Investing in People: How to Look at Relationships as an Investment Part #1

November 18, 2005 - Get free updates of new posts here

by Mr. G

Part 1: This is where the magic investment happens

Who we are and why we think the way we do
There are many experiences, people, places, and even things that come into our lives that add more than just history. Think of it like a book, wouldn’t a book in an anthology or series seem more interesting than a book that was written as a single? Wouldn’t the book in the series keep your attention hooked, be much more exciting, and even keep you looking “forward” to next installation of the series?

Whenever people interact in a social setting with other people, you build or “write” “value” and “investment” to each other’s book of life. You may not know it, but that girl on the train you see every week and chat with for 5 minutes, has just invested into writing a page in your “lifebook”. Just as a book may be an example of investment, take another example, stocks. You don’t just go out there and randomly choose what stocks to invest into. That’s the value of people. You start with an interest within a particular company. That interest grows into a fascination, and then the next thing you know, you’ve invested into the company. The same can apply to people. You meet someone that has similar interests to you, doesn’t have to be exactly the same, but close, you build on it. That is where the investment starts, commonality and interests.

Commonality & Interests
This is a very interesting subject. Is commonality and interest always there in the beginning of anything interactive? I think so. No matter where you go and what you find, there is always a point of interest and commonality to build on. People with common interests are everywhere. Does it grow over time or does your adaptation grow towards someone else’s commonality and interest because it is different than yours? I think this can be answered both ways. Commonality and interest does grow over time, but it starts somewhere. It may start somewhere but it cannot thrive if that starting point isn’t going anywhere forward. Granted someone else’s commonality and interests may be different from yours, but it is that difference that will keep an increased and constant momentum forward and onward.

This is part of a Series on Relationships:

Relationship Week #6: Life Economics, looking at relationships as an investment part #3

Relationship Week #5: Life Economics, looking at relationships as an investment part #2

Relationship Week #3: Noah’s tips on being a good friend

Relationship Week #2: Acquiring the Right Mentor

Relationship Week #1: Adding Relationship Value in a Game Theory Example

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 responses to “Investing in People: How to Look at Relationships as an Investment Part #1

  1. SOLO A Reply

    AHA moment! “but it cannot thrive if that starting point isn’t going anywhere forward . . . ” yes I like it and somewhat agree, however the starting point is the ultimate investment, therefore, even though there are no commonalities or interests, it can still move forward b/c other investments are linked not only on interests or commonality, but the common goal to increase your investments . . . whatever they may be.

  2. Jay Deragon Reply

    In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena. Many theories have shaped the world we live in and our belief system as well as social and economic behaviors. When a body of knowledge converges the results produce profound discoveries and new “systems of belief” which subsequently influences human behavior.

    I propose that there is indeed a convergence of knowledge underway involving three established theories. The collective convergence provides the boundaries of new systems developing which in the end produce newly discovered results, both good and bad. The three established systems of knowledge converging are sociology, economics and technology.

    Collectively I will label these three “systems of knowledge” as S.E.T. and suggest the following definition: Social human interactions which produce, distribute and consume goods and services that are enabled through technological exchanges.

    Given some apparent convergence between all three previous theories, one is tempted to pose the questions: Is there a different theoretical foundation for S.E.T.? What are the main components of the theoretical core of S.E.T.? These questions and other issues are examined in my newest post at

    Does S.E.T. apply to our current environment of change? What say you?