Reciprocity / Regret
A note on the downside of "giving" nature
It is surprising how I am analysing and understanding several aspects of my persona via a game of Chess at the age of thirty-one. It has been an intense period of reflection and growth ever since I started playing chess again.
When you move a piece in Chess, you expect one of these results:
a) Other pieces are better positioned to make the next move.
b) Gain points by capturing a piece.
c) You support other pieces and build your overall position.
d) If there is a possibility of losing a piece, you will gain a piece of equal or higher value.
e) You checkmate the opponent’s king.
Every move is aimed at winning the game. There is an inherent desire to maintain parity of strength and damage reciprocity in a chess game. This strategy is generally hardwired in the mind of a chess player.
However, people may or may not follow a similar approach in real life. Of course, I am not talking about win-lose propositions in all interactions. You can also think of a win-win proposition (which is ideal in real-life human interactions).
People may sometimes place themselves in a lose-win scenario due to problems in their psyche or certain altruistic personality traits.
Sometimes, the person may give without expectation just because he/she is well-endowed. In other cases, the person may not follow the reciprocity principles due to a people-pleasing nature.
A person who does not follow the principle of reciprocity in human interactions (with positive intent) may be called “giving”. It’s important to note that even a giver should set up himself/herself in a win-win scenario.
In the latter scenario (i.e. people-pleasing tendency), the person may give a lot, hoping that he/she will get immediate appreciation and proportional return later. But that later stage may or may not come because the person on the other end might not subscribe to the principles of fair exchange. A person who doesn’t believe in reciprocation might be called a “taker”.
At some point, the taker is done with the transaction, foresees the downside of the equation at a later stage, and throws out the giver from the equation entirely. This is a pure selfish act done remorselessly. Sometimes, the taker may also don the victim role to justify this expulsion.
The giver who has already lost the game may or may not go through a guilt trip, but he/she goes through regret. And this feeling is as bad as betrayal. The giver should learn a lesson at this point. If he/she does, the person will be able to see this pattern in the future and correct it. But if the person continues to remain naive, the same cycle repeats until he/she meets a giver of similar nature, learns a lesson or loses hope in his/her strategy completely.
So, what have I learned from dozens of unequal piece exchanges in recent chess matches?
Reciprocity is at the heart of all human interactions (excluding close family interactions).
There is no point regretting a past incident where you gave a lot and received crumbs.
Feeling bad after losing a game with the wrong approach is natural. But not learning from the loss is sheer stupidity.