Customer

Customer (pronounced kuhs-tuhm-ah)

(1) A habitual patron, regular purchaser, returning client; one who has a custom of buying from a particular business (obsolete in its technical sense).

(2) A patron, a client; one who purchases or receives a product or service from a business or merchant, or intends to do so.

(3) In various slang forms (cool customer, tough customer, ugly customer, customer from hell, dream customer etc), a person, especially one engaging in some sort of interaction with others.

(4) Under the Raj, a native official who exacted customs duties (historic use from British colonial India).

Late 1300s: From the Middle English customere & custommere (one who purchases goods or supplies, one who customarily buys from the same tradesman or guild), from custumer (customs official, toll-gatherer), from the Anglo-French custumer, from the Old French coustumier & costumier (from which modern French gained coutumier (customary, custumal)), from the Medieval Latin noun custumarius (a toll-gatherer, tax-collector), a back-formation from the adjective custumarius (pertaining to custom or customs) from custuma (custom, tax).  The literal translation of the Medieval Latin custumarius was “pertaining to a custom or customs”, a contraction of the Latin consuetudinarius, from consuetudo (habit, usage, practice, tradition).  The generalized sens of “a person with whom one has dealings” emerged in the 1540s while that of “a person to deal with” (then as now usually with some defining adjective: “tough customer”, difficult customer” etc) was in use by the 1580s.  Derived terms are common including customer account, customer base, customer care, customer experience, customer-oriented, customer research, customer resistance, customer service, customer success, customer support, direct-to-customer, customer layer, customer-to-customer, ugly customer, tough customer, difficult customer etc.  Customer is a noun; the noun plural is customers.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) used the word sometimes to mean “prostitute” and in his work was the clear implication that a buyer was as guilty as the seller, the law both unjust and hypocritical, something which in the twentieth century would be rectified in Swedish legislation.

Shakespeare: All's Well That Ends Well (circa 1602), Act 5, scene 3

LAFEW:  This woman’s an easy glove, my lord; she goes off and on at pleasure.

KING: This ring was mine. I gave it his first wife.

DIANA: It might be yours or hers for aught I know.

KING (to attendants) Take her away. I do not like her now.  To prison with her, and away with him. Unless thou tell’st me where thou hadst this ring, Thou diest within this hour.

DIANA: I’ll never tell you.

KING: Take her away.

DIANA: I’ll put in bail, my liege.

KING: I think thee now some common customer.

DIANA (to Bertram): By Jove, if ever I knew man, ’twas you.

In Sweden, the law was amended in a way of which Shakespeare might have approved, Chapter 6, Section 11 of the Swedish Penal Code making it an offence to pay for sex, the act of “purchasing sexual services” criminalized, the aim being to reduce the demand for prostitution.  The law provides for fines or a maximum term of imprisonment for one year, depending on the circumstances of the case.  So selling sexual services is not unlawful in Sweden but being a customer is, an inversion of the model for centuries applied in the West.  Individuals who engage in prostitution are not criminalized under Swedish law, which is intended to protect sex workers from legal penalties while targeting the customers, now defined as those who “exploit them”.  The Swedish model aims to reduce prostitution by focusing on the demand side and providing support for those who wish to exit prostitution and as a statement of public policy, the law reform reflected the government’s view prostitution was a form of gender inequality and exploitation.  The effectiveness of the measure has over the years been debated and the customer-focused model of enforcement has not widely been emulated.

The customer is always right

Reliable return customer: Lindsay Lohan in the Chanel Shop, New York City, May 2013.

The much quoted phrase (which in some areas of commerce is treated as a proverb): “the customer is always right” has its origins in retail commerce and is used to encapsulate the value: “service staff should give high priority to customer satisfaction”.  It is of course not always literally true, the point being that even when patently wrong about something, it is the customer who is paying for stuff so they should always be treated as if they are right.  Money being the planet’s true lingua franca, variations exist in many languages, the best known of which is the French le client n'a jamais tort (the customer is never wrong), the slogan of Swiss hotelier César Ritz (1850-1918) whose name lived on in the Hôtel Ritz in Paris, the Ritz and Carlton Hotels in London and the Ritz-Carlton properties dotted around the world.  While not always helpful for staff on the shop floor, it’s an indispensible tool for those basing product manufacturing or distribution decisions on aggregate demand.  To these counters of beans, what is means is that if there is great demand for red widgets and very little for yellow widgets, the solution probably is not to commission an advertising campaign for yellow widgets but to increase production of the red, while reducing or even ceasing runs of the yellow.  The customer is “right” in what they want, not in the sense of “right & wrong” but in the sense of their demand being the way to work out what is the “right” thing to produce because it will sell.

Available at Gullwing Motor Cars: Your choice at US$129,500 apiece.

The notion of “the customer is always right” manifests in the market for pre-modern Ferraris (a pre-1974 introduction the accepted cut-off).  While there nothing unusual about differential demand in just about any market sector, dramatically is it illustrated among pre-modern Ferraris with some models commanding prices in multiples of others which may be rarer, faster, better credentialed or have a notionally more inviting specification.  That can happen when two different models are of much the same age and in similar condition but a recent listing by New York-based Gullwing Motor Cars juxtaposed two listings which left no doubt where demand exists.  The two were both from 1972: a 365 GTC/4 and a Dino 246 GT.

Some reconditioning required: 1972 Ferrari 356 GTC/4

The 365 GTC/4 was produced for two years between 1971-1972 during which 505 were built.  Although now regarded as a classic of the era, the 365 GTC/4 lives still in the shadow of the illustrious 365 GTB/4 with which, mechanically, it shares much.  The GTB/4 picked up the nickname “Daytona”, an opportunistic association given 1-2-3 finish in the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona involved three entirely different models while the GTC/4 enjoyed only the less complementary recognition of being labeled by some il gobbone (the hunchback) or quello alla banana (the banana one).  It was an unfair slight and under the anyway elegant skin, the GTB/4 & GTC/4 shared much, the engine of the latter differing mainly in lacking the dry-sump lubrication, the use of six twin-choke side-draft Weber carburetors rather than the downdrafts, this permitting a lower hood (bonnet) line and a conventionally mounted gearbox rather than the the Daytona's rear transaxle.  Revisions to the cylinder heads allowed the V12 to be tuned to deliver torque across a broad rev-range rather than the focus on top-end power which was one of the things which made the Daytona so intoxicating.

Criticizing the GTC/4 because it doesn’t quite have the visceral appeal of the GTB/4 seems rather like casually dismissing the model who managed only to be runner-up to Miss Universe.  The two cars anyway, despite sharing a platform, were intended for different purposes, the GTB/4 an outright high performance road car which could, with relatively few modifications, be competitive in racing whereas the GTC/4 was a grand tourer, even offering occasional rear seating for two (short) people.  One footnote in the history of the marque is the GTC/4 was the last Ferrari offered with the lovely Borrani triple-laced wire wheels; some GTB/4s had them fitted by the factory and a few more were added by dealers but the factory advised that with increasing weight, tyres with much superior grip and higher speeds, they were no longer strong enough in extreme conditions and the cast aluminum units should be used if the car was to be run in environments without speed restrictions such as race tracks or certain de-restricted public roads (then seen mostly in the FRG (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany) 1949-1990), Montana & Nevada in the US and Australia's Northern Territory & outback New South Wales (NSW)).  The still stunning GTB/4 was the evolutionary apex of its species; it can't be improved upon but the GTC/4 is no ugly sister and when contemplating quello alla banana, one might reflect on the sexiness of the fruit.

Gullwing’s offering was described as “a highly original unrestored example in Marrone Colorado (Metallic Brown) with a tan leather interior, factory air conditioning, and power windows; showing 48K miles (77K kilometres) on the odometer.  It has been sitting off the road for several years and is not currently running.”  It was certainly highly original and seemed complete but properly should be regarded as a “project” because of the uncertainty about the extent (and thus the cost) of the recommissioning.  At an asking price of US$129,500, it would represent good value only if it was mechanically sound and no unpleasant surprises were found under the body’s shapely curves although, given the market for 365 GTC/4s in good condition, it was a project best taken on by a specialist.

Some assembly required: 1972 Dino 246 GT by Ferrari

The days are gone when the Dino 246 was dismissed as “more of a Fiat than a Ferrari” and even if the factory never put their badge on the things (although plenty subsequently have added one), they are now an accepted part of the range.  The 246 replaced the visually almost similar but slightly smaller and even more jewel-like Dino 206, 152 of which (with an all-aluminium 2.0 litre (122 cubic inch) V6 rather than the V12s which had for some years been de rigueur in Ferrari’s road cars) were built between 1967-1969, all with berlinetta (coupé) bodywork.  Mass-produced by comparison, there were 3569 Dino 246s produced between 1969-1974, split between 2,295 246 GTs (coupés) & 1,274 246 GTSs (spyders (targa)).  Fitted with an iron-block 2.4 litre (147 cubic inch) V6, the Dinos were designed deliberately to be cheaper to produce and thus enjoy a wider market appeal, the target those who bought the more expensive Porsche 911s, a car the Dino (mostly) out-performed.  In recent decades, the Dino 246 has been a stellar performer in the collector market, selling typically for three times the price of something like a 365 GTC/4; people drawn to the seductive lines rather than the significantly better fuel consumption.

Most coveted of the 246s are those described with the rhyming colloquialism “chairs and flares” (C&F to the Ferrari cognoscenti), a reference to a pair of (separately available) options available on later production Dino 246s.  The options were (1) seats with inserts (sometimes in a contrasting color) in the style used on the Daytona & (2) wider Campagnolo Elektron wheels (which the factory only ever referred to by size) which necessitated flared wheel-arches.  At a combined US$795.00 (in 1974), the C&F combination has proved a good investment, now adding significantly to the price of the anyway highly collectable Dino.  Although it's hard to estimate the added value because so many other factors influence calculation, all else being equal, the premium is usually between US$100-200,000 but these things are always relative; in 1974 the C&F option added 5.2% to a Dino GTS's list price and was just under a third the cost of a new small car such as the Chevrolet Vega.  It was a C&F Dino 246 GTS which in 1978 was found buried in a Los Angeles where it had sat for some four years after being secreted away in what turned out to be an unplanned twist to a piece of insurance fraud.  In remarkably good condition (something attributed to its incarceration being during one of California’s many long droughts), it was fully restored.

Not in such good condition is the post-incineration Dino 246 GT (not a C&F) being offered by Gullwing Motor Cars, the asking price the same US$129,500 as the 365 GTC/4.  Also built in 1972, Gullwing helpfully describe this as “a project”, probably one of history’s less necessary announcements.  The company couldn’t resist running the title “Too Hot to Handle” and described the remains as “…an original car that has been completely burnt.  Originally born in Marrone Colorado with beige leather.  It comes with its clear matching title and this car clearly needs complete restoration, but the good news is that it's certainly the cheapest one you will ever find.  The Dino market is hot and shows no signs of cooling. An exciting opportunity to own an iconic 246GT Dino. This deal is on fire!”  It’s still (technically) metal and boasts the prized “matching numbers” (ie the body, engine & gearbox are all stamped with the serial numbers which match the factory records) so there’s that but whether, even at the stratospheric prices Dinos often achieve, the economics of a restoration (that may be the wrong word) can be rationalized would need to be calculated by experts.  As with the 365 GTC/4, Gullwing may be amenable to offers but rather that the customer always being right, this one needs "the right customer".

Aggregate demand: The highly regarded auction site Bring-a-Trailer (BAT, their origin being a clearing house for “projects” although most were less challenging than Gullwing’s Dino) publishes auction results (including “reserve not met” no-sales) and the outcomes demonstrate how much the market lusts for Dinos.  BAT also has a lively comments section for each auction and more than once a thread had evolved to discuss the seeming incongruity of the prices achieved by Dinos compared with the rarer Berlinetta Boxer (365 GT4 BB, BB 512 & BB 512i) (1973-1984) which was when new much more expensive, faster and, of course, a genuine twelve cylinder Ferrari.  In such markets however, objective breakdowns of specifications and specific performance are not what decide outcomes: The customer is always right.

Digging up: The famous "buried" 1974 Dino 246 GTS, being extracted, Los Angeles, 1978 (left) and the body tag of a (never buried) 1974 Dino 246 GTS.  While it's true the factory never put a "Ferrari badge" on the Dino 206 & 246 (nor did one appear on the early Dino 308s) the Ferrari name does appear on the tags and some parts.  Gullwing's Dino would be a more challenging "project" and even with today's inflated values, the financial viability of a restoration might be dubious. 

Although it's in recent years the prices paid for the things sharply have spiked, the lure of the Dino is not a recent thing.  In 1978, a 1974 246 GTS was discovered buried in a Los Angeles yard and it transpired it was on the LAPD’s (Los Angeles Police Department) long list of stolen vehicles.  The department’s investigators concluded the burial had been a “rush job” because while it had been covered with carpets and some plastic sheeting in an inexpert attempt to preserve it from the sub-terrain, one window had been left slightly open.  Predictably, the back-story was assumed to be an “insurance scam”, the owner allegedly hiring two “contractors” to “make it disappear” in a manner consistent with car theft, hardly an unusual phenomenon in Los Angeles.  The plan was claimed to be for the Dino to be broken up with all non-traceable (ie not with serial numbers able to be linked to a specific vehicle) parts on-sold with whatever remained to be dumped “somewhere off the coast”.  In theory, the scamming owner would bank his check (cheque) from Farmers Insurance while the “contractors” would keep their “fee for service” plus whatever profits they realized from their “parting-out” which, even at the discount which applies to “fenced” stolen goods, would have been in the thousands; a win-win situation, except for the insurance company and, ultimately, everyone who pays premiums.

Dug Up: The 'buried" Dino after restoration.  Two of the Campagnolo wheels are said to be original and the 14 x 7½ wheels & fender flares combo was at the time a US$680.00 (about a third the cost of a new, small car); their presence can now add US$100,000 to a 246's value so they proved a reasonable investment.

However, it’s said that when driving the Dino, the hired pair found it so seductive they decided to keep it, needing only somewhere to conceal it until they could concoct another plan.  Thus the hasty burial but for whatever reason (the tales differ), they never returned to reclaim the loot and four years later the shallow automotive grave was uncovered after a “tip-off” from a “snitch” (tales of children finding it while “playing in the dirt” an urban myth).  The matter of insurance fraud was of course pursued but no charges were laid because police could not discover who had done the burial and rather than being scraped and “parted-out” (this time lawfully) as might have been expected, the Dino was sold and restored.  That was possible because it was in surprisingly good condition after its four years in a pit, something accounted for by (1) the low moisture content of the soil, (2) the degree of protection afforded by the covers placed at the time of burial and (3) its time underground coinciding with one of the prolonged droughts which afflict the area.  So, although Dino values were not then what they became, purchased at an attractive price (a reputed US$9000), it was in good enough shape for a restoration to be judged financially viable and it was “matching numbers” (#0786208454-#355468) although that had yet become a fetish.  The car remains active to this day, still with the Californian licence plate “DUG UP”.

Sandra West with her 1964 Ferrari 330 America.

Cars (for fraudulent purposes being buried or otherwise secreted away is a not uncommon practice (some have even contained a dead body or two) but there’s at least one documented case of an individual being, in accordance with a clause in their will, buried in their Ferrari.  Sandra West (née Hara, 1939-1977) became a Beverly Hills socialite after marrying Texas oil millionaire and securities trader Ike West (1934-1968) and as well as jewels and fur coats (then socially acceptable evening wear), she developed a fondness for Ferraris.  Her husband died “in murky circumstances” in a room of the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas and while the details of his demise at a youthful 33 seem never to have been published, he had a history of drug use and “health issues” related to his frequent and rapid fluctuations in weight.  His widow inherited some US$5 million (then a considerable fortune) so the LA gossip columnists adjusted their entries from “Mrs West” to “Sandra West, Beverly Hills Socialite and Heiress”.  Her widowed life seems not to have been untroubled and her death in 1977 was certainly drug-related although sources differ about whether it was an overdose of some sort or related to the injuries she’d suffered in an earlier car accident.

Sandra West's burial.  The legal proceedings related to the contested "burial clause" had been well publicized and the ceremony attracted a large crowd.

She left more than one will but a judge ultimately found one to be valid and it included a clause stating she must be buried “…in my lace nightgown … and in my Ferrari with the seat slanted comfortably.”  Accordingly, after a two month delay caused by her brother contesting the “burial clause”, Mrs West’s appropriately attired body was prepared while the Ferrari was sent (under armed guard) by train to Texas where the two were united for their final journey.  Car and owner were then encased in a sturdy timber box measuring 3 metres (10 feet) x 2.7 m (9 feet) x 5.8 m (19 feet) which was transported by truck to San Antonio for the ceremony, conducted on 4 May 1977 in the Alamo Masonic Cemetery (chartered in 1848, the Ancient Free and Accepted Masons in 1854 purchased this property because of the need for a burial ground for Freemasons).  It was an unusual ceremony in that a crane was used carefully to lower the crate into an obviously large grave while to deter “body snatchers” (who would be interested in exhuming car rather than corpse), a Redi-mix truck was on-hand to entomb the box in a thick layer of concrete.  In a nice touch, her grave lies alongside that of her husband and has been on the itinerary of more than one tourist operator running sightseeing tours.  Mrs West owned three Ferraris and it’s not clear in which her body was laid; while most reports claim it was her blue, 1964 330 America (s/n 5055), some mention it as a 250 GTE but 330 America #5055 has not since re-appeared (pre-modern Ferraris carefully are tracked) so that is plausible and reputedly it was “her favourite”.  Inevitably (perhaps sniffing the whiff of a Masonic plot), conspiracy theorists have long pointed out the only documentary evidence is of “a large crate” being lowered into the grave with no proof of what was at the time within.  However, given burial clause was ordered enforceable by a court, it should be assumed that under the remarkably plain gravestone which gives no indication of the unusual event, rests a Ferrari of some tipo.

Bedint

Bedint (pronounced buh-dent (U) or bed-ent (non-U))

(1) Something which suggests a bourgeois aspiration to the tastes or habits of the upper classes.

(2) A generalized expression of disapproval of anyone or anything not in accord with the social standards or expectation of the upper classes.

(3) Any behavior thought inappropriate (ie something of which one for whatever reason disapproves).

1920s:  A coining attributed to variously to (1) English writer, politician and diplomat Harold Nicolson (2) his wife, the writer Vita Sackville-West or (3) speculatively, Vita Sackville-West’s family.  The word is of Germanic origin and although there are variants, the source of all was the Middle Dutch bedienen, the construct being be- +‎ dienen.  The Middle Dutch be- was from the Old Dutch bi- & be-, from the Middle High German be-, from the Old High German bi-, from the Proto-Germanic bi-, from the primitive Indo-European hepi and was used to indicate a verb is acting on a direct object.  Dienen was from the Middle Dutch dienen, from the Old Dutch thienon, from the Proto-Germanic þewanōną and meant "to be of assistance to, to serve; to serve (at a tavern or restaurant); to operate (a device)".  In the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, it has the specific technical meaning "to administer the last sacraments (the last rites)".  A bedient (the second third-person singular present indicative of bedienen) was thus a servant, a waiter etc.  The acceptable pronunciation is buh-dent while bed-int, be-dit or anything else is the depth of bedintism.  Bedint is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is bedints.  As a non-standard word, there are no derived forms but, for humorous effect, some have appeared including the nouns, bedintism bedinity & bedintism and the adjectives bedinted, bedintish & bedintesque.  The noun bedintologist is non-standard but there are a lot of amateur bedintologists active.  Caution must be exercised because the very use of the word can be condemned as bedint.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.  

The idea thus is exemplified by a maître d'hôtel (head waiter) who, well dressed and well mannered, appears superficially not dissimilar to someone from the upper classes but of course is someone from a lower class, adopting for professional reasons, some of their characteristics (dress, manner, speech (and sometimes snobbery) etc).  Whoever coined the word, it was certainly popularized by Harold Nicholson and Vita Sackville-West, neither of whom were much reticent in finding fault in others.  It seems initially to have been their shared code for discussing such things but soon became common currency amongst the smart set in which they moved and from there, eventually entered the language although not all dictionaries acknowledge its existence and it should probably be thought non-standard.  It one of those words which need not be taken too seriously and is most fun to use if played with a bit (bedintish, bedintesque, bedintingly bedinded, bedintism, bedintology etc).  As a word, although from day one weaponized, bedint was subject to mission-creep to the point where, as Lewis Carroll's (pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (1832–1898) Humpty Dumpty "in rather a scornful tone" explained to Alice in Alice Through the Looking-Glass (1871): "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Figures from that lost, pre-1914 world: Harold Nicolson (1886-1968) & Vita Sackville-West (1892-1962), London, 1913.

As originally used by Nicolson & Sackville-West, bedint was one the many linguistic tools of exclusion and snobbery; these devices exist among all social classes, some of which, when part of “working-class consciousness” or similar constructs are classified as “inverted snobbery”.  Bedint was used to refer to anyone not from the layers of the upper class (royalty, the aristocracy, the gentry) in some way aping the behavior or manners of “their betters”; the behavior need not be gauche or inappropriate, just that of someone “not one of us”.  Nicolson didn’t exclude himself from his own critique and, as one who “married up” into the socially superior Sackville family, was his whole life acutely aware of what behaviors of his might be thought bedint, self-labelling as he thought he deserved.  His marriage he never thought at all bedint although many of those he condemned as bedint would have found it scandalously odd, however happy the diaries of both parties suggest that for almost 50 years it was.

Harold Nicolson & Vita-Sackville West, Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Kent, 1932.

Bedint as a word proved so useful however that it came to be applied to members of the upper classes (even royalty) were they thought guilty of some transgression (like dullness) or hobbies thought insufficiently aristocratic (ie "a bit middle class" which was about as bad as insults got).  The idea of some behavior not befitting one’s social status was thus still a thread but by the post-war years, when bedint had entered vocabulary of the middle-class (a bedint thing in itself one presumes Nicolson and Sackville-West would have thought), it was sometimes little more than a synonym for bad behavior (poor form as they might have said), just an expression of disapproval.  That didn't mean all "non-typical" behavior was bedint because certain eccentricities or a bohemian lifestyle might be tolerated or even admired.  Bedint-tagging can thus be thought as something within the rubric of labeling theory and to this day there are many practicing bedintologists although not all will be familar with the word.  

Harold Nicolson & Vita-Sackville West, Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Kent, 1960.

The biographical work on Nicolson reveals a not especially likable snob but, in common with many fine and sharp-eyed diarists, he seems to have been good company though perhaps best enjoyed in small doses.  One of those figures (with which English political life is studded) remembered principally for having been almost a successful politician, almost a great writer or almost a viceroy (the latter perhaps more in his mind than that of the cabinet), he even managed to be almost a lord but, despite switching party allegiances to curry favor with the Labour government (1945-1951), the longed-for peerage was never offered and he was compelled to accept a knighthood.  His KCVO (Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, an honor in the personal gift of the sovereign) was granted in 1953 in thanks for his generous (though well-reviewed and received) biography of the stamp-collecting George V (1865-1936, King of England 1910-1936) although those who could read between the lines found it not hard to work out which of the monarch’s activities the author thought bedint.  As it was, Nicolson took his KCVO, several rungs down the ladder of the Order of Precedence, accepting it only "faute de mieux" (in the absence of anything better) and describing it “a bedint knighthood”, wondering if, given the shame, he should resign from his clubs.

Wedding day: Duff Cooper & Lady Diana Manners, St Margaret's Church, London, 2 June 1919.

So a knighthood, a thing which many have craved, can be bedint if it's not the right knighthood.  When the Tory politician Duff Cooper (1890–1954) ended his term (1944-1948) as the UK's ambassador to France, the Labor government (which had kept him on) granted a GCMG and although he thought his years as a cabinet minister might have warranted a peerage, he accepted while wryly noting in his diary it was hardly something for which he should  be congratulated because: "No ambassador in Paris has ever failed to acquire the it since the order was invented and the Foreign Office has shown how much importance they attach to it by conferring it simultaneously on my successor Oliver Harvey (1893-1968), who is, I suppose, the least distinguished man who has ever been appointed to the post".  Still, Cooper took his "bedint" GCMG and when a Tory government returned to office, he was, shortly before his death, raised to the peerage, choosing to be styled Viscount Norwich of Aldwick.  His wife (Lady Diana Cooper (1892–1986) didn't fancy becoming "Lady Norwich" because she though it "sounded like porridge" (additionally, she had good "brand recognition") and took the precaution of placing notices in The Times and Daily Telegraph telling all who mattered she would continue to be styled "Lady Diana Cooper".  They had a "modern marriage" so differences between them were both negotiated and not infrequent.

A faute de mieux moment: Lindsay Lohan with “award surfboard”, The Teen Choice Awards 2004 cermony, Universal Amphitheatre, Universal City, Los Angeles, California, 8 August, 2004.

From his grave, Harold Nicolson might be amused that since his death more attention has be paid to the details of his remarkable marriage than his careers in politics, diplomacy or literature, despite the latter yielding a biography of his father, a best-selling life of George V, a study of Mrs Charles Lindbergh’s (1906-2001) father, novels and historical works.  Of all he wrote, perhaps the one that will continue to be mined for “source material” was the most “postmodern”: the pseudo-autobiographical Some People (1927), the Author’s Note cautioning “…many of the following sketches are purely imaginary.  Such truths as they may contain are only half-truths”.  A book thus with modern qualities and whether it revealed much about its subjects can be debated but it was an insight into the author, not so much what he was but how he wished to be perceived.  Nicolson clearly conveyed this was not a work to be read by bedints with an ostentatious use of devices of the type Henry Fowler (1858–1933) in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) called a “pride of knowledge”: Much of Some People was in French, the text littered with untranslated allusions to classical literature and words (some of which long assimilated into English) appearing in the original Ancient Greek script.  Genuinely, it’s an often amusing work even bedints can enjoy in translation (it’s ideal for a hypertext edition) but old Henry Fowler would not have been impressed and would likely have dismissed the devices as “pretentious”.  Others, well acquainted with Nicolson's social aspirations, called it “a cad’s book”. 

Vita Sackville-West (left) and Violet Trefusis (right), Villa dell'Ombrellino, Florence, Italy, circa 1920.  The Tuscan estate belonged to Ms Trefuis's mother, Alice Keppel (1868–1947) a long-time mistress of Edward VII (1841–1910; King of the UK & Emperor of India 1901-1910).

It was an indication of how important it was for Nicolson not to be though bedint although, of course, as he likely would have admitted, trying so hard is about as bedint as things get but if anything, it was the publication in 1973 of Portrait of a Marriage by his son (Nigel Nicolson, 1917–2004) that confirmed him (among those few who much dwelt on the matter) as “really not a bedint”.  The book was a son’s unadorned tale of his bisexual parents' extramarital arrangements but so convivial were the agreements between them about the many trysts and affairs it seems absurd to characterize them as infidelities, indeed, nothing as romantic as Vita Sackville-West's “elopement” with Violet Trefusis (1894–1972) could possibly be thought bedint.  Indisputably a snob and a racist, Nicolson divided the planet’s population (that literally was his vista) in a tiny racial, social and intellectual aristocracy (with which he self-identified) and “the rest”; in that he wasn’t greatly different from many except in using “bedint” as a kind of convenient shorthand he did display what more than one biographer and critic would call his “inferiority complex” (one acquaintance labelling him “a national figure of the second degree”).  Like his contemporary the expatriate American Sir Henry "Chips" Channon (1897–1958), his ambition was to be rich and be raised to the peerage although such was his character it may be than even had he collected a viscountcy, he’d have begun to fret about not being an earl, that notch on the peerage a kind of fence between them and the “bedint lords”.  Certainly he anticipated the title would one day come, planning to commandeer one of the vacant Sackville titles, his name “insufficiently aristocratic” despite the pleasing “elegance of the absent ‘h’”.  Curiously, despite blatantly being anti-Semitic and contemptuous of most of the usual suspects (working class, middle class, foreigners etc) he supported the Balfour Declaration (1917), advocated for the creation of the state of Israel, was appalled by the Treaty of Versailles (1919), approved of the League of Nations (1920-1945), applauded the Beveridge Report (the 1942 paper by Sir William Beveridge, (1879–1963) detailing the original framework of the post-war welfare state) and ended up in the Labour Party.  No biography of Nicolson has made him seem especially “likeable” but among history’s footnotes he remains memorable, a quality transcending bedintism.

The BEM (British Empire Medal), the lowest of the six rungs of the Order of the British Empire.  Politicians would regard the BEM as “a bedint award for bedints” and would be insulted if offered one.

As a species, politicians have a sense of entitlement like few others and while that’s hardly a revelation, what is amusing is to speculate whether the “pathologically entitled” are drawn to the business or it grows in them as they notice the trough seems always to be topped up no matter how deep they bury their snouts.  More amusing still is to create two lists categorizing politicians as one or the other and what’s striking is how few don’t make the cut for either.  As a breed, one thing to which most felt entitled was an honor, and from minor worthies such as mayors hoping for a OBE (Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) to put them a notch above the nurse given an MBE (a Member in the same order) for many decades of dedicated service, to cabinet ministers lobbying for a knighthood or peerage, the lure has always been strong.  There have been exceptions.  Enoch Powell (1912–1998) declined the offer of a life peerage on the basis the proffered barony “wasn’t hereditary”; presumably he thought a “non-ongoing nobility” just too bedint to be contemplated while others would make light of being dubbed.  Sir Arthur Fadden (1894–1973; Prime Minister of Australia Aug-Oct 1941) was in 1951 made a KCMG (Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George) and to mark his retirement from politics in 1958 he was elevated to GCMG (Knight Grand Cross in the same order).  He welcomed the new honor by remarking: “Twice a knight, not bad at my age.”

There have also been politicians who seemed to find the whole honors system totally naff.  Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) declined the more or less obligatory AC (Companion of the Order of Australia (the de facto “top-of-the-tree” since the AK (Knight of the same order) went into abeyance after a brief and controversial revival by Tony Abbott (b 1957; Prime Minister of Australia 2013-2015)) on the basis “…prime ministers are well-rewarded for their service” although it’s tempting to think while Mr Keating might have thought most honors were too bedint for him to accept, given his self-regard, he might have been tempted if offered a dukedom; there hasn’t been (a non-royal) one of them created for 150-odd years and they’re no longer as costly as once they were.  He made one memorable speech making his disdain clear.  Rising in the House of Representatives on 27 February, 1992, he castigated conservative politicians for” “…still looking for your MBEs and your KCMGs and all the rest of the regalia… we will have no bar of you or your sterile ideology.

Lord Salisbury speaking in the House of Lords (1894), supplement to The Graphic, after a chromolithograph by Sydney Prior Hall (1842-1922).  In Great Contemporaries (1937), Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) alluded to Salisbury's many years as prime minister: “...venerable, august Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister since God knew when.”

Mostly though, politicians’ lust for honors has been strong and many went beyond dropping hints to lobbying.  George Goschen (1831–1907) served in the British government as an “average Chancellor of the Exchequer” and “competent First Lord of the Admiralty” but his many years in office were noted more for the effluxion of time than substantive achievement.  Despite that, Goschen of course felt “entitled” to a seat in the Lords and even fretted about the name he’d adopt upon being ennobled, telling the prime minister he’d decide when told what grade he’d be getting, adding he hoped his elevation would not be announced as “…one of a batch”, making clear a viscountcy was merely “rations” for a retiring cabinet minister and his long service entitled him to go up a notch.  His arguments failed to impress the prime minister (Lord Salisbury (1830–1903; UK Prime Minister for thirteen years variously 1885-1902)) who told his secretary he was prepared only to create him a viscount, something that prompted Goschen to impose himself on the secretary for a long session of advocacy; it proved unproductive, the secretary laconically minuting the prime minister: “Accepts Viscountcy: would have liked an Earldom.”  Resigned to this faute de mieux, he entered the House of Lords as Viscount Goschen of Hawkhurst.

Had the word then existed, Salisbury might have though Goschen’s conduct “typical bourgeois bedintism” while reflecting on twice being offered a dukedom by Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901).  Salisbury had told the queen he was appalled by the prohibitive cost of maintaining what was then a ducal lifestyle and that he’d anyway rather have “an ancient marquessate than a modern dukedom.”  In truth, when the offers were made, the Salisbury marquessate was barely a hundred years old (the prime minister the third marquis) although the titled roots of the Cecil family went back centuries.  Still, “ancient” is how it’s defined and Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945) justified being at the age of 33 adopted by an aunt (in exchange for payment) in order to append the nobiliary particle “von” to his name on the basis of “not wishing to see an ancient branch of the family go extinct”.  That branch was then of a 40 year vintage and the “purchased von” was within the Nazi Party a source of contemptuous humor, the acerbic Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 1933-1945) summing him up in a diary entry of typical succinctness: “He bought his name, married his money and swindled his way into office”.  Had Goebbels been aware of “bedint”, that’s what he’d have labelled the inept foreign minister.

Otrovert

Otrovert (pronounced ott-roh-vert)

A person unable to feel a connection to social groups or collectives; despite being welcomed and included in social settings, they feel like outsiders.

2025: A coining by US psychiatrist Dr Rami Kaminski (b 1954), who first used the word in his book his book The Gift of Not Belonging (2025), the construct being the Spanish otro (other; another) + -vert.  Otro was from the Latin alter, altera & alterum (the other), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European hélteros (the other of two); it may be compared with the Portuguese outro (from the Old Galician-Portuguese outro, from the Latin alterum (the other)) and the French autre (from Old French autre (another), from the Latin alterum).  The –vert suffix was from the Latin vertere (to turn) and was used to refer to a person with a particular personality which manifests when in the presence of others.

Otrovert is a noun; the noun plural is otroverts.  Because otrovert is a “hot word” (newly coined or an adaptation of an existing word and one which has in a short time become popular), most lexicographers are tagging it as “provisional”, the majority of “hot words and phrases” (think “six-seven”) fading from use and never gaining critical mass.  Even the idea of “popular: had (in this context) shifted because whereas once it could take months or years for a word or phrase to spread into general use, on the various platform on the internet, proliferation can be close to instant.  However, the tools used to assess “use” are rather brute-force and often are counting appearances in “lists” rather than “general use”.  For those reasons, in the technical sense, derived forms really don’t (yet) exist but if constructed the list (based on the model of other “-verts”) might include the nouns otrovertist, otroverting & otrovertness, the verb & adjective otroverted, adjectives otrovertish & otrovertesque & otrovertive and the adverbs otrovertedly & otrovertly.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure): Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

An ambivert is a person neither clearly extroverted nor introverted, but has characteristics of each, the construct being ambi- +‎ -vert.  Ambi- was from the Latin ambo (both) and was a doublet of the New Latin amphi-, from the Ancient Greek ἀμφί (amphí) (on both sides).  The dexter element in the Medieval Latin meant “right” and ambidexter thus was understood as “both hands being like a right hand”.  In English, the ambi- prefix is most familiar in “ambidextrous” (possessing an equal or functionally comparable ability to handle objects with both hands (in writing, music, sport etc) although it has from time to time been used figuratively (not taking sides in conflicts or being equally adept in more than one medium, genre, style etc) and even as a humorous synonym for “bisexual”.  When used in psychology, historically, ambiversion described someone with characteristics of both extroversion and introversion and thus suggested a “balanced personality”, the subject choosing to manifest the different characteristics according to what the circumstances seemed to demand.  Ambivert thus does not imply some sort of split personality or the existence of a condition like bi-polar disorder (the old manic depression) but simply reflects an individual able to undertake their social interactions in an appropriate manner.

Because the “vert words” are not really part of academic or clinical physiology, the definitions can be “elastic” and while centovert (being in the middle between introvert and extrovert) may be a synonym of ambivert, it may also be nuanced in that it suggests someone unable (or at least unwilling) to engage in introverted or extroverted behaviour, regardless of the circumstances.  A variant of the ambivert is the omnivert (someone fits into both extremes of the extroversion-introversion personality spectrum), the construct being omni + -vert.  Omni- ultimately was from the Latin omnis (all).  Again, because the “verts” are pop-psychology words there’s little to be gained from attempting to “parse the overlaps” (ie where one ends and another begins) and seems likely omniversion is simply an “enabling pre-condition” for one to possess if one is to attain the desirable “balanced state” of ambiversion.  Nobody seems yet to have coined ultravert, hypervert or ubervert but one need not spend long on social media to see the why such labels might be handy.

A self-described introvert: Lindsay Lohan explains she's an introvert; 2019 interview by broadcaster Howard Stern (b 1954).

Like other “-verts” of this ilk, otrovert was built on the model of the familiar introvert & extravert, the construct being intro + -vert.  An introvert (pronounced in-truh-vurt) is an individual who prefers (sometimes actively seeks) tranquil environments, limits social engagement and tends to a greater than average preference for solitude.  In anatomy & zoology there’s a technical meaning “a part (typically a hollow, cylindrical structure) that is or can be introverted, or turned in on itself (ie invaginate)) but the most commonly used is the psychological sense: a person characterized by concern primarily with their own thoughts and feelings.  Introverts are noted often for having a disposition that finds social engagement at least tiresome (and sometimes threatening), thus the preference for quiet solitude.  Introvert seem first to have appeared in print in the 1660s and was from the New Latin intrōvertere, the construct being intrō (within) + vertere (to turn).  The prefix intro- was from the Latin intro- (inwards) & intrā (within) + -ō (used as a verbalizer).  Although it’s not infrequent for introvert to be used as a synonym for “shy” (and in terms of observed behaviour the two phenomena can appear indistinguishable), they are definitionallly distinct.  While shyness is associated with timidity and social anxiety, introverts have a lack of interest in interpersonal engagement and a limited endurance for social contact; what that means is while the behaviours can often be the same, the underlying motivations differ.

Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut.

Introvert & extrovert are popular terms of self-description but they can also be aspirational and while the classic stereotype is of the introvert who “wishes they were more outgoing” there are other types.  The US pediatrician Dr Mark Vonnegut (b 1947) wrote short stories and in one he described his father’s (the author Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007)) desire to be a cynical, grumpy old man who despaired of humanity but could never quite manage it because of his “inherent optimism”.  As Dr Vonnegut put it, he was “…like an extrovert who wanted to be an introvert, a very social guy who wanted to be a loner, a lucky person who would have preferred to be unlucky. An optimist posing as a pessimist, hoping people will take heed.”  Explaining the difference, he added: “Introverts almost never cause me trouble and are usually much better at what they do than extroverts.  Extroverts are too busy slapping one another on the back, team building, and making fun of introverts to get much done.  Extroverts are amazed and baffled by how much some introverts get done and assume that they, the extroverts, are somehow responsible.”  On the basis of his clinical experience, he observed: “I understand perfectly why some of my autistic patients scream and flap their arms--it's to frighten off extroverts.”

An extrovert (pronounced ek-struh-vurt) is described typically as an outgoing, gregarious person who thrives in dynamic environments and seeks to maximize social engagement; in the jargon of psychology, it refers to someone characterized by extroversion; a person concerned primarily with the physical and social environment, thus the usual presentation as a person with a disposition energized through social engagement who tends to languish or chafe in solitude.  The word extrovert (the alternative spelling extravert (an example of the influence of German on psychology) is now rare) also emerged in the 1660s, the construct being extro- + vert.  In this case, extro- was a pseudo-Latinism prefix based upon the Latin extra- (outside, beyond), under the influence of the distinction between the Latin intro- (inwards) & intra- (inside; within).  In English, formations using the prefix tend to be restricted to words formed as antonyms of terms formed with intro-.

Introvert & extrovert (in their literal senses) were since the late seventeenth century used in science and medicine but both in the twentieth century entered general use when certain works by the Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875–1961) were translated from German into English.  What seems to have given the words their greatest impetus was the appearance of commentaries on Jung written for a general audience and for these purposes binary concepts like “introvert” and “extrovert” were useful devices to encapsulate layers of meaning although the trigger may have been the 1918 paper Psycho-Analytic Study of August Comte [1798-1857; a seminal figure in sociology] by psychologist Dr Phyllis Blanchard (1895-1986).  Being a woman, Dr Blanchard has been neglected by history but, like the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Jung became what would now be called a “celebrity” psychoanalyst and that happened because advances in their field (and neurology) had made the public fascinated with the human mind and its processes (especially dreams).  Reflecting what may possibly be a professional distaste at their jargon ending up in pop-psychology texts, technical papers often use the spelling “extravert”, following Jung and his contemporaries.

The Gift of Not Belonging (2025) by Dr Rami Kaminski (b 1954).  Psychiatrist Dr Kaminski is the founder and director of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York City.

Dr Kaminski describes The Gift of Not Belonging as “…the first book to explore the distinct personality style of the otrovert - someone who lacks the communal impulse and does not fit in with any social group, regardless of its members - and to reveal all the advantages of being an otrovert and how otroverts contribute to the world.”  He explained that while otroverts enjoy deep and fulfilling one-on-one relationships, within groups they feel alienated, uncomfortable, and alone.  Unlike introverts, who crave solitude and are easily drained by social interactions, otroverts can be quite gregarious and rarely tire from one-on-one socialising; unlike loners, or people who have been marginalised based on their identity, otroverts are socially embraced and often popular - yet are unable to conform with what the group collectively thinks or cares about.  Dr Kaminski positions all this as “the great gifts of being an otrovert” by which he means someone with no affinity for a particular group is not constrained by their sense of self-worth being conditioned on the group's approval.  A champion of the otrovert, Dr Kaminski suggests they “must not be harassed to take part, but allowed to revel in their glorious difference.”

Despite vying with “psychopath” for the title of “most popular” words from psychology, neither introvert and extrovert have ever been used as diagnostic terms in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); that doesn’t mean they’re not used by clinicians, just that they’re not part of the formal jargon.  That might seem curious given their not infrequent appearances in the published history of personality psychology including Jung’s original typology (codified in their most refined form in the 1920s), the ubiquitous MBTI (Myers–Briggs Type Indicator) and the Big Five model, where Extraversion is one of the five major personality traits.  These frameworks are however psychological, not psychiatric.  The DSM does of course have an extensive section on personality disorders and many of the traits related to introversion & extraversion appear including in (1) Avoidant Personality Disorder (social inhibition—links superficially to introversion but is not the same thing) and Histrionic or Narcissistic Personality Disorders (social boldness—superficially “extraverted” traits).

However, what the DSM’s editors have in recent decades done is to avoid the use of potentially ambiguous labels and focus instead on behavioural criteria that may indicate impairment or pathology.  Especially since the 1970s, the DSM has acknowledged (even championed) the idea that many “things” once classified as deviant are really part of the “normal” human condition; reflecting that paradigm, introversion & extraversion came to be understood as “normal-range” personality traits, not indicators of disorder.  As a general principle, the DSM appears to restrict the use of terms to instances where they relate to clinically significant impairment (the emphasis on the effect on the patient rather than the mechanics of process).  This approach was institutionalized with the release of DSM-5 (2013) in which the model clearly had become one of trait-based personality assessment.

To make the point, there exists in DSM-5 & DSM-5-TR (2022) the “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders, Section III” which describes personality traits that (more or less) correspond to what popular culture calls extraversion and introversion.  The editors however avoid the two popular words and instead breaks personality into trait domains with pathological versions of ordinary traits.  What general readers think of a “introversion” now appears in the DSM as “Detachment” although this is not pathologized unless it manifests in maladaptive extremes (chronic or persistent withdrawal; avoidance of social interaction; intimacy avoidance; a reluctance to form close relationships; anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure); mistrust of others; restricted affectivity (limited emotional expression)).  So, introverts can to some degree be “happy” with their state and just prefer frequent solitude and what the DSM calls “detachment” is invoked only when the trait is causing significant impairment or distress.

In the popular imagination, “extraversion” is associated with sociability, talkativeness, outgoing behaviour, enthusiasm (ie someone who is the “life of the party”).  That’s also obviously a “spectrum condition” and the DSM has never listed a single domain which could be classed as “high extraversion” which is good because high sociability isn’t intrinsically pathological.  Rather, should extraversion becomes maladaptive or extreme, the DSM classifies it across several domains:

(1) Attention-seeking (a facet of Antagonism) which manifests especially in Histrionic Personality Disorder.  Symptoms include an excessive need for approval, dramatic or provocative behaviour and an Intense desire to be the centre of attention.

(2) Grandiosity (a facet of Antagonism) which is characteristic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the symptoms including social boldness (masking fragile self-esteem) and entitlement and arrogance (which, in many cases, doesn’t manifest)

(3) Impulsivity & Risk Taking (a facet of disinhibition).  This is outgoing, sensation-seeking behaviour in its pathological form and is associated with thrill-seeking, poor impulse control and a tendency to act without considering the consequences

(4) Low Detachment: This is acknowledged as the “adaptive end of Detachment” but the editors seem to list it only to “close the circle”; it’s there because logically it has to be but is certainly not treated as a disorder.

So the DSM intentionally avoids the introvert/extrovert dichotomy which is how starkly it’s understood in popular use.  This “either-or” approach obviously doesn’t map onto the way the DSM treats personality traits as spectrums with only the margins (ie the dysfunctional extremes) described.  What that does is acknowledge there is introversion & extraversion which part of the “normal” human condition and not pathological.  Additionally it’s acknowledged the behavior which in one subject may indicate “significant impairment or distress” might in another not be of concern.