145 - Feedback

Another book I've just finished my first read through is "Skin in the Game", by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, marking the third of his books that I've enjoyed and benefited from reading thus far. The subject of the book cuts across all domains and ethics, and seems to align very well with what I've previously written on ethics and responsibility, but applied and explored from a very different perspective.

It describes not just the history and current state of things, but the dynamics that give rise to the aspects being discussed, which can often be thought of as accountability, liability, responsibility, incentives, feedback, and filters as they are present or lacking in specific kinds of jobs, tasks, and systems. Other books I've come across have approached this topic in relation to one specific subset or another, such as the problem of consultants, but none have covered the subject as rigorously or broadly as Taleb did. His observation about selecting individuals who don't look the stereotypical part for a job based on how much more they'd have to go through to reach the same point was also an exceptionally rare insight.

Taleb's very New Yorker style of communication reminded me of a colleague I had once, roughly around his age, who made a point to pick a fight with everyone at some point and enjoyed the process. Our other colleagues were also beside themselves when he and I met in person for the first time at a conference in 2019, and we got along extremely well, as we found that medium of communication solved issues we might otherwise experience.

Taleb is one of the few people who can casually burn someone with words measurably worse than I can, though to his credit those burns tend to be well-earned. Having suffered through two of Steven Pinker's horrible "books", after making the mistake of buying two from the same author when getting many at once, I can certainly say that Taleb's criticisms of him are deserved. I saw some room for improvement in how his criticisms of Thaler and Sunstein were communicated, but also sympathize with and share an aspect of that perspective, having an atypical reaction to "nudges" myself, generally finding them very obvious and obnoxious.

Ultimately, it takes a peer who is both competent and direct in their communication to improve methods and drive research forward, particularly where moving from the domain of research to one of real-world implementation is concerned. My co-founder only asks for negative (but constructive) feedback for this reason. This is a big part of why we work very well together and respect one another, despite having very different views on many subjects.

Hearing "you're right" and "this is awesome" barely budges the motivational needle when you already have expertise and rigor, at least absent "imposter syndrome", narcissism, or various other mental disorders, so they tend to be unproductive. Negative feedback can also be unproductive but also tends to be obvious when it is, such as someone saying "...but this other theory says..." which is generally no different than the same person attempting to argue a point by quoting their imaginary friend.

It is the challenges to our ideas that carry criticisms and insights of substance that add meaningful value. I'd rather have an idea burned by Taleb so that I could address an otherwise overlooked issue than to hear his praises.