Polite disagree here; it’s something of the norm in high trust societies (and in high status institutions) to believe factual representations from candidates / employees.
And when you meet someone who both a) speaks lingo and b) has tolerance for fraud…
And when you meet someone who both a) speaks lingo and b) has tolerance for fraud…
https://twitter.com/bennetttomlin/status/1481715020421636101
(I am somewhat despondent that you could, with less effort than it takes to max out a WoW character, get good enough at “the lingo” to pass through interviews at a *lot* of high status places. And indeed, one reason hiring practices are incestuous is to reduce likelihood of this)
See also: failing up, which was one of the discoveries of my adult life most injurious to my cosmic sense of justice.
Combines with something shown in this case too, incidentally: comity plus transaction costs mean that the malfeasant/incompetent actor keeps the gains.
Combines with something shown in this case too, incidentally: comity plus transaction costs mean that the malfeasant/incompetent actor keeps the gains.
There’s some logic to it at scale; X% of the cap table is going to get allocated to people we probably shouldn’t have hired but couldn’t conveniently detect the incompetence of. Oh well, cost of doing business, hopefully they were also too incompetent to do much damage.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
