Game theory at work: When to talk and when to shut up (2024)

Interesting but boring approach. I think he weighs the social positives to low and the consequences of disagreement to high.

Lets take politics at work.

If you talk about politics and everyone agrees then you know you are working along side aligned people. Which is good and it can be fun to talk politics and see why people think the way they do.

If people disagree thats fine. If theyget mad thats on them. You can always retreat to only professional interaction and if they want to break that by being petty or mean then the manager can sort that out. If your views are so insane you are getting kicked out of groups then you should probably reconsider why you hold those views or why you work with these people.

As for looking professional, do you want to be a robot or a human? Of course your boss would rather you be a blank robot who just gets on with work but they are hiring a human and humans are allowed to express themselves.

Well this sems true, i think it incorrectly models why people do the things they do.

Re politics and work

Yes, talking politics at work is mindnumbingly stupid. However i think the gain people get from it is that people who deeply care about politics tie it to morality. Talking about it at work is an expensive signal about your beliefs. To some people there is a lot of value in this.

Yes, I agree, pausing to imagine how people will react to your words is generally a good move.

Do people really need to be told this?

(I actually know the answer is yes, I just wish it was "no"...)

Indeed, it took me many years to learn to incorporate silence as a form of face-to-face feedback, and even to this day I still cannot use it skillfully.

Most people tend to be good at extrapolating in incomplete info games, and depending on the risk aversion culture of whatever situation you're in, this means that most people will react defensively.

You learn this so vividly in Silicon Valley particularly with VCs, where staying mum is almost always the best strategy. VCs act as little reactive microprocessors dealing with too many signals, and the less information you give them the easier it is for them to arrive at a decision or strategy. Instead, there's a bias for founders to do the opposite when raising (or salesmen when closing), which is to overshare information thinking there's just one more bit of data that they can provide which will unlock the magical outcome they want. It's a habit of smart but otherwise inexperienced people fall into a trap of in negotiations.

There's tons of other competing externalities too like emotion and market signalling and stuff (eg repeated n-person incomplete games), but if you removed all of that just boiled it down to strategic decision making, this is what game theory teaches us.

Appreciate the post, … and also his excellent book collection!

>The quiet observer who speaks only when it truly matters

Never do that unless you're around the top of the hierarchy.

[dead]