Nice Guys Do Finish Last
In Give and Take, Grant divides people into three types: givers (altruistic, help others without expecting much back), takers (self-interested, extract value), and matchers (tit-for-tat reciprocators). His core argument is that givers can succeed—sometimes even outperform takers and matchers—if they’re strategic rather than naive.
For me this feels like an half-assed attempt to reconcile the societal values of altruism and kindness with capitalistic values of selflessness and ruthlessness. His theory that people “end up more successful” by giving strategically is self-contradictory: doesn’t the result that if givers win more in the long run which means they’re still raking in resources (money, status, influence) prove that they are just “takers with better PR”?