise to a liberating type of ethics: your obligation is to pursue your personal interests provided you do not hurt others probabilistically unless you are yourself exposed, & not transfer risks to others (skin-in-the-game at all times). But, and here is the key, should there be a spillover, it will necessarily be positive. It is therefore convex.(Typical via negativa rules are convex). It separates the “self-interest” in Adam Smith from the “selfish” version. And if you want to help society, just try to benefit WHILE at least harming no one. — This distinction puts a lot of clarity behind the idea of free markets and morality. You should never have to prove that what you do is GOOD for society (hard to express in words and rationalistic framework), but you can certainly show you are NOT hurting others more than yourself via skin-in-the-game.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb April 19, 2014 SKIN IN THE GAME & FASTING FOR LENT – I recommended to a friend who had a health problem to fast intermittently as frequency is more consequential than food composition (by Jensen’s inequality). Then I realized that I violated the ethics of Skin-In-The-Game by not doing so myself so I started last week to step-up the duration between meals (except for water and black coffee): 19, 20, 24,… and I just finished 48 hours. In a way it was easier to eat nothing than comply by the grueling Orthodox lent, just bread and vegetables. I can report that much of the benefits in the literature are indeed there; one feels great not eating, and, strangely, also after eating. There is no loss of energy, but I can’t lift as heavily as usual, while paradoxically feeling detectably lighter walking up the stairs or standing up from a couch. Mental clarity and allergy for economists and BS operators are unimpaired. But most at the end, one feels reborn… Will celebrate Happy Easter /Rebirth of Adonis in another post.
