Hazzard, I don’t think you’re suggesting that such a paradoxical situation is necessarily false or wrong but wanted to check. If not, then part of the question might be when (necessary and sufficient condition if possible) are such paradoxes to be strongly questioned/challenged and when should we accept we do live in a world with paradoxes.
Looking at the equal and opposite link I came away with one main reaction: one size never fits all.
“Don’t over think things.” versus “If it seems clear and obvious, you don’t really understand it.”
Thinking of the skin in the game and asymmetric justice example, I wonder if one aspect might be considering why the saying came about. Skin in the game seems to be something about *others* we interact with on something. We’re happy to join in to play under those terms, perhaps some incentive to trust the other will also make an effort. The asymmetric justice aspect is more about how we might behave to a large extent independent of what the others are doing.
We might also want to say both are saying the same thing, but illustrating a different facet. If no one has any skin in the game how would mistakes be punished? The incentives for all having skin in the game is about getting people to join (play with the others) while the asymmetric justice incentive notes the cost of that buy-in to get a game played.
Not all all sure how far that get though. It is a very interesting thought you’ve given.
Hazzard, I don’t think you’re suggesting that such a paradoxical situation is necessarily false or wrong but wanted to check. If not, then part of the question might be when (necessary and sufficient condition if possible) are such paradoxes to be strongly questioned/challenged and when should we accept we do live in a world with paradoxes.
Looking at the equal and opposite link I came away with one main reaction: one size never fits all.
I realize I was a bit vague in my intro. I rewrote it. Does that address what you were thinking?
Yes, I think that helped.
Very relevant to this post:
“Don’t over think things.” versus “If it seems clear and obvious, you don’t really understand it.”
Thinking of the skin in the game and asymmetric justice example, I wonder if one aspect might be considering why the saying came about. Skin in the game seems to be something about *others* we interact with on something. We’re happy to join in to play under those terms, perhaps some incentive to trust the other will also make an effort. The asymmetric justice aspect is more about how we might behave to a large extent independent of what the others are doing.
We might also want to say both are saying the same thing, but illustrating a different facet. If no one has any skin in the game how would mistakes be punished? The incentives for all having skin in the game is about getting people to join (play with the others) while the asymmetric justice incentive notes the cost of that buy-in to get a game played.
Not all all sure how far that get though. It is a very interesting thought you’ve given.