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
