expand_less
Week two brings us into the relational zone. We are z ones. :)
When most people think of relationships, they think of it being a connection between two things. Years ago, I was struck by the idea that it is a threesome. :) There is a you and a me, sure, but there is a third thing: an “us” that emerges as a new entity when we are in a relationship, together.
This is particularly important when friction arises in relations. Are we holding for us, or I am doing some accounting about what I gave to you and what you gave back?
Reciprocity
Humans seem deeply wired for reciprocity. And yet keeping too close attention on the exactness of that relational exchange seems to oddly damage it. Too tit for tat. In game theory, they discovered that the way to win the most is to play generous tit for tat.
Giving a little more, being forgiving, this is the path of thrivability. When I think about what I am giving to us, I am included in the us. I don’t worry as much about whether I will “get back” what I gave to us. When I do the accounting just between the two, it doesn’t account for the complexity of how I benefit from us. I am less likely to play generous tit for tat.
I am not trying to say that you don’t want to be doing things for someone else. There are times when I do something for you that is just about you and not about us. Maybe I do a chore that you don’t like, and I don’t think matters to us, but it makes you super happy. Great. Keep the flows going, but in the triangle that includes us too.
One of the first rounds of discussing what is thrivability, back in 2009, people insisted that it was giving more than taking: being more of a contribution than a taker. And in many ways that still feels right. These are not zero sum games we play together. Magic things happen in systems where the sum is greater than the parts. Be generous. Sum-body. Be sum-one’s buddy.
Inquiry
How do you sense, support, and shift toward thrivability for relationships, given what we learned about personal thrivability? What is an unintended consequence or shadow element to how relational thrivability is now?
Week two brings us into the relational zone. We are z ones. :)
When most people think of relationships, they think of it being a connection between two things. Years ago, I was struck by the idea that it is a threesome. :) There is a you and a me, sure, but there is a third thing: an “us” that emerges as a new entity when we are in a relationship, together.
This is particularly important when friction arises in relations. Are we holding for us, or I am doing some accounting about what I gave to you and what you gave back?
Reciprocity
Humans seem deeply wired for reciprocity. And yet keeping too close attention on the exactness of that relational exchange seems to oddly damage it. Too tit for tat. In game theory, they discovered that the way to win the most is to play generous tit for tat.
Giving a little more, being forgiving, this is the path of thrivability. When I think about what I am giving to us, I am included in the us. I don’t worry as much about whether I will “get back” what I gave to us. When I do the accounting just between the two, it doesn’t account for the complexity of how I benefit from us. I am less likely to play generous tit for tat.
I am not trying to say that you don’t want to be doing things for someone else. There are times when I do something for you that is just about you and not about us. Maybe I do a chore that you don’t like, and I don’t think matters to us, but it makes you super happy. Great. Keep the flows going, but in the triangle that includes us too.
One of the first rounds of discussing what is thrivability, back in 2009, people insisted that it was giving more than taking: being more of a contribution than a taker. And in many ways that still feels right. These are not zero sum games we play together. Magic things happen in systems where the sum is greater than the parts. Be generous. Sum-body. Be sum-one’s buddy.
Inquiry
How do you sense, support, and shift toward thrivability for relationships, given what we learned about personal thrivability? What is an unintended consequence or shadow element to how relational thrivability is now?