• What the Buddhist culture refers to as near enemies and far enemies of the qualities you want to cultivate to have healthy, well connected relationships. (:50)
  
  
• Pity – a good example of a “near enemy” of compassion – and why it only masquerades as kindness in relationships. (1:18)
  
  
• What idiot compassion (another good example of a “near enemy” of compassion) is and why it’s important to avoid it. (2:02)
  
  
• Adam Grant’s research that looks at personalities at work through three lenses: “givers, takers and matchers” – and who the data shows are most and least successful. (2:49)
  
  
• What natural givers can do to relate better to takers and avoid being taken advantage of or depleted in relationships. (4:01)
  
  
• Why the book The Giving Tree isn’t an example of true altruism, but of pathological altruism that doesn’t actually benefit anyone. (4:46)
  
  
• How common it is to be taught that ignoring one’s own needs is virtuous and the trouble it can cause in our relationships. (5:38)
  
  
• Why well connected relationships depend on each partner showing up not just as a generous giver, but as someone who has needs, too. (6:13)
  
  
• What to do when you’re over-giving in your relationship(s) to create a better balance between giving and healthy selfishness. (8:11)
  
  
• Whose responsibility it is to make sure we get cared for inside our relationships. (You might be surprised by the answer.) (8:34)
  
  
• What to do if you’re a habitual taker in your relationship(s) to create that same healthy balance. (9:15)

There is a certain type of personality that is by nature kind and generous.  I confess, I’m one of them.  Maybe you are too?  I’m not bragging, I’m confessing.  Let me explain, In Buddhist psychology there are near enemies and far enemies of the qualities you want to cultivate.  Far enemies are easy to identify, they’re the opposite.  For example, hatred would be a far enemy of compassion.  Near enemies are trickier, more confusing for people because at first glance the look like what you want to be cultivating- but they are usually missing a particular aspect that makes it -at best a miss- and at worst harmful.  For example, a near enemy of compassion would be pity.  Pity is all soft and kind on the surface, but underneath it says, I don’t have the problems you have, and alludes to the fact that I’m in a better situation than you … I may even be better than you.  And that added aspect of separateness rather than acknowledging our shared human condition makes the receiver feel bad, not better.  More alone, rather than held and supported.  Pity isn’t really kind and it certainly isn’t for the one with the misfortune.  Rather it is offeror’s way of insulating themselves against the pain of understanding that it could happen to them too.

Another near enemy of compassion is what some call “idiot compassion”.  That refers to giving someone something they want, but that is also harmful for them.  The classic example is giving a drink to an alcoholic.  Is it really kind to feed their addiction- even if they are pleased when we do?  Idiot compassion has plenty of warmth, but it is missing wisdom.  It doesn’t see the harm it is participating in.  That lack of clear seeing, which some would call a form of delusion or confusion, can keep us from making wise choices.  

So why am I confessing instead of bragging?  Isn’t it good to be kind and generous?  Indeed, it is good- except when it isn’t.  Adam Grant is a researcher who looked at personalities at work through three lenses:  givers, takers and matchers.  Givers are, as one would expect, the generous folks who think about and help others.  Takers, also obvious, are the ones who only think of themselves and what will benefit them.  Matchers, Grant notes, are those who keep a tally- I won’t give more than you do.  In his book, Givers and Takers, he asks, “who do you think are the least successful at work- the bottom of the heap?”  If you answered givers, you’re right.  Then he asks, “who do you think are the most successful and rise to the top?”  If you answered takers- you’re right- but only in the short term.  The real and sustained success actually belongs to the givers.  It turns out that in their generosity, they make friends who value and appreciate them and ultimately it comes around to benefit them as well.  Grant notes several cases of pure generosity- generosity without any expected gain in return- that ultimately led to benefit for the giver.  

But how can that be?  How can givers be both at the bottom and the top when it comes to success at work?  The answer, he says, lies in whether they identify takers and what they do when they interact with takers.  Givers who don’t notice takers end up at the bottom.  But givers who notice takers, and turn into matchers when working with takers, ultimately end up at the top.  Fascinating, isn’t it?  It is for me.

Some of us givers can be kind of naïve.  Knowing what a beautiful world it would be if everyone was generous, we tend to be trusting.  But the truth is that everyone isn’t generous.  Some people are takers and if we let them, they will bleed us dry.  I’ve always wondered about the popular book “the Giving tree” by Shel Silverstein.  It glorifies the giving actions of the tree which finally ends up a lonely stump.  I think people confuse it with altruism, but in my mind, it is pathological altruism.  Allowing someone to use us up isn’t actually kind or generous in the long run.  It’s akin to idiot compassion.  It lacks wisdom.  When we are used up, we cannot give anymore.  If farmers only harvest the fruit of the fruit trees and don’t also tend to watering, fertilizing and pruning the trees, the trees become stressed and stop bearing fruit.  A well cared for orchard ultimately produces much more fruit than one that produces without being cared for.  Ultimately everyone benefits when we take care of ourselves.

Why do we glorify giving, selflessness and altruism?  Because we are afraid of being selfish.  As kids we are taught that if we are selfish no one will want to be with us.  True enough.  Women, in particular, are valued in our culture for how well they take care of others, and are put down for having any needs of their own.  Of course, this is a generalization and certainly true for some others who identify differently as well.  And our survival and our happiness, study after study, shows are related to having good healthy connections and a sense of belonging.  

The thing is that to belong means that one is actually IN the relationship. As a whole person.  Not just the part that is generous, but the part that also has needs.  That means WE ALSO need to matter.  Relationships need to be two-way streets, not just one way.   Maslow (1943/1996) noted that “healthy selfishness”— a healthy respect for one’s own health, growth, happiness, joy, and freedom— can have a positive impact both on the self and on others.  Again, the orchard that is tended to is healthier and produces much more in the long run.

So, people who are naturally generous and kind need to notice the one-way streets in our relationships.  And just a note here, I’m talking about relationships between healthy adults, not how we are with people who really need our help, like children, elders, or those who are ill.  Good relationships are characterized by an increase in vitality when we interact with them.  Who are the people or organizations that drain you? How do you feel when you come away from a particular person or organization?  Over time do you find yourself energized or depleted?  If so, it’s likely that those people and organizations that drain us are actually takers.  And we’d be wise to move into a matching stance there.  What does matching look like in our relationships?  It looks like an ongoing conscious decision not to give more than the other- and certainly not to allow ourselves to give to the point of becoming depleted.  

Being in a relationship with takers is like having holes in your cup, your energy always flowing to others, regardless of how much you may need to quench your own thirst.  It’s a bad deal for everyone actually.  We get more from our relationships when we tend to each other.  If you are in a relationship with a taker- it’s time to plug the hole.  How much energy have you wasted trying to get them to notice you and give back?  Whether plugging the whole means turning into a matcher, or simply pruning that relationship- well, that’s up to you.  When you tune into your own experience of being with them over time, you’ll know what is needed.  

What I’ve learned over time is that my own tendency toward generosity needs to include, as Maslow says, “healthy selfishness”.  Beyond caring for and tending to myself, I cannot allow myself to be harmed by those who would bleed me dry.  It’s not their responsibility to care for me.  It’s my responsibility to care for me.  And that means, cultivating relationships that feed and nourish me too.  Ones in which I come away with an increased sense of vitality.  And letting go of those relationships that would be happy just to use me up.  If you’re a giver too, you may want to try it for yourself.  

And if you’ve been more of a taker, it’s time to start giving back if the relationship is important to you.  If you continue to use people up you’ll end up alone- they’ll either ultimately leave or die.  

Every relationship needs a little give AND take.  May we all work on whichever end of that we need, so that there is a balanced two-way flow of kindness, generosity and support.  Giving is indeed good, but only when it is balanced by a healthy selfishness that also tends to our own well-being.  

I hope that this podcast has been helpful.