I'm a giver. Have known this for years. I give every chance I get, but the secret to not burning out is to have healthy boundaries. I have a huge network of contacts and give far more than I get, but I enjoy it. I love seeing people succeed and if I can do that, I'm happy. Don't know why, but I get a rush out of helping someone succeed.
When you're waiting in lines at the supermarket or store, talk to people who are in front or behind you in lines. I call this "Acknowledging the humanity that's right in front of you." Say hello, talk about the weather, what he's wearing (hat, shirt, shoe). You'll never know if you develop connections useful to your career or even find the love of your life. Make the interaction spontaneous and seamless with practice and practice daily!
I'm a matcher. I became one from living with roommates who always leave their shit in the sink piled to the top, and realizing cleaning their shit for them won't stop them from their habits. Also from solicitors and panhandlers. Sometimes I do not put up the best defense and start to get hustled, but I'll still do my best to tire them out, so that they lose the energy and motivation to go after another person. Sometimes I'm a taker and or giver though. It all depends.
I think this categorization of people applies all the more in personal relationships too and can help explain why some people are exploited by others and they tend to be 'okay with it'.
That was very interesting! It would be nice to do more experimentation comparing the performance of the two cultures. The hypothetical question is: out of two equally qualified and experienced groups of professionals, which one would perform better, the one with all of its members being "takers" or the other one where all its members are "givers"?
The problem is taker gossip too. when giver is burned out and tries to raise voice, taker is afraid that his reputation might suffer and collude with other takers or matchers by giving them treats and make them compete with the giver so that giver looks like the rude one and change the story. If the leader is taker, he will likely to use another taker to weed out the giver after using up the giver and have the takers suck up to him
I'm reading his book and find it very well researched and written. Wonder if givers can translate (not English mother tongue) into altruists without loosing or diluting the meaning (and takers eq egoists).
1. Screen out takers as one rotten apple can ruin all team and keep givers and matchers. (Taker is narcissist and suck up and kick down, and predict other people’s behavior based on their own motivation) 2. Redefine giving by being efficient and focus on the type of giving you want and not try to be a saint. 3. Ask for help.
Mmmmmmm I agree to certain extent that what you believe of others is what you actually are. BUT, in my case I used to believe the best of others, almost naively, and I had been hitten so many times than now I'm a cynical. So, i'm not sure how this fits into me projecting onto others what I am myself.
I don't really agree with the concept that if you estimate high on how many people take from work it's because you take. Could that not be just a giver who has been taken advantage of? Could that not also be someone who sees others do this or even knows how often people get into trouble for taking? I get that there are exceptions to his rule but feel like he has taken the actual exception and made it the rule.
of course givers SEEM to be less productive, when you use the official measures of production, because it is intrinsic to the takers that they both cheat the measurement and steal credit for others' work. SMH Doesn't mean they are ACTUALLY more productive, indeed both logic and observaton should tell you that frustration with being cheated by takers leads givers and equallers to both be less productive (and tit for tat favors and abuses at work, btw, is intrinsically counterproductive as it limits production hte case of favors by witholding what could be given, and reduces it in the case of abuses by reducing what is given). When you are tempted to call takers productive, don't ever forget to deduct from their total what they cost from the productivity of those around them.
I'm a giver. Have known this for years. I give every chance I get, but the secret to not burning out is to have healthy boundaries. I have a huge network of contacts and give far more than I get, but I enjoy it. I love seeing people succeed and if I can do that, I'm happy. Don't know why, but I get a rush out of helping someone succeed.
When you're waiting in lines at the supermarket or store, talk to people who are in front or behind you in lines. I call this "Acknowledging the humanity that's right in front of you." Say hello, talk about the weather, what he's wearing (hat, shirt, shoe). You'll never know if you develop connections useful to your career or even find the love of your life. Make the interaction spontaneous and seamless with practice and practice daily!
I'm a matcher. I became one from living with roommates who always leave their shit in the sink piled to the top, and realizing cleaning their shit for them won't stop them from their habits. Also from solicitors and panhandlers. Sometimes I do not put up the best defense and start to get hustled, but I'll still do my best to tire them out, so that they lose the energy and motivation to go after another person.
Sometimes I'm a taker and or giver though. It all depends.
I think this categorization of people applies all the more in personal relationships too and can help explain why some people are exploited by others and they tend to be 'okay with it'.
That was very interesting! It would be nice to do more experimentation comparing the performance of the two cultures. The hypothetical question is: out of two equally qualified and experienced groups of professionals, which one would perform better, the one with all of its members being "takers" or the other one where all its members are "givers"?
The problem is taker gossip too. when giver is burned out and tries to raise voice, taker is afraid that his reputation might suffer and collude with other takers or matchers by giving them treats and make them compete with the giver so that giver looks like the rude one and change the story. If the leader is taker, he will likely to use another taker to weed out the giver after using up the giver and have the takers suck up to him
I'm reading his book and find it very well researched and written. Wonder if givers can translate (not English mother tongue) into altruists without loosing or diluting the meaning (and takers eq egoists).
Great lesson!
1. Screen out takers as one rotten apple can ruin all team and keep givers and matchers. (Taker is narcissist and suck up and kick down, and predict other people’s behavior based on their own motivation)
2. Redefine giving by being efficient and focus on the type of giving you want and not try to be a saint.
3. Ask for help.
Mmmmmmm I agree to certain extent that what you believe of others is what you actually are. BUT, in my case I used to believe the best of others, almost naively, and I had been hitten so many times than now I'm a cynical. So, i'm not sure how this fits into me projecting onto others what I am myself.
That may logically lead to a question. What is the way how you can become a giver?
I don't really agree with the concept that if you estimate high on how many people take from work it's because you take. Could that not be just a giver who has been taken advantage of? Could that not also be someone who sees others do this or even knows how often people get into trouble for taking? I get that there are exceptions to his rule but feel like he has taken the actual exception and made it the rule.
this one plus 48 Laws of Power by Robert Green.. \m/
So clutch
Awesome!
he's so funny, and the audience doesn't seem to catch the humor....
+Julie Vandermay I think we just can't hear it
of course givers SEEM to be less productive, when you use the official measures of production, because it is intrinsic to the takers that they both cheat the measurement and steal credit for others' work. SMH Doesn't mean they are ACTUALLY more productive, indeed both logic and observaton should tell you that frustration with being cheated by takers leads givers and equallers to both be less productive (and tit for tat favors and abuses at work, btw, is intrinsically counterproductive as it limits production hte case of favors by witholding what could be given, and reduces it in the case of abuses by reducing what is given). When you are tempted to call takers productive, don't ever forget to deduct from their total what they cost from the productivity of those around them.
I used to be a naive giver, now I guess I am a matcher because recently I took down an a-hoole ex-boss ;)
Matchers just sound like covert takers!
Am I the only one inherently skeptical about this coming from big daddy tech google?
Look up "tit for tat"