Skip to main content

Week 6 [24.04-30.04.2017] Are you a giver or a taker?

People can be divided into three groups: givers, takers and matchers.  A person who is a giver looks for ways to be helpful to other people.  Someone who is a taker focuses on taking as much as possible from other people and doesn't give anything in return. Matchers are mix of takers and givers – they will do something for somebody if somebody does something for them.

Adam Grant is an American author and a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He wrote a book “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success,” in which he examines the surprising forces that decide why some people rise to the top of the success ladder while others sink to the bottom.

Adam Grant surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world's cultures.
The result was that most people are matchers.

Source:

Let's watch his TED talk about this topic:



Questions:
1) Are you a giver or a taker? Or maybe a matcher?
2) Do you know more people who are givers, takers or matchers?
3) Is being a taker a bad thing in your opinion?
4) In your opinion, what is the safest way to live – as a giver, taker or matcher?


Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Gran

Comments

Anonymous said…
In my opinion I'm matcher. I really like doing things for people especially when they're in need of someone's help. But on the other hand I also need help sometimes and then I have to ask for it.
I think I don't know many people who are givers. In my opinion most of people are takers nowadays. There are a lot of situations when people contact someone just whenever they need help and when someone is contacting them they always have an excuse not to help.
Being a taker entire whole life is the worst thing which can be done. After sometime anyone will help such a person because he will be know as a taker and as a ungrateful person.
In my opinion the safest way is to be matcher. When you're a giver people sooner or later will try to use you to their own aims. Being a taker is rude way of life in my opinion.
Unknown said…
This topic interested me, but I had got some problem to specify witch type I am and I found online test (here: http://testyourself.psychtests.com/bin/transfer) and it said that I am giver - and I agree with this. I'm trying my best for everyone, who is important to me, but I know, that they not always would do something only for me, even dough they wouldn't do it on their own. It have got some throwback, but I'm trying to deal with it. If it won't bring be joy I think twice, but if it is really important for other person I'll do it. I know, that it may be used.
I think, that the safest is to be matcher, because you won't be only used, you will also get something in return.
Takers are people, who don;t want to try and give something from themselves, I think.
Michał Pycek said…
I think this topic is very interesting, since it is a psychological scope of everyone's approach to one another. Personally, I don't think that being a giver, taker or matcher can be considered a positive or negative feature. In my opinion this just describes your type of approach to other people. I believe I am a matcher since I try to balance everything I do, so basically I give all I can to the love ones but I also appreciate when I can count on them. The close ones I have in my opinion are matchers or givers, I don't have so many takers around myself, at least when I think of family members.
I agree with you that most of people are takers. It is sad, when somebody contacts with you only if he or she has a business to you. I also think the same way like you do about the safest way. Being a matcher is the fairest option.
I did your online test and I had 50/50 answers so it means that I'm a matcher - and I agree with this. In my opinion, being a matcher is the fairest option to other people. People often overused giver's help and they do not give anything in return. Being a taker is the worst option. Such people won't have friends for a long time.
I agree this describes your type of approach to other people, but being a person who only takes from others and doesn't give antyhing in return doesn't sound right and for me - it is a negative feature.
Well, it is very hard to say which type am I. Everything depends on situation - who needs may help, why he needs it or why I need someone help. Sometimes it is hard for me to ask for help and I think that better is doing something alone - of course sometimes I'm right, sometimes not. Also, when someone needs my help I don't think what I will get from this for myself, it doesn't matter, but it is matter if he really needs my help or he just want to takes a shortcut. So I think that I'm not taker nor matcher, and also I'm not always a giver.
Unknown said…
I think I am giver. I don't think that it is a good thing. Some people try to use it. I usually do not expect anything in return. Recently I started to consider this as a problem and actually I try to be more assertive. I don't think that being taker is bad thing. It is up to other people to put up a line what you can ask for. I think that safest way to live is to be matcher. Balance is key to everything.
Unknown said…
To be honest, I had to think about it to decide. I cannot say definitively who I am. The most difficult part is because there is conditional in your sentence: 'they will do something for somebody if somebody does something for them.' I'm not a person who helps for profit. If I help, I do it because I want to help and don't want anything instead.
Depiste that I think I'm giver a bit more that matcher or giver. I like giving. Why? Perhaps because of people's smile? Probably. Sometime ago I helped my friend and to be honest - it was really big effort for me. But I did it because I knew he would be happy and it gave me a power :)
Maciej Główka said…
If I need to choose one, I think I'm a matcher. It isn't hard for me to do something for somebody, but I also need sometimes help and then I ask my friends or family.
Some of my friends are givers. To be honest, no one from my friends or family comes to my mind as a taker. Is being a taker a bad thing? I think so, I wouldn't like to be a friend with someone like this.
In my opinion being a matcher is the safest way to live. Being such person doesn't increase enemies in your life and may help you in tough times.
I have exactly the same problem like you do. It depends if a person who needs help or if the person from I need a help is my friend for example, but in in most cases I think I'm a matcher.
Balance is the key for perfect life! ;) I'm keeping my fingers crossed for you. It's a shame when people try to overused your good will and dont give anything in return. In such situations, I feel like I'm being scammed or something, but those situations also show who are your true friend.
It's very nice to hear that you enjoy the small things in your life like person's smile. Beacuse of your post, I realized that if you are a taker, giver or matcher, it only depends of your nature and treatment of other people.
I agree with you, being a matcher is the "safest" option if we have to choose one. Is being a taker a bad think is hard to determine. For me it's a bad thing, but like Pawel R. said before - it is up to other people to put up a line what you can ask for.
I think that I’m somewhat between giver and matcher.
I usually act as a giver but when I notice that I’m being used, I get really irritated and tend to act more as a matcher.
However, I don’t think that we can honestly answer to that question because it’s hard to realize that we are egoistic sometimes. I think that being giver matcher or taker depends more on the person we interact with.
For example we are takers in contacts with our parents, matchers for our siblings and givers with our girlfriends/boyfriends.

After reading your post, I realized that it is really hard to state that you are a giver/taker/matcher. Genuinely, it really depends on the person we interact with. You gave a perfect example with parents - when we were young, we were 100% takers with our parents.
Bartosz Łyżwa said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bartosz Łyżwa said…
It's hard question if we are givers, takers or matchers because we have to be honest right now :D. I think I'm in the middle between givers and matchers. I usually like to help people but only in the situation where someone really need help. I'm little matcher because I believe that if I'll give something from me, I would get help if it's needed.
It's hard to decide if I'm more a giver or matcher. I never help to get profit, but also it's nice when someone appreciate your help and give something in return later. I Think I know evenly matchers and givers. Being a taker is the most profitable for you, especially if you are surrounded with givers. Is it a bad thing? For other who are matchers or takers, I think yes. The safest way to live is to be a matcher, you don't give takers to use you, and stay fair with givers and matchers.
Unknown said…
Oh what's a tough question. It is hard to describe yourself, because its subjective, but I think I am more giver, than taker.
3) Is being a taker a bad thing in your opinion?
Being a taker isn't a bad thing. You can't be the best in everything. There are also some kind of things that you can't on your own and you have to ask for help someone else.
It is the best to me matcher, because it is normal thing to return in favor if someone helped you.
Magdalena Popek said…

I have just taken a test and I "seem to have struck a perfect balance between give and take". I always try to work out a compromise. I think that's good. Most of the people I know are matchers.
Is being a taker a bad thing? No, I don't think so unless you are able not to argue all the time :P Many takers I know are people who will always shout and argue if you don't agree with them. I believe the safest way to live is as a matcher or a giver - suprisingly they are givers who most usually end up at the top of the success ladder.
I think I am all three types - depending on the situation, mood I am in and people/situations that it concerns. All of those three types have some cons and pros. As few of you mentioned balance is the key for everything - I have to say there is much truth in that.
Ihor Ahnianikov said…
I guess in this classification I'm a matcher, but I don't agree with it, there can't be a sharp line in this case. If someone gives everything and helps others without even a small return they would eventually die, I mean even red cross volunteers have to eat something. If this classification means "mostly gives/mostly takes" I would say that the balanced way - matching, is the safest.
I'm definitely a matcher - I do several things out of free will not expecting anything in return, but deep inside my mind I hope that I'll be in some way rewarded for my effort, and I'd feel bad being "exploited" by somebody who only takes and never gives. On the other hand I'd feel bad if I was offered something I wanted and didn't give anything back, even if of some price, so I'm definitely not a taker.

I know that my mother is a giver, she has a lot of empathy for others and very often helps people without expecting anything back. I'm not sure about other people, usually it's not that easy to guess even if you know the other person well.
Are you implying that we aren't honest on this blog?! ;) It's always hard to judge yourself.
It's nice to hear that you aren't self-interested. In some situations, the biggest reward is your friend's smile ;)
Yeah, in my opinion, questions when you have to describe yourself are the hardest one. :) You are right, but what when somebody only takes and doesn't give antyhing in return? This can make other people angry and they would have a good reason to be.
I think I’m somewhere in between a giver and a matcher. I like to selflessly help other people and I get great satisfaction from seeing them happy. But at the same time I don’t like the feeling of being intentionally exploited, so I avoid such situations. It can be said then that I’m a giver as long as the person I’m giving help is not a taker who helps nobody.
I don’t know if being a taker is a bad thing, but I’m sure I don’t want to be this kind of person. If someone wants to be a taker, well, why not let him? At the end he is the one who will benefit from that as well as deal with the consequences of this decision. I just feel a little bit sorry for the naive people who would ceaselessly help takers.
The safest approach is probably to keep the balance and simply be a matcher.
Yes, this is annoying when somebody wants your help and argue with you. This is the worst combination in my opinion. To cap it all off, at the end they only say "thanks" and disappear. when it comes to givers at the top of the success ladder - yes, Adam said it in his TED talk. :)
So you have created another type then! :) You are right, sometimes it depends on the situation or our mood.
I see your point - of course the lines in this situations are flexible.
Unknown said…
Probably more of a giver as I always try to help as much as I can whoever asks. It often led to a burnout which is mentioned in the TED talk. I enjoy helping, making someone's day a little bit better sounds nice. And it's not like you don't receive anything in return, even if the person just says 'thanks' and walks away you, as a giver, walk away stronger as well. Because you joined in overcoming an obstacle, gained experience and knowledge so being a giver is beneficial contrary to what most people believe.
Yeah, it is sad when you do something for other people and they only take and never give back anything in return. In my opinion, most of people do something for other out of free, but inside their mind they hope they will be rewared of their effort. Oh, so my mother and yours are identical! :)
I can confirm that Krzysztof, you helped me alot when we were in the same group ;) Yes, we should feel comfortable with ourselves so we have to avoid toxic people.
Vyvyan said…
1) Definitely a matcher. Yes i like helping, yet sometimes even I need help.
2) Hard to say really... I belive that most of my friends and colleagues are matchers.
3) It's okay as long as you are moderate in your taking. If you are not, then we may have a problem.
4) Living as a matcher. why? Because you don't give to much and you don't take to much. Moderation is a key to life.
Unknown said…
I think I am a matcher, but more a giver than a taker. I wish I could make myself take more from people:) i don't say that i am such a cool person, sometimes we give to feel ourselves better. So it is not always altruistic. But I know for sure that I can't stand being a taker. It makes me feel weak and helpless. I'd better give.
Unknown said…
I think deep inside I'm a giver, but life taught me it's easier to take, so let's just say I'm a matcher. Being a taker is mostly a bad thing, I don't like people trying to improve their situation at the expense of others. As for the safest way - well giving but in return for something is a safe bet, that way nobody can exploit you but also nobody can say you're unfair.
Unknown said…
I find myself as matcher/giver. I helped a lot of people in many different situations but in many cases I haven't get "payback" but I still believe in "Karma" so I'm still helping other people and I feel very good about that.

Popular posts from this blog

Week 12 (12.01-18.01.15) Are you an early bird or a night owl ?

Owls are nocturnal creatures. They’re wide awake at night and they sleep during the day. If this sounds like bliss to you, then, like about 20 percent of the population who find themselves most active at around 9 pm, you may fall into the same category as our feathered friend. Night owls often have difficulty waking up in the morning, and like to be up late at night.  Studies of animal behaviour indicate that being a night owl may actually be built into some people’s genes. This would explain why those late-to-bed, late-to-rise people find it so difficult to change their behaviour. The trouble for night owls is that they just have to be at places such as work and school far too early. This is when the alarm clock becomes the night owl’s most important survival tool. Experts say that one way for a night owl to beat their dependence on their alarm clocks is to sleep with the curtains open. The Theory is that if they do so, the morning sunlight will awaken them gently and natura...

Week 11 [03-09.06.2019] The problem with ecological cars emission in UK

The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust.   The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog.   What is smog?   Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds...

Week 4 [06-12.11.2017] This is what happens when you reply to spam email.

James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s  way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?