Felipe

“In fact, there is something worse than peer assessment: the bureaucratization of the activity creates a class of new judges: university administrators, who have no clue what someone is doing except via external signals, yet become the actual arbiters.
These arbiters fail to realize that “prestigious” publication, determined by peer-reviewers in a circular manner, are not Lindy compatible — they only mean that a certain set of (currently) powerful people are happy with your work.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: The Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

“I keep seeing academics with no skin in the game defend evolution while at the same time
rejecting skin in the game and risk sharing. They refuse the notion of design by a creator who knows everything, while, at the same time, want to impose human design as if they knew all the consequences. In general, the more people worship the sacrosanct state (or, equivalently, large corporations), the more they hate skin in the game. The more they believe in their ability to forecast, the more they hate skin in the game. The more they wear suits and
ties, the more they hate skin in the game.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: The Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

“In general, when you hear someone invoking
abstract modernistic notions, you can assume that they got some education (but not enough, or in the wrong discipline) and have too little accountability.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: The Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

“Incompetent pilots, those who cannot learn from experience, or don’t mind taking risks they don’t understand, may kill many. But they will
themselves end up at the bottom of, say, the Bermuda Triangle, and cease to represent a threat to others and mankind.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: The Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life