• Discover • Books • Articles • My library • Search
We’ve extensively covered the areas in which skin in the game is responsible for ethical, productive behavior in our world, as well as the ways in which a lack of skin in the game causes systemic harm.
For the final section of our guide, we’re going to examine Taleb’s bold, sweeping claims that skin in the game reveals the meaning of life and religion. He argues that skin in the game reveals that what we truly value above all else is the survival of the human race. With this in mind, Taleb then argues that religious belief is rational in the sense that it contributes to our survival.
First, we’ll explain how skin in the game is the only thing that’s truly “real.” Then, we’ll show how skin in the game reveals that the end goal of all humanity is survival. Finally, we’ll build support for Taleb’s argument that religion is fundamentally rational by showing how it contributes to our survival and arguing that everyone is religious to a certain extent.
Risk taking—skin in the game—is the essence of life itself. As Taleb puts it, “real life is risk taking.” He means this literally—by definition, a life without risk is not a real life. Let’s break down exactly what Taleb means by “real.”
Taleb is saying that risk defines what we consider to be reality and creates meaning by defining value.
In a metaphysical sense, skin in the game is how we define reality. Risk is what separates reality from fiction. Movies aren’t “real” because their events have no lasting consequences. They’re entirely without risk. Taleb asserts that this is why dreams aren’t real. When we wake up, they have no lasting consequences.
Taleb brings up a thought experiment posed by philosophers: Imagine we were able to plug ourselves into an “experience machine” that could create the illusion of real life. We would see, hear, and feel a full world for an extended period of time, but it would all be implanted in our brains instantly. Would that experience be real? Taleb says no—because of the absence of risk or lasting consequences.
The Experience Machine’s Libertarian Roots
This “experience machine” thought experiment was first posed by philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick was a libertarian who wrote Anarchy, State and Utopia as a counterargument to the political philosophy of John Rawls. The experience machine is intended to support his argument that maximal pleasure for as many people as possible cannot be the end goal of society, as some people seek higher values than pleasure (and so should not have their behavior limited by the government except when necessary to preserve human rights).
To prove that some people seek higher values than pleasure, Nozick argues that even if the experience machine could provide whatever pleasurable experience you could want, some people would refuse to plug into the machine, because they want things that the machine can’t give them—for example, to live up to a higher ideal in the “real” world by staying and providing for their family.
Skin in the game is at the core of everything valuable or meaningful.
Humans emotionally connect to the idea of risk and loss—it’s baked into our neurology. This is because how much we value something can be measured by how much we’re willing to risk for it.