3 ms·
I feel like the intended colloquial interpretation of "ownership" here is a combination of responsibility and agency. Just because you're responsible for someth
by Bjartr 3y ago
I feel like the intended colloquial interpretation of "ownership" here is a combination of responsibility and agency. Just because you're responsible for something doesn't mean you actually have power to influence the thing. So "sense of ownership over X" is shorthand for "sense of responsibility for X plus the agency necessary to fulfill the responsibility"
- lazide 3y agoIf you have no ability to change the outcome, or no benefit/loss depending on the outcome, it’s pretty hard to say someone owns anything. It someone will suffer the consequences of an outcome with no ability to change anything (or make decisions), that’s just making someone a scapegoat. If someone can make decisions/do things but will not benefit from or lose anything from the outcome, then I’m not sure what they are (judge? Arbitrator? Ruler?) - but they don’t own the thing.
- _puk 3y agoThis [0] was posted recently and (IMO) really captures the reality of ownership. Without all 3 of responsibility, mandate, and knowledge there can be no ownership. 0: https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership https://blog.alexewerlof.com/p/broken-ownership