Like almost all human traits, giving and taking exist along a continuum. At the far left and negative end are the "Takers" and the extreme negative end of those, the "Grabbers." Yuck. Grabbers can be very ugly. At the right and positive end are the "Reciprocators," and at the most positive far end, the pure "Givers." Givers are a blessing to you, and people you should treasure and emulate.
I like to give generously, and I don't like to keep score, but on the other hand I don't like to be taken advantage of. Years ago I gave to some people who not only turned out to be takers and grabbers, but psychopaths. I didn't get angry at them, but boy did I feel foolish. In fact, for a while I didn't give to anyone unless I was sure of getting something in return. Even though I prevented people from taking advantage of me, I didn't like approaching life from a "quid pro quo" position.
I finally came upon a formula that works for me, and if you're someone who likes to give but also doesn't like to be taken advantage of, it might work for you.
I do my best to surround myself with givers, or at least reciprocators, and when I find them, I add them as people I intend to have a long-term, and in many cases lifelong, relationship with.
When I run into takers and grabbers at the negative end, I try to identify them as early as possible* and only give to them as part of a trade where I immediately ask for something in return. As I get older, my preference is to have as little to do with these types as possible, because if you're generous by nature, even if you stay on your toes, takers and grabbers will get the better of you, and you can come to resent that.
The far more interesting realization has been regarding the vast majority of people who are in the belly of the bell shape curve above. I refer to those people as "Receivers." They are people that you can do many things for, and even though they don't give or reciprocate spontaneously, they are not takers or grabbers. It's just that they don't spontaneously think to offer something back to you, unless you ask them to do something. They are not bad or greedy people. In most cases, they're just trying to survive. When you do ask them, they will willingly and often gladly oblige and then do that favor for you that you ask. So, rather than getting your feelings all hurt when they don't spontaneously offer you something in return, stop playing the martyr and just ask them.
* One of the best ways to identify "Takers" and "Grabbers" early, if your gut is sending you signals, is to immediately say to them after they pressure you to do something, "Oh, by the way, that reminds me of something you could do for me." If they show any signs of pushing back or even appearing perplexed, that is a good sign that you are dealing with a taker or a grabber.
A while back I did that with someone who was a "dyed in the wool" taker and grabber. After I asked him for a favor, and he looked almost offended, I said to him: "My offer that I made to you is off the table. Have a nice day."
Read More:
Follow Mark Goulston, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markgoulston
here is meant as a joke to defer a person from being seen as a taker.
It is "What can I do you for?" It doesm't take much to see through people.
The problem in todays world is that people have become used to the idea
that in order to increase their own lot someone elses must be deminished.
Working together, everyone can gain many times over. Until more people
come to see this rational, we will all continue in our downward spiral.
otherwise to make ends meet. There isn't enough to go around and
sharring gets more difficult, so greed sets in for survival. Sharing and
helping one another will let us survive better, but people get afraid and
become selfish.
fixed income social security elderly person. I would have
sought to help them if I could. Now, People seem to see me
as a cash cow for what little I have no matter my own sacrifice
on their behalf. I love them anyhow. I guess that is why.
I find too, with people like my brother, that what they tend to do is give a little back, but nothing close to what one should be getting. But their way of thinking is based on the idea that those who have the most deserve even more, I believe, while the rest of us who are struggling are left continuing to struggle.
http://www.lamag.com/features/Story.aspx?ID=1535717
It looks at the shame, guilt and resentment that Lynch is feeling towards a friend who she feels is a taker. For those of you not familiar with Byron Katie, she had a very dramatic enlightenment nearly 30 years ago, which produced what is known as "The Work". Check it out http://www.thework.com/index.php
What I was getting at in my post was that over the course of a lifetime people may find themselves giving more than taking - mothers, for instance, or stay-at-home dads. For someone to judge another on their immediate ability to reciprocate is immature.
It completely ignores social context. People are not always able to 'give'. Life isn't about 'an eye for an eye'. And this tale isn't about 'give and take'
Well-spoken! from a middle class perspective where you have started off privileged - advantaged therefore, Mark. Some people - like housewives of yesteryear - gave and gave and gave, and got nothing back. if they stayed in the marriage, hopefully the man would eventually come to realize that he took and took and took, and at some point, the right thing to do was to give back. A lot of men did, giving their wives, finally, the support they needed to pursue their dreams. If it didn't happen, the result could well have been divorce. But what is a woman to do then, when the best years of youth - of sexual attractivness - have been taken away from her. I'd be interested in hearing what Mark's views on sex are - the same as most men who see themselves as gods.
Life is not fair. Some people are obliged to keep giving, and get little or nothing back. This is my blog, in case the author would like to return the favour and leave a comment: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/
A team that "votes black" consistently wins both individually and collectively; but if one person cheats (ie, is the "taker" in the group), that one person wins something but the group gives it up and there is no net gain or loss.
Getting four people to consistently vote "black" (giver) is extremely rare.
Its application in society is the success of any kind of communal living arrangment or socialism is highly vulnerable to cheaters (freeloaders). The implication is "forget it" on any group larger than four!
I am getting from this article (and the other) a sense of the narcissism that the me generation is known for. This kind of thought can only do our society further harm.
When I was younger, a stranger did me a great favor asking only in return that I give a similar favor upon at least one other person in need when I can, as I can. I practice that philosophy of 'give that others may, also', often - that there are times when it is prudent to say 'no' is difficult for me to concieve, but I'm not priveledged to give what I'd like to, what I feel I ought to, I can only give so much in only so many ways and I feel guilty that I can't give more.