What an odd book. Every third sentence seems to be a rant against “intellectuals” in general and economists in particular. He repeats the phrase “skin in the game” so many times it has ceased to mean anything (and I’m only about halfway through), and he seems to be assuming that his readership has already eagerly devoured everything he has already written.
I find myself bouncing back and forth between two responses: “Yes, you’re right, but who cares, that’s obvious” and “No, you’re wrong.”
Example of the first: he seems very pleased with himself about the kosher pop example, but as someone upstairs points out this is not especially newsworthy or interesting. Another example, more broad: he seems to think he is the only person who has ever thought about this kind of stuff; I read, a few years back, a book by an economist (guess this is why Taleb wasn’t familiar with it) suggesting that things like jury trials would go a lot better if jurors had more “skin in the game.” (One specific suggestion, which was remarkably stupid but never mind, was that if a jury wished to declare a criminal defendant not guilty, each juror should be forced to host the defendant in his or her own home for one month following the trial.) Same basic idea.
Example of the second: his argument, such as it is, about smoking sections would be more compelling if the trend were going toward allowing smoking in indoor places everywhere; but of course, that is not the case. I think it has been five years since I was last in a place that actually had an indoor smoking section. The minority has lost this one pretty big time. Another example: my wife and son have celiac disease, and cannot eat gluten. I can assure you that while restaurants do increasingly offer GF alternatives, it is by no means the case that restaurants, conferences, festivals, family gatherings, etc., have all gone GF to suit the wishes of the minority. One reason: too expensive. Another: some people really don’t want GF food, or think they don’t.
Anyway–yes, sometimes his examples are accurate (but so what) and sometimes his thesis doesn’t make sense at all (which he doesn’t seem to notice). Because of that, returning to the OP and the question stated there, I would be very very surprised if there’s any mathematical basis for the theory, given that it doesn;t seem to work all that often.
(My best example of the “intransigent minority” theory, which I don;t believe Taleb mentions: my local district closes schools on Rosh Hashanah and on Yom Kippur. Thus, despite the fact that the schools are over 80% African American and Jewish students probably make up no more than 2-3%. Even with those numbers, easier to close the schools that day for everyone than to open and have a few Jewish parents be mad at the administration…)