Whether you look at the two people that interact at one instant in time or at one person at two different points in their lives the chain remains the same.
I've had plenty of help in the past and I'm giving plenty of help in the present (as much as I can, which is still way too little). That means that for me the 'pay it forward' mechanism is a very real component of my life.
Those that are on the receiving end are not under any obligation, other than a moral one. And I'm pretty sure that for some of them the message is lost, but every now and then the spark lights a new flame.
Pay it forward is an asynchronous mechanism, whether it actually worked or not you can't even determine in most cases.
Those that are on the receiving end are not under any obligation, other than a moral one
But that's the point. To pay first, you are operating under faith that this is the right thing to do. To pay back after you have received is more like settling a moral debt. For some people taking that leap of faith- doing good before being guaranteed that there is something in it for them- is really hard. They have what I consider to be a narrow and limited view of their self-interest, and don't believe or understand that making the world better is in their self interest, if not obviously and directly so.
Comments
It's just 'out of phase'
It's the phase that makes it pay it _forward_ instead of backward. Obviously in every interaction, at most one of the actors can pay it forward.
I think it is just a viewpoint shift.
Whether you look at the two people that interact at one instant in time or at one person at two different points in their lives the chain remains the same.
I've had plenty of help in the past and I'm giving plenty of help in the present (as much as I can, which is still way too little). That means that for me the 'pay it forward' mechanism is a very real component of my life.
Those that are on the receiving end are not under any obligation, other than a moral one. And I'm pretty sure that for some of them the message is lost, but every now and then the spark lights a new flame.
Pay it forward is an asynchronous mechanism, whether it actually worked or not you can't even determine in most cases.
Those that are on the receiving end are not under any obligation, other than a moral one
But that's the point. To pay first, you are operating under faith that this is the right thing to do. To pay back after you have received is more like settling a moral debt. For some people taking that leap of faith- doing good before being guaranteed that there is something in it for them- is really hard. They have what I consider to be a narrow and limited view of their self-interest, and don't believe or understand that making the world better is in their self interest, if not obviously and directly so.
I think it is just a viewpoint shift.
It is, but that doesn't mean they're the same. Left and right are just a viewpoint shift (they are mirror images). Yet they are definitely distinct.