You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

NancyLebovitz comments on What false beliefs have you held and why were you wrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

28 Post author: Punoxysm 16 October 2014 05:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (364)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 17 October 2014 07:06:34AM *  8 points [-]

I used to believe that no one would loot a large organization (especially in the first world) from the top. It took me a while to realize anyone could want that much money.

The comment has five karma points, so I may not be the only person who had that blind spot. I suspect in my case that having grown up slightly upper middle class contributed to my false belief-- it was a combination of comfort/security with limited ambition.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 18 October 2014 12:42:48AM 5 points [-]

Could you give an example of someone looting a large organization in the first world?

Comment author: Azathoth123 18 October 2014 03:29:19AM 1 point [-]

The recent history of the state of Illinois.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 18 October 2014 02:41:41PM -1 points [-]

The terrible CEO of Sears comes to mind.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 October 2014 05:16:24PM 2 points [-]

That link claims that (1) he is incompetent and (2) he is liquidating the company. The two claims are not compatible. Nor does either constitute "looting." Looting is intentional behavior, not incompetence. If you do think liquidating a company is "looting," you could have just said so, rather than linking to an article and letting me figure out the behavior you meant. And there are a lot more examples of liquidation.

Comment author: therufs 19 October 2014 10:02:03PM -1 points [-]

If you do think liquidating a company is "looting," you could have just said so

I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone who you disagree with about the meaning of a word used in an unusual context to know you disagree with them and mention it in advance.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 19 October 2014 11:27:23PM 2 points [-]

It's not an unusual context, but that doesn't meant that it means anything beyond negative affect.