Facta Non Verba: Why Deeds Matter More Than Words

Facta non verba is Latin for "deeds, not words." Nassim Taleb uses it as a framework for understanding credibility, threat, and commitment — and connects it to the same underlying structure as skin in the game: what you're willing to do, not what you're willing to say.

The principle sounds obvious. In practice, we systematically do the opposite — we weight words heavily, evaluate credentials over track records, treat confident assertions as evidence of knowledge, and design institutions that reward verbal performance over demonstrated results.

Real Threats Are Silent

Taleb's opening observation on this topic: verbal threats reveal weakness. If someone has to tell you they'll harm you, they're negotiating — which means they're not certain they can act unilaterally.

His example is the Assassins of the 11th-14th centuries (the Hashshashin, a medieval Islamic sect). Their preferred move wasn't assassination. It was planting a dagger by the sleeping sultan's bed, without a note. The sultan woke up, saw the dagger, and understood: they had access, they had the capability, and they chose not to use it. That restraint — that demonstration of capability without exercise of it — was more terrifying than any verbal threat could be.

The person who acts without announcing intention is communicating something different from the person who announces without acting. The former has already done the harder thing. The latter is still trying to avoid having to do it.

This extends across contexts: the negotiator who threatens but doesn't act is signaling the limits of their leverage. The competitor who announces they'll enter your market is informing you in advance, giving you preparation time — the truly dangerous competitor shows up. The executive who spends energy on status signals is compensating for something the executive who just delivers results doesn't need to compensate for.

Real Expertise Doesn't Announce Itself

Verbal performance and actual competence have a weak relationship, which is uncomfortable to acknowledge because our institutions (especially education) are built primarily on verbal performance.

The exam proves you can answer questions about medicine. The board certification proves you passed tests about your specialty. The credential proves you completed a curriculum. None of these directly prove you can operate successfully on a specific patient under specific conditions with specific complications.

What proves that is a track record: cases completed, outcomes measured, complications navigated. The surgeon who has performed 2,000 procedures has evidence. The credentialed surgeon who has performed 200 and communicates with more polish has less evidence and more performance.

Taleb's surgeons-shouldn't-look-like-surgeons observation (from §16 of the book) connects directly here: the surgeon who has survived in the profession despite not looking the part built their track record on results. The one who looks the part may have invested in appearance at the expense of outcomes.

The same pattern appears in investing, in management, in any domain where outcomes are eventually measured but can be deferred long enough that the measurer is elsewhere:

The fund manager who communicates most confidently about their thesis isn't necessarily the one whose track record is strongest. The manager who manages a portfolio quietly and explains results in hindsight is often more trustworthy precisely because they're comfortable with results doing the speaking.

Reputation Is Built From What You've Done

This leads to a specific principle about credibility: your reputation as a risk-taker, a person of commitment, a trustworthy partner in difficult situations — is built from the track record of what you've done under conditions where you could have chosen otherwise.

Scars are evidence. Failures that were publicly absorbed and recovered from are evidence. Commitments that were honored when it was costly to honor them are evidence. Opinions expressed when they were professionally risky to express them are evidence.

Credentials, titles, and polished communication are not evidence of these things. They may coexist with them, but they're not evidence for them. They're evidence of performance in institutional contexts designed to reward verbal performance.

The person who has staked something on their positions and was right more often than wrong is credible. The person who has staked nothing on their positions — who has only expressed them — can perform credibility without having earned it.

The Practical Application

How to apply this in practice:

Evaluate advisors by track record, not presentation. What have they done? What did they recommend publicly, in advance, and then hold to? What did they risk on the recommendation? Weight the track record above the credential and above the communication style.

Watch what people do, not what they say they'll do. Commitments are demonstrated by behavior under pressure, not by statements made when pressure is absent. Assess reliability by what someone has delivered when it was costly to deliver, not by what they've promised when the promise was free.

Be cautious of confident assertions without demonstrated cost. Confidence is cheap when it's verbal. It's expensive when it's backed by a portfolio position, a public stance taken before the outcome was known, or a decision that carried personal risk. The difference matters.

Build your own credibility by doing before talking. Act, deliver, demonstrate. Let results build reputation. Talking about what you're going to do, what you believe, what you're capable of — is building a credibility claim on borrowed credit you don't have yet. Do the thing first.

For the full framework, read Skin in the Game Explained.