Refinement
An inclination to refinement (and the corresponding aversion to grossness) is manifest in descriptors such as “stylish,†“delicate,†“elegant,†“tasteful,†“artistic,†“sensitive,†and sometimes “arty†and “affected,†“mannered†and “posturing.†They may be understood as efforts on the part of the person to compensate for a poor self-image (so that an ugly self-image and the refined self-ideal may be seen as reciprocally supporting each other); also, they convey the attempt on the part of the person to be something different from what he or she is, perhaps connected to class envy. The lack of originality entailed by such imitativeness in turn; perpetuates an envy of originality—just as the attempt to imitate original individuals and the wish to emulate spontaneity are doomed to fail.
At face value this part legitimately surprised me, because it just flat out says that 4's are actually emulating the greats/artistics rather than actually being original themselves. You always hear that 4's are the original artistic type, so it's pretty surprising to see this part about them. (Someone else responded to this and clarified it for me, so thanks
I am not surprised by this. I can't expect any 4 would be.... Contrivance is part of being an image type.
For the 4, it's a matter of striving to meet an idealized self, and always falling short (or feeling so). 4s also "introject", which means many things but one is that we internalize concepts and use them as symbols of our identity (we also introject others' behaviors as commentary on our own significance, hence being too sensitive & absorbed). Hence, adopting style we may associate with a quality we see our fantasy self as possessing (which we see as our true selves or our potential to become).
I think "stealing" from others is a part of the shame - what is truly from YOU could not be that good. And introjection can lead to very narrow concepts if the person feels a large gap between how they appear & how they feel, although masochistic set-ups to fail in making the right impression is common here too.
But the healthier a 4 gets, the more likely they are to be more original and to create their own symbols.
This is why healthy 4s (and probably average ones too) can be extremely creative because they will believe in the significance of their own creations, the legitimacy of the meaning the create, and the depth of their insights. Prior to that, they may simply adopt a snobbishness which LOOKs like they feel they are refined, but it's something of a defense, and it also extends from an envy towards things viewed as great that the 4 sees as mundane (they become resentful and suddenly demanding of recognition, especially sx-dom). Really, lower functioning 4s may feel too bad about themselves to dare to be fully original, or to even try to create much at all. Many can get stuck in fantasy, and then at most they just have a persona of being arty or deep, with nothing much to back it up except tastes & feelings. Even these 4s can be tagged as creative by others because they will be seen as having a flair about them or great taste or always knowing what the obscure, coo stuff is, etc, but in actuality all they've created is an image (and they know it & hate themselves for it).
I assume this means that the whole thing has been explained but if not then I think I can shed light on the matter. Enneagram fours (at least those I've encountered) have a poor self image which (when not in inflated special snowflake mode) can preclude the observation of any legitimate strengths they may have - in this case that they are original in their own right. For example if one created a number of story or fantasy worlds inside their head but then they could in turn quickly determine the source(s) of the various ideas they would perceive themselves as someone only capable of mere regurgitation of the creativity of others and not actually being someone who is original and creative themselves. Perceiving themselves as a fake or deficient in their desired area they turn their attention to other creative people who they think actually possess genuine originality and creativity and desire to emulate them in order to make up for where they lack (note that they desire to emulate only in the area of their perceived deficiency. They have no desire to emulate the entire person beyond those points.)
Whilst in the above case the individual probably does fairly classify as a creative individual as they have may have turned an existing idea into a brand new permutation e.g. an idea used in a different setting or different circumstances to create a different effect this only comes into play during the inflation of the ego (the ignoring of one's self esteem issues for the sake of feeling special). It doesn't help that others come to the conclusion of originality for that individual when that individual themselves realises that the observer's opinion is created merely because they are not aware of the idea's source.
The above is just one scenario but from what I understand it occurs across the board in a large number of creative outlets (perhaps all of them).
Yes, this describes it well.
On the surface, I don't really think I have a vibe that is in your face. I've tended to prefer to blend into the woodwork and have little flair. Or understated flair.
I don't see myself as an individualist either. I don't go out of my way to be unique or anything. I do go out of my way to do or wear or say, etc, what feels most congruent with "who I am", which tends to be some idealized self. And I usually feel I fall short of it. Sometimes when I do something I know is odd but which feels right to me, I may feel some defiance of "screw it! I don't care what people think" but my demeanor is that of someone shy (and perhaps ashamed), or I will be so closed off to reactions that I seem aloof. This is likely where the "snob" tag comes in for me... I think I build a wall to fend off anticipated negative reactions to "being myself". Instead of some in-your-face individualist, I'm more like someone who sheepishly goes about being themselves, because it's too dreary not to be myself (and I'm either invisible or disliked anyway, so goes the inner monologue), not to make a statement or get a reaction.
I think true originality is impossible. We can rip off styles and stories even without consciously remembering our influences. Even absent of derivation, I constantly come up with independent, out of nowhere ideas that other people have had before just because there are so many brains in the world, and thus the probability is high. So, I just do what I to do, look as I want to look, and don't worry about that.
I can relate to this, as far as doing what I want, etc, except that I am highly aware of my inspirations/influences. I think some of the "shame" for me is being seen as "original" and "creative" by people (because I hear it a lot), but knowing my sources, and not being able to accept the positive feedback (I feel a phony even if I acted authentically). What I may fail to credit myself for is perhaps doing it in my own way or with my own flair, and more importantly, because I just like it, not because I want to be seen a certain way... I do idealize being someone who is innovative more than just striking, but I usually end up in the latter place. Why this seems original is often because there is such a juxtaposition of elements that it seems "fresh" or I will stubbornly be consistent in something to sort of brand it as "mine".
