3 ms·

A teller is responsible for flows of money from the bank to its customers and vice versa, no?

thaumasiotes 7y ago
No. The teller isn't responsible for those flows by transporting the money any more than the security guard is responsible for them by letting the customer go through the door.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  You're right, the security guard is also a banker by your definition.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    I suggest you show my definition to a few people, ask them whether it includes security guards, and see what they say. On the negligible chance that you made this comment in earnest, the results may surprise you.
    - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
      It was in earnest. What seems to be going on here is that we have a very different understanding of what "responsible for a flow of money" means. In my mental model, someone who handles, protects, counts, transfers, etc. money to and from customers is fairly literally "responsible for a flow of money". I suspect you believe your definition requires a higher threshold and/or type of responsibility that these roles do not entail, but I don't see where that is in your definition. I think maybe you what you mean is that our hypothetical banker is independently making some decisions around how / where / etc this money flows with some degree of autonomy ? My point here was primarily just to say that it is maybe a bit thornier of a thing to define than you realize given that your definition in my honest opinion and in what I consider a reasonable reading did not clearly leave out one of the primary categories of employee that you intended it to exclude. Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument.
      - thaumasiotes 7y ago
        > Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument. Not at all. That is the standard for determining what something means. What you're saying here is that I expressed an idea, you agree with me as to both what I meant by it and what other people would understand by it, but, for unstated reasons, you think my expression was metaphysically incorrect. Why? The project of communication is for the listener to understand the same thing the speaker intended. If that happens, the communication was correct. As applied here, if I think "responsible for a flow of money", elucidated by a negative example, means something, and everyone else agrees with me that it means that thing... then that is in fact what it means. Words hold their meaning by common agreement, and solely by common agreement.

No. The teller isn't responsible for those flows by transporting the money any more than the security guard is responsible for them by letting the customer go through the door.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
You're right, the security guard is also a banker by your definition.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  I suggest you show my definition to a few people, ask them whether it includes security guards, and see what they say. On the negligible chance that you made this comment in earnest, the results may surprise you.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    It was in earnest. What seems to be going on here is that we have a very different understanding of what "responsible for a flow of money" means. In my mental model, someone who handles, protects, counts, transfers, etc. money to and from customers is fairly literally "responsible for a flow of money". I suspect you believe your definition requires a higher threshold and/or type of responsibility that these roles do not entail, but I don't see where that is in your definition. I think maybe you what you mean is that our hypothetical banker is independently making some decisions around how / where / etc this money flows with some degree of autonomy ? My point here was primarily just to say that it is maybe a bit thornier of a thing to define than you realize given that your definition in my honest opinion and in what I consider a reasonable reading did not clearly leave out one of the primary categories of employee that you intended it to exclude. Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > Sidenote - stating that "you will find most people will agree with me" is an, um, interesting method of argument. Not at all. That is the standard for determining what something means. What you're saying here is that I expressed an idea, you agree with me as to both what I meant by it and what other people would understand by it, but, for unstated reasons, you think my expression was metaphysically incorrect. Why? The project of communication is for the listener to understand the same thing the speaker intended. If that happens, the communication was correct. As applied here, if I think "responsible for a flow of money", elucidated by a negative example, means something, and everyone else agrees with me that it means that thing... then that is in fact what it means. Words hold their meaning by common agreement, and solely by common agreement.