@blocktrades, I agree with your general arguments about what skin in the game means, but your premise seems to be that @lucylin is wrong and I think you have missed his point. I think that is your premise, because you didn't even read his entire post. You have made your decision without even reading his post and I think you have been swayed by others. I could be wrong here and if so please feel free to correct me.
If you want to actually understand what he is saying, this sentence sums up his post:
'Skin in the game' - when measured as some form of competence or that it gives you some higher insight or more legitimacy into a subject - is a patently false statement
His point and yours are two different points that don't argue with each other. I agree with both of your arguments.
"skin in the game" means you have a vested in interest in something doing well. It almost always leads to more favorable decision-making.
I agree with you that "skin in the game" will often lead you to make decisions that are more favorable to the game that you are playing. But, that does not disagree with @lucylin's point.
Skin in the game does not necessarily give you higher insights about the game, but it does often incentivize you to make decisions that are favorable to the game.
If you are going to downvote a post because you consider it to be "overrewarded nonsense", then you should at least have read the post and made a valid argument against it. You have not done that. You have made a basic statement that gives your opinion on the meaning of "skin in the game" and that does not do anything to refute his premise or his argument.
RE: Proof of NO brain is exposed by using the 'having skin in the game' as a valid argument.