I always thought the bigger miss of the common phrase is this: If “With great power comes great responsibility” then the converse must also be true “With NO POWER comes NO responsibility”. The level of responsibility must scale in direct proportion to the amount of power you have. If your boss is blaming you for something you have little to no control over, then it isn’t your responsibility, and you deserve no blame.
Your manager saying “You need to find someone to cover your shift” would then be bullshit. Unless you have the power to hire additional staff, allow for allowed time off for regular life events, or increase the pay of staff to make others more readily want to take the shift, I don’t see enough power for it to be your responsibility.
I understood it as power causes responsibility, and therefore, no power means no responsibility. If they’re just correlated, then there’s no way of knowing if no power is also correlated with no responsibility.
I understood it as power causes responsibility, and therefore, no power means no responsibility.
I agree with this.
If they’re just correlated, then there’s no way of knowing if no power is also correlated with no responsibility.
If you’re using that line of thought, then I’ll also agree with you that there would be strong correlation with “no power equals no responsibility”, but I’m not sure how that fact is helpful or moves us forward in a line of thinking. When someone cites the argument of “correlation vs causation” usually means “we can’t tell if its actually causation. Its possible its just correlation”. Yet here we agree it is unambiguously causation. Your first sentence in this post encapsulate this perfectly.
“I understood it as power causes responsibility”. cause = causation
This is why I was confused with your citation of the “correlation vs causation” argument.
I always thought the bigger miss of the common phrase is this: If “With great power comes great responsibility” then the converse must also be true “With NO POWER comes NO responsibility”. The level of responsibility must scale in direct proportion to the amount of power you have. If your boss is blaming you for something you have little to no control over, then it isn’t your responsibility, and you deserve no blame.
Your manager saying “You need to find someone to cover your shift” would then be bullshit. Unless you have the power to hire additional staff, allow for allowed time off for regular life events, or increase the pay of staff to make others more readily want to take the shift, I don’t see enough power for it to be your responsibility.
Depends. Correlation vs causation.
I’m not seeing a correlation only argument here. Where would there be correlation without causation with what I’ve posted?
I understood it as power causes responsibility, and therefore, no power means no responsibility. If they’re just correlated, then there’s no way of knowing if no power is also correlated with no responsibility.
I agree with this.
If you’re using that line of thought, then I’ll also agree with you that there would be strong correlation with “no power equals no responsibility”, but I’m not sure how that fact is helpful or moves us forward in a line of thinking. When someone cites the argument of “correlation vs causation” usually means “we can’t tell if its actually causation. Its possible its just correlation”. Yet here we agree it is unambiguously causation. Your first sentence in this post encapsulate this perfectly.
“I understood it as power causes responsibility”. cause = causation
This is why I was confused with your citation of the “correlation vs causation” argument.