This is a post about something that cropped up in conversation with someone who's an investing pro.
This is what she said:
‘ Who the fuck thinks that ‘skin in the game’ gives them more fucking clarity ? Lolol…’
If logic was a sport, fallacies would be the fouls or errors.
Fallacies violate the rules of logical thought, but often seem plausible or even convincing.
Emotions can blind you to logic, thus creating fallacies - ones that are aided by natural human defense response mechanisms (fear).
This was a tiny part of a much wider discussion concerning hive and the ecosystem.(full post here)....
https://peakd.com/hive-122315/@lucylin/it-s-mind-trap-mid-wit-and-you-ve-been-caught-lets-meander
(I'd intended to tag @leofinance on this post, because it's very relevant ... But I didn't...Oh well.)
Back to the specific point of this post...
By having 'skin in the game'- for some bizarre reason - seems to invoke ,or infer , some kind of extra legitimacy to a stated position.
This is both intellectually absurd, and philosophically weak.
Let me explain.
In the picture below, both people involved have 'skin in the game'.
If you asked gladiator blue, 'who wins this trade ?', and if you then ask gladiator red the same question, the answers would must most probably be very different.
The very fact that they have skin in the game doesn't add to their accuracy of predicting the outcome.
-having skin in the game only distorts each of their perceptions.
Emotions can distort reality.
The more you have to win (or lose), the more your brain will rationalize your decisions.
RATIONALIZE:
a. To attempt to justify (one's behavior) by providing reasons that obscure one's actual motives.
b. To dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse.
It's a psychological defense mechanism.
It can distort reality.
Now, if you were to ask an uninvested observer about the clash of the two gladiators, you'd get a far more objective opinion on the probable result.
Be careful who you listen to....enthusiasm is emotion, not reality.
Enthusiasm is highly correlated to the desire of an outcome.
It has no correlation to the actual outcome.
Having 'skin in the game' is highly correlated to wanting a desired outcome...
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Maybe interesting:
https://hive.blog/philosophy/@erh.germany/skin-in-the-game
Though I would now give different numbers in my scaling (you know what I am talking about when you read the blog)
For the above writing:
Good objections. It is true, of course, that someone does not automatically have "more right/see-through" to some place in the economic sun just because he plays with more stakes (whereby one inevitably deals with the whole matter such as supply, demand, price and all the technical stuff and thus acquires other expertise).
I also see it as the case that the higher the sum, the quicker comes the sweating, the public relation, the talking around, the enthusiastic selling and the getting angry or nagging or calling for justice when things are on "uncertain".
The question arises, however, whether one does not pay extra attention, is careful, wants to keep a cool head, BECAUSE one is risking one's skin.
Well, all rather theoretical considerations, in any case I have no financial risk at all here, at most one of a lack of readership, but I've got used to that after I had a lot to do in the comments section for the first two years or so.
I still find a real casino much more exciting than all the virtual stuff. It's too technical for me.
A very good post, my friend.
The attention with 'no skin', is an entirely different question.
It becomes one of having 'the necessary stimulus required' , to garner the appropriate attention.(which having 'skin in', does tend to satisfy).
An interesting dynamic that my friend has going on...Steph 'buys', and a business partner 'sells' for her - tells her_when_ to sell... ( And vice versa). They trust each others 'unbiased' judgment (over many years).They're very wealthy.
I play chess at the same standard, with or without money involved.
(although my poker game is very different)
I learned a lot from your post.
Having skin in the game means you're more likely to panic if things take a turn for the worse. Panic doesn't make for good decisions.
Just felt like adding something, even though you've pretty much covered it all.
Skin in the game makes me focus and pay attention in a way I would never do if I was just theorizing. Speaking for myself here!
....you did read the part about rationalization?
Everyone does it.
Knowing that you're doing it , is the trick.
ive often thought the reason ive done well on bitcoin is because i hate bitcoin - people who think it's the second coming get stiffed
ive often thought the reason ive done well on bitcoin is because i hate bitcoin
rationalizing again...lol
thought experiment...
Does my saying 'rationalizing again', stir up any 'defensive-y' type of emotions within yourself?
There is no wrong answer - I'm interested...
I don't think it does, but as you say, it's hard to assess yourself
With Hive I want it to work (hopium) so as an investment it's potentially my weakest one, but with Bitcoin I long ago concluded it's a deep state scam, and I just want to get rich off it, but don't want to end up holding it - sort of like musical chairs
Yup, when you're in the'skin in the game' bubble, everything is seen through that filter. It's unavoidable.
I want hive to work to. (more than a lot of idiots realize ).
As an investment - for it to be long term successful, depends on change.
...'long term' and 'short term' are subjective of course.
When I say long term (not in reference to an investment, but a platform to express), I'm thinking in decades.
Changing a corrupt system (oligarchy) is better done sooner rather than later.
There may be no later, otherwise.
Skin in the game means you're playing the wrong game. Go play with money instead...