This is a pretty big deal.
Assuming good faith by authority figures is a popular and common fallacy from people who sit in the "Lawful" quadrant. N.b., I see this a lot in academic circles. Arguing from authority is the M.O. there, and assuming from authority is the consequence.
There's also assuming bad faith, a equally fallacious and (at least equally) popular idea from people who sit in the "Chaotic" quadrant.
We have to remember to have nuance in our opinions and dealings with others.
That being said, the author has previous experience working on Wall Street as a quant, and is involved with the OWS Alternative Banking Group. She certainly comes with a strong perspective on the matter, but neither is she arguing out of ignorance of the system.
The underlying issue is my biggest peeve with both the buisness and political world. There is a popular viewpoint spread by many defacto authority figures that one should presume good faith from all groups involved, even though everything I can see tells me the opposite.
Did Silver decide to perpetuate that by being afraid to address the topic of malice in his book or did he fall victim to cultural attitudes himself? Either way this rant is all over the place, it complains about Silver mixing cause and effect while itself attacking a symptom, not the problem.
Edit: This post is written temporarily presupposing that the author is correct in her take on Silver's book, the comment by flatline in this thread hits some good points on why she may be a bit off. It was so long ago that I read the book I don't particularly remember how many inches Silver dedicated to incentives let alone care to debate if that was enough given the goals of his book.