I personally see nothing naive in the parent post. It brings arguments based on knowledge how organization works and appeals to a game theory (stakes do not match). I'm not saying the reasoning is necessarily valid, but it is not naive.
The only part of the parent comment I do not approve from a methodology standpoint is an appeal to "exception that proves the rule". Exceptions do not prove rules, they disprove them.
I personally see nothing naive in the parent post. It brings arguments based on knowledge how organization works and appeals to a game theory (stakes do not match). I'm not saying the reasoning is necessarily valid, but it is not naive.
The only part of the parent comment I do not approve from a methodology standpoint is an appeal to "exception that proves the rule". Exceptions do not prove rules, they disprove them.