I waited a whole week to think about commenting on this because at first I was angry for personal reasons that you’ll find below. If I indulge my first impulse when I’m angry, I usually regret it. But now I’ve calmed down and I’d like to talk about something that was in the list of Decision Making Styles from the book “Introduction to Type and Decision Making” that Linda posted on August 30.
I am an ESTP and I take great exception to the authors using the word “expedient” to characterize how ESTPs make their decisions. No matter what dictionary you use, the second meaning, nowadays the meaning most often intended, is to me a deep insult. It means “Based on or marked by a concern for self-interest rather than principle; self-interested.” The word is loosely related to “expeditious” but in “expedient” that efficient, quick-problem-solving quality is always linked to tossing out any inconvenient principle like fairness, honesty or compassion in order to get what one wants. If you have a dictionary that does not portray this ruthless, selfish quality in the word “expedient,” throw it away because you may end up inadvertently seriously offending someone.
None of the other adjectives in the list carry such a negative meaning. I would have been delighted to have been represented by “pragmatic” (concerned with what works) or “sensible” (as in making sense) or even the rather cold sounding, Mr. Spock “logical,” but all those were already taken by other types. “Prudent” (having good sense in dealing with practical matters) would have been fine, or “efficient” (getting the most effect with the least effort) but no, I and my ultimate realist fellow ESTPs got smeared with “expedient.”
Here’s why I’m touchy about being called that: I was once wrongfully accused of an ethical transgression and spent a sleepless year fighting for my professional reputation as well as a goodly sum of my salary that was withheld from me. My employer offered me a settlement to dismiss the consequences if I just admitted to the offense. Since it was a complete lie, that would have gone against my principles of honesty and commitment to the truth.
That would have been expedient.
Because it was a lie and because I knew that they knew it was a lie, I told my employer to carefully but deeply insert that offer into their rectal orifice. My immediate supervisor knew that the charge was bogus, but he pretended that he believed it and supported my being punished because, he admitted later, it put him in a better standing with his boss. He rationalized that he would be able to stay in the position to make changes for the better. Horse crap. He lied and left me to fight it out on my own for his own selfish interests.
He was being expedient.
I question the wisdom of ever using single adjectives to characterize the 16 types, even in a brief overview such as these. I have been told that they are chapter headings in the book. The other single adjectives may seem correct to most of those who read the chapters about themselves, but those adjectives are certainly not complete. The problem is that most people will not bother to read the entire descriptions of types other than their own. They’ll remember the quickie, single sentence sound byte: “ESTPs are expedient.” The type becomes a stereotype.
This way of characterizing the types may help people have a quick, efficient, “expeditious” grasp of a type’s general aura, but when that convenience uses a characterization that is hurtful,
it is being expedient.
I’m interested in understanding the authors’ rationale for distilling ESTPs’ decision making style into the single word “expedient” but I don’t really want to spend $13.25 plus shipping just to read that chapter on the chance that it will soothe my hurt feelings. Perhaps Katherine Hirsh, who sometimes visits here or anyone else could help me understand?
- Richard Wade
Wow!!! I would have NEVER read the word Expedient the way you do. I see the word expedient as meaning quick and efficient. Maybe the lens you're looking through?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious why this seems to be a "hot button" for you. Have you been accused of being "expedient" in the past?
I think buying the book to investigate if the other 3 pages of content about ESTPs will change your mind about 1 word would be worth it. It's only $13.25, and you seem pretty bothered about this.
It just seems like semantics to me (I love that cartoon).
Hi Breanne, I very much appreciate your feedback because I respect your intelligence and thoughtfulness. I don't think this is a matter of the lens I'm looking through, but the language we are using. As I said, "expedient" is often confused with "expeditious," which has that neutral, "quick and efficient" meaning, but they are not synonyms. Here is a link to an explanation of the difference:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bartleby.com/68/60/2360.html
I think this is simply an error on the authors' part and it should have been caught by the editors.
Breanne, imagine if you as an ISTJ were to read the chapter heading about your type and instead of it saying "ISTJ- What is the most traditional choice?" it said, "old fashioned" or "outdated" or "outmoded" or "habitual." Those are the negative sisters of "traditional" and certainly do not compliment you. If you are a person who has worked and strived and even suffered because you are an innovator, you might be incensed by those labels. Multiply any annoyance you might have from those negative terms many times and you might begin to understand my feelings. I imagine that you take "traditional" to mean "time honored" and so you're probably okay with that.
No, I have never been accused of being expedient and I hope I never am. I have suffered more than once for sticking to my principles when I could have taken the expedient path, so that's from where the "hot button" effect comes. Were I to find that I had ever been expedient, it would be a source of deep shame.
As for semantics, that is a term often used to dismiss the seemingly silly conflicts people get into over words, but words are very powerful things. They can hurt, they can heal, they can create or destroy. People ruin themselves or others with the careless use of a single word. Words should not be used sloppily in daily conversation, and when published by the thousands in books, every single word should be chosen with painstaking care.
What's done is done, the book is out in thousands of copies and I've had my little futile vent. I can only hope that if there is a second printing the editors will correct the error.
@Richard Wade- I am fascinated by your reaction, and definitely respect your feelings with regard to that word. I wonder if others who are reading this have the same feeling about the word "Expedient."
ReplyDeleteHonestly, there are words that are used for the J preference that I don't love, but there are also parts of my personality that I don't love. J's are often described as rigid or regimented. I don't like those words...but I am. My issue is more with the fact that I am that description than the word istelf.
There is a danger in every label. That is one of the reasons why CPP has never changed from the 4 letter descriptions to a single term (like the DiSC or any of the colors assessments). One word is so limiting, when the MBTI is all about showing depth and uniqueness of personality. Believe me, many many many customers have requested us to shorten to just one word descriptions. I can't see CPP ever going down that path.
Your feedback is so important, and I am glad you took time to express why you feel the way you do.
I still think you will find that if you read the context given for the decision making styles for each type, you will feel better. It is so well written, and one of my customer's favorite edition of the Introduction to Type series.
Breanne, I don't want to beat this dead horse into mush but I am confused about something. I am glad to read that you and CPP do not believe in using single word descriptions for types for the reasons that you have mentioned. Why then has CPP published a book that does exactly that in its chapter headings? You say that you can't see CPP ever going down that path, but guess what, CPP already has. The very idea of distilling a chapter about a type down to a single word in an unnecessary chapter heading, even if it is not a pejorative goes against what you have stated is CPP's position and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're not beating a dead horse (that would just be mean...ha, the ISTJ just made a joke!)
ReplyDeleteThis is valuable dialogue.
I hear what you are saying, but there is a difference between branding all MBTI types by a single word and using a descriptor as a heading in a booklet that further describes the decision making process of that type in great detail. It is more about publishing in that case. Does that make sense?
Breanne, thank you for sticking with this. I want to say that while my tone is earnest, I respect you and your company.
ReplyDelete"Does that make sense?" Not really. I do not see the difference because I see it in practical terms, in terms of what is likely to actually happen as a consequence. (I guess that's the ESTP in me.) The words are there; they are brands. Where those brands appear is immaterial. They will be used as shorthand to characterize the types. They will be stereotypes.
MBTI is very useful. Some useful things are very easily misused by the uninformed or the malicious. Often those useful things could be designed to be less prone to misuse. This book should be redesigned. As I said before, I think that most people will only read the chapters about their own types and rely on the chapter headings for all the others. That's misuse and goes against what you have said is CPP's stance.
When you say "it's more about publishing" do you mean it's about facilitating the sales of the book? That the chapter headings are a marketing tool? If a prospective buyer thumbs through the book and sees these interesting chapter headings, he or she is more likely to buy the book? So the principle of avoiding one word descriptors for types because of all the reasons both you and I have eloquently described is pushed aside for the sake of selling more books?
Kind of expedient, don't you think?
Whoa, whoa, now you are reading too much into my words. When I said I think it is more about publishing, I mean that almost all chapters in books have a title. I'm not talking about making sales, I am talking about how books traditionally are formatted.
ReplyDeleteI get your feedback. You dislike the term expedient, and while I don't share your interpretation, I get it. I can certainly pass your feedback on to our publishing department.
I'm curious how you would redesign the book to avoid someone only reading about their type. That is what most people do until they need to understand the way a certain person is behaving...then they will look up that type. Do you really think anyone is going to remember the headline of every type? There's no way. That is why I am saying there is a difference between renaming the whole 4 letter type with a label, and just using the word as a teaser for the next 3 pages of content. We can go around and around here, but this is really about perspective. As someone in consulting, I would say there is no way to make every person happy and in this instant, I am fairly certain I will not be able to make you comfortable with the word or the books use of the word.
Breanne, I am glad that you did not intend the meaning about publishing that I was asking about. I did not assume that, which is why I asked about it in the form of questions. They were not rhetorical questions, but genuine information-seeking questions. Okay, that part can be put to rest. I acknowledge that you did not mean any of that.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the word “expedient” isn’t put to rest so much as it’s just dead. You don’t share my interpretation of the word because I don’t use interpretations, I use definitions. If you used the link I provided, you would see that this is not a word that you would want to have applied to you. It’s ugly. I think your interpretation is incorrect because it is not a definition.
Imagine someone who has neither an interpretation nor an actual definition of the word:
“Man, that Richard is really a hard-ass. What’s his type, anyway? Oh here it is, he said he’s an ESTP. Where’s that little book about decisions? (flip flip flip) Ah here it is, he’s…’expedient.’ (closes book) What does that mean? Where’s my dictionary? (flip flip flip) Here it is: ‘based on or offering what is of use or advantage rather than what is right or just; guided by self interest.’ Aha! So he’s unprincipled and selfish. Sure glad I found that out.”
I would not try to as you say “redesign the book to avoid someone only reading about their type.” That is not the point. As you also say that is what most people are going to do anyway. No, I don’t think anyone is going to remember the headline of every type, just the one or two they’re interested in. They’re not teasers, they’re summaries. All I would do is to remove the one word adjective descriptors in those chapter headings. So when a person is interested in how another type they know makes decisions, they won’t just see that one word and close the book. They’ll have to actually read the chapter. It’s a simple thing. Just eliminate the quickie term that will so easily be misused as a short cut.
Breanne, I very much appreciate your passing my feedback on to your publishing department. I can ask no more, and I sincerely thank you for your effort to listen to my concerns.
*sigh* I can't imagine that scenario happening because I have never worked somewhere that people grab a dictionary often.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more likely is that someone would say "Hey Joe, what does expedient mean" and he would say, "Um...taking the most efficient, quick route to get things done...or something like that." And then that someone would say "Thanks, Joe!"
I did just that on Twitter and got 7 responses with all positive "common man" definitions of the word.
Let's be clear here...this is the #2 definition anyway...not the #1 definition.
From a practical standpoint, can you imagine the life of an author if they had to scan every word they've written and read the #1 and #2 definition to make sure there was no "hidden definition" that might offend someone? Ouch! I'd rather beat my head against a wall than do that.
I'm done beating the dead horse now...
Hello Richard,
ReplyDeleteI want to thank you for sharing your reaction to the phrase "most expedient choice" as well as the www.bartleby.com link which clearly lays out the pejorative meaning we had failed to note. I wish that we had caught this as our goal has always been to craft our books in the spirit of the MBTI® tool which is almost unique in celebrating the different gifts we each contribute.
If you were interested, I'd like to send you a copy of Introduction to Type® and Decision Making.
Regards,
Katherine
Hi Katherine,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your very gracious response. It is an honor and a pleasure to speak with an author such as yourself who values craftsmanship in her art, such as the careful selection of the best words for any given thought. That is one of the important differences between good writers and people who just pound keyboards. I was convinced that the word in question was merely an oversight and it somehow slipped past your editors. Even the best wordsmiths need others to review their work because with close to a million words in the English language, no one can master them all.
I agree that the MBTI tool follows an admirable philosophy of viewing the differences in personalities as various positive gifts, and I’m sure your book strives to be faithful to that.
Thank you also for your offer of a copy. Breanne has already very kindly offered to send me one and I am looking forward to reading it, all of it, not just my type chapter. I hope you continue to hear the whisper of your muse and to write successful and helpful works.