Dear reader,
I recently came across three labels for how people approach relationships: givers, takers, and matchers.
Givers help without keeping score. Takers take without giving back. Matchers sit in the middle, helping when they know they'll get something in return.
I started out as a giver. I'd go out of my way for people even when I knew they couldn't do anything for me. At work, I'd often pick up other people's tasks just because I could and because it felt good to be useful.
But it stopped feeling good eventually. I was so busy doing other people's work that I'd run out of time for my own. And most people I was helping weren't givers themselves. They'd reach out when they needed something and disappear when they didn't.
Being taken advantage of became a frequent feeling.
So, over time, I became a matcher.
I started helping only when I had the time to spare, or when I was reasonably sure the person would return the favor someday. It felt more sustainable. More fair.
But recently, however, I've been thinking: The people I genuinely like being around are almost never matchers. They're givers. The rare ones who help without calculating, who show up without being asked, who make you feel like you're not a transaction. I'm drawn to them every time.
Which means most of us are walking around trying to be matchers while wishing everyone else was a giver. Interesting.
I don't want to go back to being the kind of giver who burns out and builds resentment. But I also don't want to spend my life keeping score. That is not who I am. Somewhere between those two is what I'm trying to figure out: how to give in a way that doesn't hollow me out.
I'll keep you posted as I figure this out.
See you next week.
Warmly,
Suraj