4 ms·
No one is advocating for increasing those penalties. Taleb is just stating that there be some penalties, which kinda makes sense: You feel safer if the pilot i
by zzleeper 13y ago
No one is advocating for increasing those penalties. Taleb is just stating that there be some penalties, which kinda makes sense:
You feel safer if the pilot is in the airplane with you, and has his life at risk as much as yours, than e.g. if he was just remote-controlling the plane from his office
- nostrademons 13y agoOTOH, you feel safer if the 911 dispatcher is sitting in a far-away call-center and not freaking out because she's at the scene with you, and you feel safer if the surgeon is a dispassionate expert at their field and not the patient's mother. You'd feel better being represented by a lawyer who is not on trial with you than one who is. I think a lot of this depends upon whether the task calls for a rational or emotional response. For tasks that require a rational response, having "skin in the game" can cloud your judgment and make you perform worse than if you were a dispassionate observer. For tasks that require an emotional investment, you want the person's risks and incentives to be aligned with yours. (For example, you want a product designer to actually use the products they design, and you want a teacher to care about your kids as much as you care about them.)
- graeme 13y agoYou didn't really respond to OP's point. They said some skin in the game is sufficient. A surgeon faces large legal risks for a botched surgery. A lawyer is likewise legally responsible for his actions. Doctors and lawyers are two of the professions with the most skin in the game! I don't know enough about 9/11 dispatchers to say if they face liability.