|
|
|
|
|
|
by stennie
2107 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with the general sentiment of taking ownership (especially if you are self-aware enough to realise the coping pattern of deflection). The example of a CEO not allowing something if you fail to make a well-articulated argument is obvious, but the complement may not be: they can still decide against a well-reasoned argument. The dynamics get much more complex when you have a larger organisation where participants in a decision may have competing incentives and goals. I think the ownership action in extreme cases is best summarised by the simulation in WarGames (1983): "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.". There is lots of interesting game theory (which is probably a digression here), but the Prisoner's Dilemma is a fun starting point if anyone is interested in an academic side trip: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/. |
|
|
Suer, but then you did what you could. I think the main point here is 'do your best instead of giving up prematurely', not 'slam your head against the wall until the wall gives in' ;)
> There is lots of interesting game theory (which is probably a digression here), but the Prisoner's Dilemma is a fun starting point if anyone is interested in an academic side trip: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/.
Game theory is highly interesting. There is also the book "Networks, Crowds and Markets", which is free to read online [0] and well worth a read. I've actually had an university course about it.
[0] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/netwo...