Incidentally, I'm pretty sure (< x) has its current behavior so that (apply < lst) has a simple description: It always returns t if 'lst is increasing and nil if it isn't.
That being said, redefining '< this way isn't all that bad. The result of (apply < '(1)) ends up being a procedure, which still counts as a true value!
That being said, there may still be a problem if humans consistently have trouble simplifying (map >.2 '(1 2 3 4 5)). :-p
