Trying to get my head around an assertion insisted to me recently: Each person is either a giver or a taker only, and he/she cannot be both depending on the person and/or circumstance. Normally I am sceptical of such binary arguments, doubly so when it comes to complex unstable human behaviour, but I haven't fully dismissed this one as tosh yet (98% there).
Most people like to think of themselves as more of a giver-type than a taker-type, well in my experience anyway. Most takers never consider such classifications or if they are out and proud takers, I've managed to place sufficient distance between myself and such people (generally after getting burned...). Then you get people who think they are givers when in fact they are actually takers, because their true (subconscious) motivation is borne out of self-need/want rather than concern for the other party, and all action stems from that.
Ultimately I think the statement is trite, but it disturbs me for other reasons: If one can only be classified as a giver or taker, which would I be? A few years back, I would have confidently have said giver, now I'm not so sure. I think I used to give much more than I took on balance - I made it a life choice because I believed if everyone strives to live with that ethos, society would improve by leaps and bounds plus one should live by example - how naive and dumb I was. I definitely give less now as I have grown more grumpy and cynical, but I am also so self-reliant (bachelor hermit life), I still take very little. I'm not sure if my level of giving has dropped below my level of taking (in rough terms of course) - that disturbs me. This could potentially trigger a midlife crisis or summin', but regardless I seriously need a value system audit. Should probably also figure out how I got here so these needs for massive realignment don't sneak up on me in future...
(100% there now: assertion is crap, lol)
No comments:
Post a Comment