Jump to content

Essay - Building Social Wealth


racemize
 Share

Recommended Posts

The essay has some nice aspirational goals.

 

Couple thoughts though:

 

If you ever think you may

have encountered this person, you are going to probe and probe and test and test to

make sure that they are real, that you’re not being fooled. And the paradox is that it

looks like you’re probing for weakness, but you’re not. You’re probing for strength. And

the worst day of your life is if instead of strength you get back weakness. And now you

feel betrayed. You know why? You’ve got to start your search all over again.

 

Maybe I should talk to Peter about what he meant, but IMO this is quite bad way to approach relationships with people.

Nobody in the world is a saint who is

trustworthy, ... principled, and courageous, and competent, and kind, and loyal, and understanding, and forgiving, and unselfish
all the time.

So if your attitude is to probe and probe and probe, you will hit a bad day or bad spot or whatever and become upset and disillusioned with the person.

Instead, if you see that a person embodies a lot of qualities you are looking for, then you should accept that sometimes they won't. And ideally you'll be able to be with them at these times and perhaps help them to become a better person. And not just abandon them and go looking for some ideal that does not exist.

 

Prune the takers, keep the matchers, and cultivate the givers.

 

Just be aware that (commonly?) a lot of people are already hanging onto the givers. Can you support the giver?

 

Another note is that the taker/matcher/giver categorization is incredibly simplified. There are people who are great givers within certain area of their life but not in other(s). There are people who are givers for some people but are indiferent-sers for others. And there's the perception issue too: what someone regards as giving another person may regard as nothing (I find the whole taker/matcher/giver categorization extremely limiting  8))

 

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essay has some nice aspirational goals.

 

Couple thoughts though:

 

If you ever think you may

have encountered this person, you are going to probe and probe and test and test to

make sure that they are real, that you’re not being fooled. And the paradox is that it

looks like you’re probing for weakness, but you’re not. You’re probing for strength. And

the worst day of your life is if instead of strength you get back weakness. And now you

feel betrayed. You know why? You’ve got to start your search all over again.

 

Maybe I should talk to Peter about what he meant, but IMO this is quite bad way to approach relationships with people.

Nobody in the world is a saint who is

trustworthy, ... principled, and courageous, and competent, and kind, and loyal, and understanding, and forgiving, and unselfish
all the time.

So if your attitude is to probe and probe and probe, you will hit a bad day or bad spot or whatever and become upset and disillusioned with the person.

Instead, if you see that a person embodies a lot of qualities you are looking for, then you should accept that sometimes they won't. And ideally you'll be able to be with them at these times and perhaps help them to become a better person. And not just abandon them and go looking for some ideal that does not exist.

 

Prune the takers, keep the matchers, and cultivate the givers.

 

Just be aware that (commonly?) a lot of people are already hanging onto the givers. Can you support the giver?

 

Another note is that the taker/matcher/giver categorization is incredibly simplified. There are people who are great givers within certain area of their life but not in other(s). There are people who are givers for some people but are indiferent-sers for others. And there's the perception issue too: what someone regards as giving another person may regard as nothing (I find the whole taker/matcher/giver categorization extremely limiting  8))

 

Peace.

 

I don’t think Peter is saying that is how you should act, he’s saying that is how people feel or do act most of the time.  His perspective is to be that person you want, not be the wanter.

 

On the categorization—it can be as nuanced as you want, and I’m sure everyone views things differently. So, it’s fine for that categorization to be unique for each person or relationship I’d say. I know lots of people who accidentally surround themselves with people who take all the time and don’t give back, so that’s mostly for them.

 

For supporting the giver, if you are doing what Peter recommends, then you would also be giving back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...