More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
start out with trust as the default assumption, but they’re willing to adjust their reciprocity styles in exchanges with someone who appears to be a taker by action or reputation.
in zero-sum situations, givers frequently shy away from advocating for their own interests:
in short-term, single-issue negotiations, givers do worse than takers, because they’re willing to give larger slices of the pie to their counterparts. But this disadvantage disappears entirely when the givers set high goals and stick to them—which is easier for givers to do when advocating for someone else.
relational account—an explanation for a request that highlights concern for the interests of others, not only oneself.
major difference between diving and Let’s Go. Individual sports involved zero-sum contests where helping competitors win meant that I would be more likely to lose. In business, though, win-win was possible;
By looking for opportunities to benefit others and themselves, otherish givers are able to think in more complex ways and identify win-win solutions that both takers and selfless givers miss. Instead of just giving away value like selfless givers, otherish givers create value first. By the time they give slices of pie away, the entire pie is big enough that there’s plenty left to claim for themselves: they can give more and take more.
The dangers lie less in giving itself, and more in the rigidity of sticking with a single reciprocity style across all interactions and relationships.
our ability to prosper depends on developing enough comfort with a matching approach that it becomes second nature.
If we help people who belong to our group, we’re also helping ourselves, as we’re making the group better off.
We gravitate toward people, places, and products with which we share an uncommon commonality.
A popular way to achieve optimal distinctiveness is to join a unique group.
People often take because they don’t realize that they’re deviating from the norm. In these situations, showing them the norm is often enough to motivate them to give
when we try to predict others’ reactions, we focus on the costs of saying yes, overlooking the costs of saying no. It’s uncomfortable, guilt-provoking, and embarrassing to turn down a small request for help.
Game Face: they feel pressured to look successful all the time. There can’t be any chinks in their armor, and opening up would make them vulnerable.”
In the Reciprocity Ring, because everyone is making a request, there’s little reason to be embarrassed.
givers usually contribute regardless of whether it’s public or private, but takers are more likely to contribute when it’s public.
They’re like a vine that produces grapes without looking for anything in return… after helping others… They just go on to something else… We should be like that.
They see success in terms of making significant, lasting contributions to a broad range of people.
