The third and final common reasoning error Nassim Nicholas Taleb cites in Skin in the Game is inappropriately reducing a problem with many dimensions down to just a single factor. I think this observation is pretty straightforward and doesn’t require an extended thought from me – if a given problem has three factors to consider and you decide to oversimplify things down to one factor, well, reader, I don’t really know for sure what kind of outcome you might be expecting.
In the past, I've ranted about the opposite of this very topic by using the general expression 'debate club mentality'. There are simply some matters that do not deserve a thorough examination of each side's three best arguments. The problem I've always had in mind when criticizing the 'debate club mentality' is the possibility that training people to think this way stunts their ability to determine whether a single powerful argument is more than enough to overrule the evidence presented by any number of equally true but relatively insignificant rebuttals.
Again, Taleb's point is the opposite of mine - Taleb warns against too much simplification while I worry about adding needless complexity. Which is better? I think the best answer, as always, is that it depends. The key skill to develop in this regard isn't to pick one approach or the other, it's to become capable of knowing which method is more relevant for a given situation.
