Three types of people: Givers, Exchangers and Takers

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

It is likely this part of the site is for men and women stuff, and dealing with that.  But, I can see it can be for dealing with people overall.  I could be wrong, but I am not sure what else would be a fit.  I figured I would lay out 3 types of people I saw in Adam Grant’s book, “Give and Take”, because I will often see people may think there are only two types of people, and that is takers and producers.  According to the research by Adam Grant, there is actually 3, and the most successful people will be competent people who are givers.  Givers can end up getting exploited by takers, so they need to be on guard.  Exchangers will offer back what they get, and look for a fair deal.  What was found is that a person who wants to give and help, will get along better with others, provided they watch how they deal with takers.  I think it can be agreed one should look to try to avoid takers, and other toxic folks.  I think a problem I see being an Exchanger (and if everyone was this) is that if you are really limited in what you have to offer, and you could end up not getting enough help to get somewhere.  I think one objection I have with Objectivism, is that it says everyone should be exchangers alone, or they are just takers.

More information on this can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Give-Take-Helping-Others-Success/dp/0143124986/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1432604454&sr=1-1&keywords=give+%26+take+by+adam+grant

I do welcome feedback.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[RedHeadedStrangerParticipant 204]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

I think one objection I have with Objectivism, is that it says everyone should be exchangers alone, or they are just takers.

Not at all.  Objectivism does indeed uphold the trader principle, but that principle incorporates and subsumes giving.  The Objectivist believes that it is entirely rational to give (and therefore can be moral), but it is only moral to give that which is earned through trade.  We simply believe that it is immoral to take from one person to give to another.  This does not entail that giving is always immoral.

To clarify, Objectivists believe that sacrifice — not that giving — is immoral.  Remember, Objectivists judge morality by the standard of living, flourishing, and thriving.  Sacrifice is trading something of greater value for something of lesser value.  Therefore, sacrifice necessarily hinders a man’s ability to live, flourish, and thrive.

Giving, on the other hand, can be non-sacrificial.  By giving my time and money to a cause which I believe is worthwhile, I am not hindering my ability to live, flourish, or thrive.  Quite the opposite — I am using that time and money in order to create a more fertile soil in which I will be better able to live, flourish, and thrive.  Giving is in my personal self-interest.  The fact that it is also in the interest of others does nothing to negate this — nor does it diminish the act of giving.  Giving in such a context is entirely rational, life-affirming, and moral.

Again, we do not believe that giving is immoral — only that taking by force is immoral.  These are the principles of voluntarism and non-aggression.  Aggression includes: force, fraud, and the threat of force or fraud.  It’s as simple as that.

I could go on and on.  If this is truly your only objection to Objectivism, please ask me to clarify any points I may have muddled or skipped over.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

What I saw with Rand is helping the poor to be disgusting and evil, and other things.  All giving is sacrificial in nature.  It ideally would fit into what higher causes.  Anyhow, I am sorting and am short on thoughts.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[RedHeadedStrangerParticipant 204]

IGMOW (I Go My Own Way) wrote:

What I saw with Rand is helping the poor to be disgusting and evil, and other things. All giving is sacrificial in nature. It ideally would fit into what higher causes. Anyhow, I am sorting and am short on thoughts.

Yeah a lot of people hear that about her.  It’s just a smear tactic.  She took the hard line against giving to the poor simply to show that you do not have to give to them.  She gave reasons why one should not give to the poor.  She did not give to the poor.  However, she talked about non-sacrificial giving in her writing as well and differentiated it from sacrifice.  She was against sacrifice because it is irrational.

It’s not that helping the poor is evil — it’s being forced to help them that is evil.  Donating to charity is not disgusting — it’s the demand that you donate that is disgusting; but only because people claim they have a right to your money.  That means they have a right to your time.  That means that you work for them.  That means you are their slave.  She was disgusted by this mentality.  (I was homeless on the streets in my early 20’s; I partook in charity; and was grateful, not demanding.)

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

Pardon myself, readjusting and so on, as I can just give what I ran into.  What I have seen in regards to Objectivism, watching Atlas Shrugged and looking into it, is a heavy focus on exchange  Trying to sort out things, while I am trying to go my own way, I do have concerns of a relativism in regards to things that it is say, “If you want to help the poor, go do it, it is your choice”, and it is made out to be on par with stamp collecting.  And there is a belief that one can just do their own thing, and somehow Capitalism will make everyone rich.  It is just hard, from what I see, to see where a giver fits into it.  It seems like a focus on exchange and avoiding takers.

The thing about going the giving route, which is the way I can see someone actual be a maker, rather than a taker, is their focus needs to be on helping others, and doing things like that, outward focused.  There is an easy bent, no matter the calls for “enlightened self-interest” for it to be immature in nature.

I guess a big thing here, what I see with Rand and Objectivism, is a world divided into makers and takers, and no room for givers at all.  It is just the way it comes off, at least from a normal perspective, and where I am.  I do think, MGTOW, and whatever else, could do better if it could end up speaking as you did here, and say it is about people demanding of others, rather than it is to focus on not caring.  But heck, I am at a place where I need to do it myself, and not respond to the lottery tickets as reward mentality that organizations use to get you there.  It seems there a lot of people who push pathetic excuses to get one to end up diminishing themselves for pointless causes, using guilt and whatnot.

Ok, what I do recall on Rand and love, is her talking about people “deserving” things and all that, and what they do for someone.  I had issues with that.

I think what was on the top of my mind is this interview with Rand, and what she considers to be love:

I believe it starts there.  I had issues with that, and I don’t see how one gets to be a giver if one is going to end up thinking who deserves what.  I believe one has to take responsibility for themselves, but it would also mean being of help to others.  And my regard for people is independent of whether they are worthy.  Now, who I consider receiving words from, and advice, is different.

Again, pardon my slogging through things here.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[RedHeadedStrangerParticipant 204]

o yeah man, I get it, she was a bitch.  she tried project pure rationality when interviewed.  she loved to ‘play the bad guy’ by taking the hard line in interviews. when doing interviews, she went for sensationalism and emphasized the trader principle — even regarding love — in order to cause a stir and cause people to talk about her.  she sold a several tons of books.

listen man, i’m not gunna badger you any more on this.  I was just glad to hear that someone here was interested and I took the opportunity to clear up a misconception that I saw in your post.  If I failed then I failed.  not the first time, lol.

[IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant 2572]

RedHeadedStranger wrote:

o yeah man, I get it, she was a bitch. she tried project pure rationality when interviewed. she loved to ‘play the bad guy’ by taking the hard line in interviews. when doing interviews, she went for sensationalism and emphasized the trader principle — even regarding love — in order to cause a stir and cause people to talk about her. she sold a several tons of books. listen man, i’m not gunna badger you any more on this. I was just glad to hear that someone here was interested and I took the opportunity to clear up a misconception that I saw in your post. If I failed then I failed. not the first time, lol.

She was pretty much a Diva, which I guess happens to a woman if too many men worship the ground she walks on, which is apparently what happened to her.  And if you ever even turned on her, she would go into bitch mode, which is what she did with William F Buckley Jr., blacklisting him.

I will admit I do have more to read up on, as I have to work more of the Objectivist side of life anyhow, in regards to self-determination, and get a broader perspective.  I am there. Self-Determination is a core value of living MGTOW, once a guy gets past the hang up with women, it is what follows.  I just happened to have been trumpeting more collectivism for years, doing stuff with Occupy and so on, and I was left with an empty bag.  But, I press on.  I do see in MGTOW stuff though, that ends up more balanced with things, men coming from all over who had enough.  My hope is that MGTOW has MGTOWN (Men Going Their Own Way Network), and not have the your own way be a position of continued abuse.  I see with men, they will play the womanizer card, and PUA thing as a way to put down other men and show where they are on the food chain.  I saw that in Kanye West’s reworking of Daft Punk’s Bigger, Stronger, to end up talking about how his conquest and so on.

I guess in this, let me say I am likely to have a more balanced view of Objectivism, and won’t say one can’t be a giver and an Objectivist.  For me, I do believe to survive one has to think of others and connect and have things other want.  I say that while struggling to be genuine and also connect in the marketplace with others.  I also don’t consider the chatting being badgered.

"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.

[LightBringerParticipant 440]

I think I border on giver/exchange when I open up.  Normally really guarded but if a girl gets past my defenses suddenly I get stupid and want to get her stuff, I know its a bad idea but it happens anyway.

[dee_nmi_ceeParticipant 13]

I’m a giver because I like to see other folks happy and because I honestly believe that any good you dispense into the world is returned to you in much greater amounts. Someone suggested to me a few years back that to give to others in hopes of receiving good for your self is actually a bit of a selfish act. I don’t know that I agree with that 100% but it was an original thought (to me anyway) and I always enjoy finding new ways of looking at things. Giving freely and without expectation of reciprocation is the most noble expression of generosity. I’m not there yet but maybe there’s time for me to reach that level of enlightenment. You guys were way over my head with a bunch of thoughts in this thread but it was still a great read!

[Author]

Posts