Let us suppose a simple situation in which you have been without a job for six months and you have an interview with a firm you very much want to work for. The temptation, in preparing for the interview, is to anticipate what the interviewer will ask and to formulate answers and views that will please him or her. If that happens, then during the interview, the mind of the applicant will be dominated by these preformed opinions and be unable to hear what the interviewer is actually asking. So meek enables us to listen without prejudice and to maintain an attitude of inquisitiveness toward the situation. We trust ourselves to wait and listen.

As an example of Meek we could consider someone presenting himself for a job interview with the personnel manager of a company. We have a tendency to pre-formulate what might be asked of us and to review the qualities, as we see them, that would qualify us for this job. We consider everything we know about the company and everything that we can think of that qualifies us to work for it. We are trying desperately to avoid being caught by surprise. But it happens that this personnel manager has devised a different way of interviewing. He asks a series of indirect questions that seem to have nothing to do with the job. He chats for awhile about the latest government decision on taxation, or health care, or troops here or there. He is interested in collecting stamps and wonders what interests you as a hobby.

As the interview goes on, nothing you have prepared for comes up at all. You are determined nevertheless to make your points, so you drag in your qualifications at every possible moment. You try to change the topic to something about the company, but he will have none of it. You are feeling more and more lost, more alienated and more nervous. He of course is quite at ease. He is discovering that you are somewhat rigid in habit, a bit compulsive in following your own mind. That you are not in touch with what you want and like, and that you are indifferent to quality.

On the other hand, when the personnel manager relaxes and begins to ask questions, ignoring your insertions of interest or experience, you may decide that he likes you and that the job is yours. Confirmed by this assumption, you relax and chat with him. You tell stories to match his stories. You show yourself to be a thoroughly entertaining fellow. Indeed, you become so confident that you begin to babble about whatever comes up in your mind. Being no longer worried, you can relax and "be yourself." Of course "your self," from the personnel manager's point of view, is easily distracted, inattentive, and on the job likely to be undisciplined. He may detect a lack of openness that keeps you in touch with a situation or feel that you jumped to soon out of the interview.

From the point of view of Meek, the opposite would happen. You would have no "plan" for the interview but an open mind. Like the tiger (or the domestic cat) you would be inquisitive, alert, attentive to the nuances of the interview. Since you are confident, a confidence based more on Basic Goodness than your personal accomplishments, it leaves you free to relate to what is going on. It is clear as you listen that the personnel manager wants to know who you are as "this person." Let us suppose that he wants sensitive and responsive persons who can learn many things, who are adaptive and intelligent. If you are open, you can respond to this line of questioning without ever explicitly defining it, for defining the direction of the interview might lead to deception. One would be saying, in effect, "Ah Hah, Now I see what he wants," and then proceed to give it to him. That is the approach through fear and cocoon.

When Perky begins to manifest at some point in the interview, it may be because something happens that is of particular interest and relevance to the applicant. It seems to offer possibilities of a positive interaction and we begin to feel even more confidence, and a sense of insight into what is happening. We could begin to see possibilities of how we could respond more positively. This uplifted sense is what we mean by perky. It actually touches deeper levels of understanding which frees us from any doubts we may have had. We sit up straighter, like the interesting part of a movie.

The third dignity, outrageous, has a sense of daring to it. We feel fearless and we are confident in our insights. We are not likely to be deceived in what we feel because of the previous openness of meek that enabled us to hear properly. So outrageous has a sense of leaping in to the situation without hesitation or doubt. Outrageous confirms what we have heard and joins it with potential action. It’s like coming down sharply with a sword. We see an opening in the conversation to state clearly and confidently what we believe we can contribute to this company. Our decision has this clarity because it is not obscured by ego games, by fear and doubt.

There is always a danger in any complex action that we will begin to identify with our own solutions to the problem. We try to push what we feel on others. This is he birth of aggression once more. But inscrutable, which sees the close of the situation, has a playful quality that eschews using the situation to enhance our own power or image with others. It maintains a perspective that encompasses many possibilities but has no need to push things toward some particular outcome. In a sense, having responded through meek, perky, and outrageous, we can let go and things will unfold of their own accord. When a colleague and I taught a version of the dignities to an MBA class in the College of Business, this last was for some the most difficult. Having made their choice, decided on the avenue of action, they were unable to let go. Inscrutable is know how to let go.