I read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand because two good friends recommended the book to me. I can’t say I agree with the philosophy presented (in a rather round-about way). I do see that some of the points (sticking to your convictions) can be good, but I think the underlying basis (where do these convictions come from?) is not sound.
Here are some of my notes:
Criticism – ‘good/main’ characters seem to know it all – that it’s innate already and not, –influenced by environment – is there not uncertainty? – are principles good? – what about guidelines, is that not better? – deontology versus consequentialism – torture is bad, but in some situations break the rules – struggle? – is that what is fulfilling? – goal of life? (bad questions?) happy days, why principles and struggle? – what is her main point? – zero-sum game – everything is written in terms of lose and win
Theme – certainty versus uncertainty – principles versus no-spine – deontology versus consequentialism – the love for the struggle – obedience versus dominance – at least 50x mentioned – about status roles / power roles – who is the boss over another? – or are you the boss over yourself? (is that even possible) – creator vs parasite – but everything is a remix (link to docu) – unsacrificed self
Musings before reading any other critique – I think the main goal was (/should be) that you live life on your own terms. You’re not being led by others and make your own way in life. And that Rand tries to say that sticking to your principles may hurt in the short-term but lets you be the ‘right’ person in the long-term. I don’t understand the whole struggle and why everything needs to be so difficult. Why not enjoy along the way, whilst still sticking to principles. But is there then room for improvement or forgiveness, change of mind and adaptation?
In my opinion, life could be seen as two phases that move in and out. One is rigid and planning and sticking to it. The other is more loose and seeing what life brings you. The second is what many people are being lived by (without themselves being ‘in control’) and the first is what you might want to aspire to. But that is also too rigid and maybe less enjoyable.
Ending Aging by Aubrey de Grey is one of the more revolutionary books I’ve read ever. It doesn’t just ask the question ‘Can we live forever’? No, it proposes concrete research directions for solving the causes of death.
I currently follow some of the research and it’s amazing to see what has happened in the last 11 years (since 2008). In some time I would very much like to be involved with solving ageing.
Here are some of my notes from the book:
dedication: “To the tens of millions whose indefinite escape from ageing depends on our actions today”
Aubrey’s insight was to stop focusing on the (very difficult) problem of metabolism. He just looked at the damage it causes and how to heal that
All you have to understand is the damage itself. Take that away, take ageing away
In industrialised countries, more than 90% of people die of ageing (vs homicide, suicide, road accidents, etc)
“The average person in the industrialised world consumes more health-care resources in his or her last year of life than in an entire life up to that point” (in other words, what if you could keep someone healthy, that seems to save an awful amount of money)
Aubrey wrote the book to shift public perception. To make ageing the new smoking. To let people think about the possibilities
He predicts that (from 2008) there is a 50/50 chance of finding solutions to the current ageing diseases by 2038. And that after that we will discover more and more at a rate that is quicker than that things will kill us
One thing I question is how equally this will be distributed. And at what rate therapies like this will be adopted. But better be sure that I wish to be part of it
A good point in the book is about diet. I think you should have a good diet, enjoy your food, and eat mostly plants. Aubrey agrees but doesn’t see it as a viable solution to ageing. It might add a few years but that is not what he is after (he has larger ambitions)
There is no biological limit/barrier of ageing. Our bodies just haven’t evolved the ‘right’ things to survive, because there was no evolutionary pressure to do so (already reproduced).
Prevention is better than combating the bad outcomes of a bad lifestyle. “Most people leave the serious maintenance of their car [body] until it’s too late”
SENS (his non-profit) identified 7 ways the body fails with age (and the path forward):
Cell loss, cell atrophy (cell therapy)
Junk outside cells (phagocytosis by immune stimulation)
Mitochondrial mutations (allotopic expression of 13 proteins)
Junk inside cells (transgenic microbial enzymes)
Nuclear mutations aka cancer (telomerase/ALT gene deletion plus periodic stem cell reseeding)
That is where I will leave it for now. Another day I will talk a bit more about the societal consequences, either here or on a future article on longevity.
In some books I’m searching for a philosophy of life. Some guidelines, if you can call them that, that direct you to a better life. One that is more ‘true’, makes you happy, adds positive things to the world. This book is definitely one where I think I’ve found a piece of the puzzle.
The Beginning of Infinity by David Deutsch is a book where you get taken on a journey of understanding where David is relentless in breaking with other perceptions of the world (e.g. Spaceship Earth) and relies on theory and explanation.
One thing I think best shows what he argues for is his case for optimism. He (and I) believes that the world can get much better (even infinitely better). And that the problems that are created by technology – by the solutions of today – need solutions that we will have to invent (which will cause new problems, etc).
Many people nowadays have become pessimists. Just today I read the same tendency by Jon Evans (technology blogger) who said (article here): “ But just because fire is dangerous doesn’t every new use of it is a malevolent threat. ” (read the article for more, also on the Three Body Problem). I hope that we can instill some positivism, some believe in a better future, and my hope is that I can entice more people to think alike.
Below are some of my notes from the book:
“Scientific theories are explanations: assertions about what is out there and how it behaves”. They are conjectures/guesses and are not derived (only) from observations (empiricism). Science can make predictions about things we have never experienced before
(good) Science comes forth from a tradition of criticism, not relying on authority. A theory must be testable, it should make predictions, that if tested could be contradicted (criterion of demarcation)
Solving a problem means creating an explanation that does not have the conflict (theory and reality not matching)
A good theory makes it harder for you to fool yourself
“Reach: The ability of some explanations to solve problems beyond those that they were created to solve”
(chapter 2) Almost everything we experience is the end of a chain of interpretations (e.g. what we ‘see’ in our mind and what is out there in the world) The closer we come to reality, the ‘truer’ our theories become
“The growth of knowledge consists of correcting misconceptions in our theories”
(chapter 3) Many ancient believes (if not all) were false and mostly centred around humans (anthropocentric). This trend has gone the other way with the principle of Mediocracy
Deutsch argues that this is taking things too far. Humans are unique and we’re in quite a unique place
The earth (Spaceship Earth) isn’t made for us and is not very hospitable (just try and go outside in the winter in Europe without clothes and see how many days you survive). But it’s special, we’re in a place near a star, not somewhere in deep space where there is virtually no matter around
What is also special about us is that we find new solutions to problems. Most species don’t do this and constantly live on the edge of disaster and death. The world also isn’t made for them to survive, most species are extinct
If we are on Spaceship Earth, we are its designers and builders!
We (humans) can achieve anything with the resources at our hands unless it’s forbidden by the laws of nature. This is an extremely optimistic prediction and is one of the ways in which Deutsch defines the beginning of infinity.
For instance, living on another planet isn’t limited by if we can breathe oxygen there (heck, even the need for it might someday not be there), it’s about what habitat we can build
The developments for this are way out there, but remember that once we have discovered one thing, we can keep using this knowledge indefinitely
Deutsch even mentions the question of extending our lives (see (Ending Aging)
All we need is matter, energy, and evidence (the information to test scientific theories)
Deutsch postulates two other maxims: Problems are inevitable, problems are soluble. I think this is quite profound and I think it has changed my view a bit on the climate change problem. Instead of only look at prevention/limiting our impact, I think we can focus even more on the solutions and new things we can do to make the planet more hospitable (for humans)
(chapter 4) Human knowledge is created by evolution; variation in existing knowledge (via conjecture) and selection by criticism and experiment
Good adaptations, like good explanations, are distinguished by being hard to vary while still fulfilling their functions
Deutsch argues (successfully) that Creationism and other old theories are crap. He argues that Neo-Darwinism is the best explanation: evolution favours the genes! that spread best through the population. Not the species or the individual, the genes (also see The Selfish Gene)
Human knowledge (ideas) are similar to genes (both replicators) but human knowledge can be explanatory and can have great reach
(chapter 5) Abstractions can be quasi-autonomic (of underlying/smaller) parts of it, this is called emergence
This should not be mistaken for reductionism, that it’s only just the cumulative effect of the underlying parts
“All knowledge creation depends on, and physically consists of, emergent phenomena”
The parts around 118-121 are somewhat convoluted and something to read again later
(chapter 6) Small changes in a system (like language) can make it jump to universality
Instead of tallying numbers (IIIIII), the current system (0-9) is universal
The same goes for movable-type printing (and maybe will do so for 3D printers?)
Computers are for many things a universal machine (and will maybe one day generate A(G)I (through emergence from a lower level)
Error-correction (in computer/humans) is part of the beginning of infinity
RNA/DNA can be seen as the first universality
What I learned from this chapter is that only a small change will lead to universality, it’s really a jump instead of gradual improvements
(chapter 7) “Turing did understand that artificial intelligence (AI) must in principle be possible because a universal computer is a universal simulator”
But attempts to create A(G)I have not gone anywhere in the last 60+ years, the jump to universality still hasn’t happened (although I think some algorithms have quite a bit of reach like Watson and AlphaZero)
“if you can’t program it, you haven’t understood it”
“judging whether something is a genuine AI will always depend on explanations of how it works” (and this can be on the emergent/abstract level)
Deutsch also argues that many of the AI’s we have now are evolutionary algorithms and although they are clever, the outcome is still just the creativity of the programmer (and with a lot of computational power, but still no true/new knowledge that is created during the running of the program (instead of during its development by the programmer))
I wonder where AI is now and if some of it adheres to the criteria in chapter 7
“we do not understand how creativity works”
(chapter 8) “The beginning of infinity – the possibility of the unlimited growth of knowledge in the future – depends on a number of other infinities” 1) universality of the laws of nature (local symbols/formulas that apply everywhere/when), 2) existence of physical objects that are universal explainers (people), and 3) universal classical computers
The rest of the chapter deals with infinity in the mathematical sense (Hilbert’s Infinity Hotel) and is very interesting to read (see here for more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elvOZm0d4H0 )
The laws of nature seem so computational-friendly, etc. So are we not in a simulation? Nope, or at least, that could mean it’s simulations all the way down
(chapter 9) What I like about Deutsch approach is that he argues for innovation, for new thinking, for finding new solutions. In many cases, people say we are doomed if we do the same things again, and that is true but also not what our history shows. “the future of civilization depends entirely on what we think and do”
“The possible outcomes are not yet known, let alone their probabilities”
prediction = conclusions about future events that follow from good explanations
prophecy = anything that purports to know what is not yet knowable
Stopping innovation (and new ‘weapons’) is not what is going to save us, we messed up before with fire and swords. Only by expanding our knowledge will we make ourselves more capable of surviving
So we can say: “unless we solve certain problems in time, we are doomed” (so lack of knowledge is bad, but that is exactly the thing that at least some of us are working on improving)
With more knowledge, we can weather more storms (even literally, by building more insulated houses, better weather models, etc)
Criticism and good explanations!!!
The principle of optimism: All evils are caused by insufficient knowledge
Deutsch also refers to the Enlightenment (see Sophie’s World) and that this time we have a chance of really going through with our own Enlightenment
(chapter 10) This chapter is about Socrates and uses a dialogue as another way of explaining good theory (exceedingly hard to vary while still remaining a viable explanation). And that by converging on the truth, we will have a chance of better understanding each other
(chapter 11) The multiverse is one of those counterintuitive and hard to grasp ideas. Many tv series have been made about it (Man In The High Castle, Fringe, Counterpart)
Deutsch argues for the ‘many-universes interpretation’ (a minority view within physics)
A lot of the chapter is above my paygrade (at least to reproduce here) so here is the conclusion “The physical world is a multiverse, and its structure is determined by how information flows in it. In many regions the multiverse, information flows in quasi-autonomous streams called histories, one of which we call our ‘universe’. Universes approximately obey the laws of classical (pre-quantum) physics. But we know of the rest of the multiverse, and can test the laws of quantum physics, because of the phenomenon of quantum interference. Thus a universe is not an exact but an emergent feature of the multiverse. One of the most unfamiliar and counter-intuitive things about the multiverse is fungibility. The laws of motion of the multiverse are deterministic, and apparent randomness is due to initially fungible instances of objects becoming different. In quantum physics, variables are typically discrete, and how they change from one value to another is a multiversal process involving interference and fungibility”
(chapter 12) We are “an emergent, quasi-autonomous flow of information in the multiverse”
Deutsch argues that quite a lot of work in quantum physics is ‘bad philosophy’, “not merely false, but actively prevents the growth of other knowledge”
“Happiness is a state of continually solving one’s problems” (unhappiness is thus not knowing how to do this)
Science should have explanatory power and not just put things in ‘black boxes’ (behaviourism)
(chapter 13) Deutsch explains how it’s not possible to have ‘perfect’ representation and that this can be proven mathematically
He also argues that we should focus on expanding the choices/options and not stay focused on how to choose between the current options
“Rational decision-making consists not of weighing evidence but of explaining it, in the course of explaining the world”
A political system should be one in which bad choices are punished. He argues that a two party system is better at this (in principle) than having more parties. I think I’m biased by seeing what happens in America, but I think (for now) that in practice his theory here isn’t looking like the best choice (but again, this is the current political system, he could be right about it in principle)
(chapter 14) Good explanations and beautiful things share an attribute, they are hard to vary and still do the job. It’s a very interesting take on beauty. I think I do agree though.
“deep truth is often beautiful”
“Elegance is the beauty in explanations”
Deutsch argues that those hard to vary characteristics are what makes things like music, landscapes, symmetry in a flower, etc so beautiful
He also argues that this beauty is universal, it’s between species (signalling)
(chapter 15) “A culture is a set of ideas that cause their holders to behave alike in some way” (memes are ideas that replicate)
So culture is a set of ever-slightly changing memes, it’s the transition of long-lived memes over time.
Genes and memes are replicators, but they spread very differently (a meme has to be interpreted (mental representation) and copied (behaviour) correctly) and have vastly different outcomes
Creativity is a higher-level emergent phenomenon of conjecture and criticism
“static-societies: societies changing on a timescale unnoticed by the inhabitants” (slow/unchanging memes, taboos, customs, laws) (anti-rational memes)
Dynamic societies are the opposite, the memes here are the ones that change things, that survive by finding a deep truth (rational memes)
There have been some small enlightenments in the past and only now are we in a ‘large’ enlightenment where (at least to some degree) we have a dynamic society.
(chapter 16) “Of all the countless biological adaptations that have evolved on our planet, creativity is the only one that can produce scientific or mathematical knowledge, art or philosophy”
“The unique effects of creativity dominate our experience of the world”
“Creativity, as far as we know, evolved only once” (in humans, and also not yet in AI, hmm)
Creativity was then used the recreate memes (static society) instead of what we could use it for (new memes)
“Memes, like scientific theories, are not derived from anything. They are created afresh by the recipient. They are conjectural explanations, which are then subjected to criticism and testing before being tentatively adopted”
“Creativity is a property of software” I.e. how our brain is structured, not some magical elements. Creativity is, according to Deutch, a combination of genes and memes
(chapter 17) “Our civilization is unique in history for its capacity to make progress”
In this chapter Deutsch argues for optimism towards the problems we face. To look at climate change and other things as something we can fix and not worry ourselves to death. I can get behind this idea. At the same time I do believe we can lower our impact (also through technology), for more see Let My People Go Surfing
“You have to live the solution, and to set about solving the new problems that this creates”
“progress is sustainable, indefinitely”
If we look at the future, remember to make predictions, not prophecies
What I like most about his views here is that we can’t put our heads in the sand or try and push pause, we should go and run ahead and find solutions!
(chapter 18) We are still at the beginning of infinity and there is so much more to learn and discover. I hope to see much of it in the (far) future!
“seeking good explanations through creativity and criticism”
The 5 Choices: The Path to Extraordinary Productivity by Kory Kogon, Leena Rinne, and Adam Merril is about how your organisation can be as productive as possible. The book is written by people in the Covey organisation and are along the lines of the infamous 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Here it is:
“Most of us spend too much time on what is urgent and not enough time on what is important.” – Stephen R. Covey
The 5 Choices for Extraordinary Productivity is a framework for achieving more, much more, productivity:
Why
In times when everyone is busy, being productive is key to standing out. Every day many people work for 5-12 hours, however, some get much more done than others. That is productivity at work. The 5 Choices explain how you can (instantly) become more productive. This involves a) making better decisions, b) diverting your attention to where it’s needed, and 3) managing your energy.
5 Choices for Extraordinary Results
Act on the Important – Do the things that are important, don’t react to what’s urgent
Go for the Extraordinary – Good is the enemy of great, don’t settle for ordinary
Schedule the Big Things – Focus on what adds value, don’t get lost in the small things
Rule Your Technology – Use technology to your advantage, don’t become a slave to dopamine shots
Fuel Your Fire – Strengthen your vitality, prevent a burn-out
The lessons from the 5 Choices are very clear, be proactive instead of reactive. With this, you can solve the 3 big questions (at work). First, how can you make many decisions, the right ones, every day? Second, how can you divert your attention towards the right places? Third, how can you manage your (limited) energy? That is what the 5 Choices help you to navigate.
1) Act on the Important
Our brain has different sections and they work in different ways. We are automatically reactive, this takes place in our old/reptilian brain. But if we put in some effort we can become pro-active, we can plan and exert self-control (pre-frontal cortex, new brain). Daniel Kahneman also called this, thinking fast and slow. This means you have to ask yourself a simple question: why am I doing X or Y?
The Eisenhower (or Covey) Matrix is the visual translation of this process. If you really ask yourself the ‘why’ question, you should come to the conclusion that the most productive tasks are those which are non-urgent and important. This is the pro-active work, creative thinking or relationship building. Tasks that are also urgent have a 1-on-1 return; if you extinguish a fire you save one house. But if you prevented 10 from burning by installing fire alarms and this took you the same time, the payoff is much bigger. This means we have to say no to urgency and focus on what’s most important.
2) Go for Extraordinary
In your life, you have many different roles. You can be a father, colleague, athlete, child, husband, etc. At many times, you may feel that these roles are conflicting, and they can be. Most important for being extraordinary is knowing what success means for you, in each of the roles. Define your goals and passions in your role description (e.g. Super Dad), and make a role statement. Also, note that roles can (and will) change during your life, they are dynamic.
If you know which roles you have you can make specific goals. You can use frameworks like SMART goals. What it comes down to is; from X to Y in Z time period. This way you will be making non-urgent and important goals that are aligned between your roles.
3) Schedule the Big Things
Your attention is limited and it should be going to the most important things. But as you know your brain loves dopamine, and will therefore gravitate towards urgent things. This is a challenge that you can tackle, it only involves some planning. Take some 10 minutes at the start of your day at the office to make a small planning. Here you can decide when you can work on the non-urgent and important tasks (preferably early in the day). Also, take 30 minutes each week to review your processes and make a global plan for the next week. This whole process takes less than 90 minutes and will make sure your attention is going to the right places. You will be pro-active, every day.
4) Rule Your Technology
There is a new addition on the block, not to alcohol or drugs, but to your technology. People check their phones 85-150 times a day, for many it’s more. And what are you to most likely find on your phone, unimportant tasks. You see the latest in internet cat memes, how a war is going in a faraway place, or what your friends are doing on vacation. There is a near-zero chance that you will find important and non-urgent things on your phone/devices. But what about your email or other places where information is entering your brain?
To combat this trend, you can manage your incoming information in a system. You can decide that you will 1) act on the information, or 2) archive for later use. If you act on information you can make an appointment with yourself when to do it (i.e. in google calendar) or make a task (i.e. in Basecamp). If you archive information you can save it as a contact (i.e. in your phone) or as a note (i.e. in Evernote). And if you really want to get good at it, you can make sure these systems can talk to each other, more on that in Getting Things Done.
5) Fuel Your Fire
Last, but not least, you need to manage your energy. To be extraordinarily productive and take the right decisions you need to be present and awake. To do this you can do five things; 1) move (keep your body active), 2) eat (healthy food), 3) sleep (at least 7 hours), 4) relax (important and non-urgent), and 5) connect (social relationships can boost your energy). If you keep your energy level high you will do your most productive work.
When to Use
This framework is important to keep yourself on track. Without it, you may revert back to being reactive, non-productive and stressed. Therefore I advise you to reflect on this framework when you feel the pressure is building. You won’t always sleep enough, work on those most productive tasks or stay away from your phone, but this framework greatly enhances your ability to do so.
“In the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity” – Sun Tzu
More on the Choices for Extraordinary Productivity:
Eat and Run: My Unlikely Journey to Ultramarathon Greatness by Scott Jurek.
If you want to know how the life of an ultramarathoner is like, this is the book for you. It describes Scott’s life from youth to the last race he is running competitively. Along the way, you meet his best friend, and furious user of profanity, Dusty. You get to know about a tribe of Tarahumara Indians. And you get to know the comradery & loneliness that come for free with each ultramarathon.
Scott holds many records, so I will only list the most impressive one. he set a new American record by running 165.7 miles in 24 hours—6.5 marathons in one day. Yes, that’s right, 6.5 marathons in one full 24 hours (and that isn’t even the longest he has been on the road). It’s difficult to comprehend even how long this is. For us Dutch, it’s 266.7 km, as far as going from Groningen to Venlo.
Two other things make Scott different from most runners. He follows a plant-based diet, i.e. he is a vegan. He finds all his (high quality) proteins in soy, lentils and other non-dead-animal places. And after every race, he gets into a small tent and wakes up each time a new runner arrives to high-five them when they finish. He doesn’t go home or finds a spa, he stays out in the open to say hi to the other runners.
Now after writing his book, there is some fame reserved for Scott. But as far as I know, there was never any fortune (the money kind) involved. He, of course, made some money with sponsorship deals and even is the designer of a popular running shoe. But since running ultra long distances isn’t the best television material, there was never much money. And I think that this also shows that money is something that can be a force for the good, but that it’s necessary for a good life.
Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Super Athletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen by Christopher McDouall
What if an investigative journalist decides to tackle a personal problem? What if this problem is this: my foot hurts, how can I make it stop? This is the simple questions that set Christopher on a journey that finds him on the path with Scott Jurek (see Eat and Run), the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico and some other amazing people. Along the way, we dive into the science and non-science of running.
The most surprising thing about this book are the revelations about running(shoes) that I was taking for granted. A shoe that has more cushioning and helps correct your foot should help you prevent injury… right? It turns out that the rate of injury has not gone down a single digit since the invention of the modern running shoe (1970). Isn’t that odd? Christopher thought the same and found out that a soft shoe also makes for soft feet, and that a bigger cushion translated into us putting down our feet more thoroughly to compensate for the lost sense of feeling the ground.
What it also shows is that a very average (but not unhealthy) man, 40 years of age, can train to run a 50-mile race through very unforgiving terrain. The last chapters of the book describe a fascinating race between Scott, the Tarahumara’s best runners, a dozen of the other bests in the world, and Christopher. He takes twice as long as the fastest person (guess who) to finish, but does it. It’s an amazing accomplishment and is only overshadowed by how this book gives a beautiful insight into running and it’s crazy culture.
See below for a video of Christopher talking about running, the evolutionary story and some more about our running shoes.
Algorithms to Live By is a very enjoyable and applicable book by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths that explores how we can use knowledge from computer science to guide decisions in our lives.
Whilst surfing around for a synopsis I found this excellent summary, please take a look and come back afterwards for my own observations below.
Scheduling
There are many algorithms for planning the day. One thing that stood out was thinking about small and large tasks and how sometimes a small task can block the large task.
I think I like to do planning that involves planning the large things first and then doing the small tasks after the large ones. I think I also will talk with the rest of the office about doing this type of planning (which we already do to some extend).
For my personal life I also like this with regards to what to do when I get home. First do X, Y, Z (e.g. write, stretch, read) and only then think of what else to do.
Caching
You can see caching as the amount of information you have to keep in your head. You’re not very good at it. So write down almost anything. I always have my notebook with me or can make a note in Gmail so I think I’m quite good here, but it can be even better (e.g. by then sorting those notes to the relevant places). And also using Todoist more.
Optimal Stopping
The next few lines are a bit tongue-in-cheek. With optimal stopping you look at when to stop doing X to find the perfect Y. Dating can be an example here and in the book they mention that stopping at about 27 should be the right age (if I remember correctly). Guess around which age I met my girlfriend.
Explore/Exploit
With regards to this algorithm I can say that I like how this makes you look positively at doing something again (exploit) because you liked it (e.g. eat at a specific restaurant) and not doing something new (explore).
For me the practical examples are friends (see many of the same ones again and again), foods (where I could explore more, also because I think there is value in the exploring itself), music (Spotify does a good job of balancing both).
Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success by Adam Grant divides people into three distinct groups; takers, matchers, and givers. In 320 pages we are educated on why nice guys finish first. How powerless communication can be strong, and how from worrying you can go to success. Supplemented with a rich body of research, this social psychology book should be the one you get to read now!
Giving is the act of expending energy whilst not expecting anything in return. Richard Dawkins has argued that genes are inherently selfish, but on the group level, we can be amazingly altruistic. Givers are not the people at the centre of attention, they can very well be sensitive introverted people. What they are is considerate, consistent, caring and cooperative. Where takers and matchers see the number of shares/pieces of the pie as fixed (the former wanting to take a piece, the latter exchanging one), the givers look for ways to enlarge the pie for everyone to take a piece.
A word of caution is in its place here. When giving a person must in all cases not manoeuvre away from his or her own desires. A giver should be wary of himself or herself and others alike. A clear goal should lead his or her life, do know what you yourself want to achieve, whilst helping others. The people you help should in the first instance be everyone, but when confronted with a consistent taker, take your space and do not get overrun by his or her requests. Do not become the sucker.
Give and Take is filled with rich examples of successful givers. This ranges from Fortune 500 executives to volunteer teachers in the tougher neighbourhoods in America. One of the recurring examples, maybe even the role model of givers, is Adam Rifkin. He has been called the most connected man in America and has connections ranging from Hollywood to The Capital. He has not done this by taking resources from people or working his ass of (which he probably also does). He has achieved this by utilizing two principles. Giving people 1) a chance to connect to someone else that may help them to achieve something better together, and 2) giving honest five minutes feedback to people. But of course, these two skills are only two of the many things a giver does.
Adam Grant, a Wharton professor, has worked a long time on this masterpiece of a book. It is complementary to Quit by Susan Cain, they both emphasize that a great leader is not the extraverted he-man, but has other less superficial characteristics. Grant has also managed to spot how trends work, and via this is very alike to Malcolm Gladwell in identifying connectors. In the end, it all boils down to presenting man with a more stable long-term strategy to gaining resources. Sometimes being the nice guy in the room will have you overlooked, but in the long-term will get you ahead. Become convinced yourself by reading the book.
