"Reputationism" might be a good way to describe a system with "no skin in the game". I agree that a world where nobody has skin in the game is bad. And yet, wh

"Reputationism" might be a good way to describe a system with "no skin in the game". I agree that a world where nobody has skin in the game is bad. And yet, who do we admire in Silicon Valley? "Thought leaders". Guys like Ben Thompson of Stratechery, VCs with blogs, Elad Gil, etc. I'm very torn about this. On one hand, the whole enterprise of being famous without taking any risk feels so dirty, and yet, it's so effective in today's world. Who in their right mind would want to be a military leader, small-business owner, or elected politician, when you could be a VC, investment banker, journalist, or mid-level corporate executive? All of the upside, none of the risk! It feels "rational" in a way to want to have no skin in the game. It was Taleb himself who said in the bed of Procrustes (another of his books) something like, "it's the sign of the loser to lament human nature without any attempt to exploit or profit from it". Does that apply here? Another thought: is reputationism inevitable? Taleb is a hardcore empiricist -- someone who values experience and firsthand knowledge over all. The problem is that we live in a global world, where knowledge, products, and ideas flow all over the place, and we can't have firsthand knowledge of all of it. So we rely on words, symbols, brands, and other "experts" to help us make sense of all of it. Perhaps inevitable, but it does take my smugness down a peg or two when thinking about medieval peasants consulting the local priest for advice. Maybe these reputationists today are the modern capitalist priestly class?