• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Type 1] what really is enneagram 1?

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So many people vary on what makes a 1, a 1. And this discrepancy can explain why many feel 1s differently. E1 is seen as a perfectionistic rule follower. On other notes, especially with Sx 1, they are viewed as moral crusaders fighting for what they feel is right. 1 is inherently a compliance type though, so I would say Sx and 1 are a strange combo that makes the E1 look different than usual.

Nevertheless, how do you define an E1 when you see one? What makes someone an E1 truly?
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=40834]MovinOut[/MENTION] [MENTION=34313]RadicalDoubt[/MENTION] you like the leading post and no one has commented cmon debate me :p the E1 meme jk
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Hmmm, should we just copy and paste descriptions?

Best I can do is to try to explain what is the difference of type 1 morality and some types of morality that are not type 1 - highly moral/ethical people, regardless of being hypocrite, are usually attracted to this type because it is the only one that has something linked to morals.
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hmmm, should we just copy and paste descriptions?

Best I can do is to try to explain what is the difference of type 1 morality and some types of morality that are not type 1 - highly moral/ethical people, regardless of being hypocrite, are usually attracted to this type because it is the only one that has something linked to morals.

that would probably be very beneficial to explain that morality aspect. XD
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
For note, these excerpts will be taken from Wisdom of the Enneagram.

"We have named personality type One the Reformer because Ones have a sense of mission that leads them to want to improve the world in various ways, using whatever degree of influence they have. They strive to overcome adversity—particularly moral adversity—so that the human spirit can shine through and make a difference. They strive after higher values, even at the cost of great personal sacrifice."

"Ones are people of practical action—they wish to be useful in the best sense of the word. On some level of consciousness, they feel that they “have a mission” to fulfill in life, if only to try their best to reduce the disorder they see in their environment."

"Although Ones have a strong sense of purpose, they also typically feel that they have to justify their actions to themselves and often to others as well. This orientation causes Ones to spend a lot of time thinking about the consequences of their actions, as well as about how to keep from acting contrary to their convictions. Because of this, Ones often persuade themselves that they are “head” types, rationalists who proceed only on logic and objective truth. But the real picture is some¬ what different: Ones are actually activists who are searching for an acceptable rationale for what they feel they must do. They are people of instinct and passion who use convictions and judgments to control and direct themselves and their actions."

"In the effort to stay true to their principles, Ones resist being affected by their instinctual drives, consciously not giving in to them or expressing them too freely. The result is a personality type that has problems with repression, resistance, and aggression. They are usually seen by others as highly self-controlled, even rigid, although this is not how Ones experience themselves. It seems to them that they are sitting on a cauldron of passions and desires and that they had better “keep the lid on” lest they and everyone else around them regret it."

"Ones believe that being strict with themselves (and eventually becoming “perfect”) will justify themselves in their own eyes and in the eyes of others. But by attempting to create their own brand of perfection, they often create their own personal hell. Instead of agreeing with the statement in Genesis that God saw what He had created “and it was good,” Ones intensely feel, “It wasn’t—there obviously have been some mistakes here!” This orientation makes it difficult for them to trust their inner guidance—indeed, to trust life—so Ones come to rely heavily on their superego, a learned voice from their childhood, to guide them toward the greater good that they so passionately seek. When Ones have gotten completely entranced in their personality, there is little distinction between them and this severe, unforgiving voice. Separating from it and seeing its genuine strengths and limitations is what growth for Ones is about."

"In effect, the child says, “I will give myself guidelines. I will become my own father-figure and be my own moral guide. I will police myself so no one else will police me; I will punish myself so no one else will punish me." Ones try to surpass what is expected of them by adhering to the rules so rigorously that no one will be able to catch them in error, thus earning independence."

"THE ONE WITH A NINE-WING: THE IDEALIST
Healthy People of this subtype are highly discerning, wise, and civilized. They can be scholarly and erudite, maintaining a dispassion¬ ate philosophical stance that focuses on long-range concerns—the “big” picture. They can have an introverted, reclusive quality about them, seeking relief from “the maddenihg crowd,” often in quiet, natural settings. They are emotionally reserved but generous, kind, and considerate, generally loving nature, aninials, and innocence wherever they find it. They wish to improve tiling^ but with a gentler, more detached touch than other Ones.
Average Idealistic and less likely to engage in the politics and “dirty work” necessary to bring about the reforms they believe in, average people of this subtype would rather explain their ideals than personally persuade others of their correctness. The anger seen in Ones is harder to detect in this subtype than in the other, tending to express itself in stiffness, impatience, and sarcasm. People of this subtype prefer to be alone and look for situations where they can work by themselves in order to avoid dealing with the disappointing messiness of human relationships. They can be more remote, otherworldly, and impersonal than the other subtype, potentially disdainful, elitist, and condescending to their fellow humans"

"THE ONE WITH A TWO-WING: THE ADVOCATE
Healthy People of this subtype blend their quest for ideals and higher principles with empathy and compassion for others. Less purely idealistic than the other subtype, they are genuinely interested in improving the lot of mankind and more willing to get into the trenches to bring about the changes they advocate. They are also more overtly passionate and interpersonal, enjoying the give-and-take of “political” involvement. People of this subtype are persuasive and go out of their way to get others to care about the causes and beliefs they espouse.
Average Highly active and outgoing, average people of this sub- type can be fairly aggressive and forceful in the pursuit of the ideals and reforms they seek. While they are comfortable being alone and need a good deal of “down time” to recharge and think, they are also energized by engaging with others, particularly debating and refining their, ideas. This makes them naturally good at politics on whatever scale they engage in it. The needs of others are the focus for their altruism, so long as they feel they are making a difference. They can become critical and irritable and highly vocal about their discontents when they are frustrated. They are also more fiery and action-oriented than the other subtype, and so the possibility of being frustrated by people and events is higher."

"THE SELF-PRESERVATION INSTINCT IN THE ONE
Self-Control. In the average range, Self-Preservation Ones tend to worry about their material well-being, both in terms of finances and health, and they often castigate themselves for not working hard enough (like average Sixes). The Self-Preservation instinct also gives them strong drives for gratification, but their Type One superego can be severe in countering those drives. The resulting inner conflict is the source of continual stress, physical tension, and an all-or-nothing attitude with regard to their pleasures and desires. They may either indulge themselves and their desires, or go through periods of asceticism, during which their desires are suppressed as much as possible.
As they become more identified with their superego dictates, they become very fearful about making mistakes that seem like catastrophes to them. They feel that any wrong action could result in the undoing of their well-being. They can be quite picky and fastidious about their environment. (Picture Felix Unger in The Odd Couple.) They value cleanliness, order, hygiene, and aesthetics, and they are often preoccupied with health and diet, religiously subscribing to beliefs about vitamins, macrobiotics, homeopathic remedies, and so forth. With others, they tend to be overprotective about the things that they worry about in themselves. If they are worried about getting sick, they scold others about not taking care of their health. If they have money concerns, they exhort others to save. In the lower Levels, the harshness of their superego causes them to feel undeserving of any kind of comfort or reward.
In the unhealthy range, Self-Preservation Ones begin to oscillate between periods of strict restraint of their appetites and periods of excess and debauch. They often become obsessed with health matters, especially with regard to food. They often attempt to justify or undo their violations of their own dietary or health requirements. They may binge on sweets, or drink excessively, then go on a crash diet. Milkshakes and fries are followed by handfuls of vitamins. Self-Preservation Ones are prone to eating disorders and extreme practices to curb their instinctual impulses, including asceticism, excessive fasting, bingeing and purging, and so forth."

"THE SOCIAL INSTINCT IN THE ONE
The Crusader. In the average range, Social Ones believe that they represent objective values, social standards, and that they speak for others. Teaching, advocating, and moralizing can be part of the picture, but mostly about social issues and about rules and procedures. They are often interested in politics, current affairs, and journalism and are adept at uncovering the “dirt,” exposing wrongdoing and speaking out against injustices. On the other hand, they will work patiently to bring about the reforms they see as necessary—improving the local schools, getting their co-op involved with recycling, and so forth.
Social Ones derive a vivid sense of themselves by holding strong opinions and convictions and arguing for their perspective. They value these qual¬ ities in others as well, although when more fixated, they expect others always to agree with them. This can lead to rigidity both in their thinking and in their behavior. Their views can become a boundary, an armor against die world. And since Ones apply the rules most rigorously to themselves, they fear ever being caught contradicting their own stated beliefs and opinions.
Although Social Ones insist that others should not take their criticisms and views personally, they take things personally, often reacting to public policies as if they were personal affronts or triumphs.
In the unhealthy range, Social Ones hold unrealistic standards and expectations for themselves, others, and society at large. They may be¬ come involved in extreme political views or strict religious dogmas (libertarianism is the only solution to the country’s ills; no sexual activity in marriage unless it can lead directly to conception). In the lower Levels, they can engage in rants and tirades, constantly feeling outrage at the imperfections of humanity."

"THE SEXUAL INSTINCT IN THE ONE
Shared Standards. . In the average range, Sexual Ones want a flawless relationship with an idealized partner. They long for the perfect mate, an unwavering source of stability in their lives. In this respect, they can be mistaken for Fours. They have high expectations of their partner, their family, and their close friends and want to believe that the other person in the relationship holds the same standards. (“We share these ideals, don’t we?”) Sexual Ones fear that the other will fall short, thus destroying the harmony and perfection of the relationship. This can lead to feeling that they must push loved ones to meet their standards. They also may have trouble finding someone who meets their standards, trying one relationship after another but always feeling disappointed.
Sexual Ones place a great emphasis on fidelity. (“Love is forever.”) Although they do not appear needy, they often suffer from well-hidden fears of abandonment and a chronic sense of loneliness. The mix of high expectations with abandonment issues can result in a critical, controlling attitude toward the partner. (“Don’t ever let me down. Don’t ever deceive me.”) At lower Levels, they may constantly need to “check in” on the other’s activities and whereabouts. Sexual Ones feel that they have earned a good relationship, earned their pleasure, and feel threatened at the possible loss of one of their few areas of reward. Criticism and control may be used to keep the other off balance, to undermine confidence, thus postponing potential abandonment.
In the unhealthy range, the Sexual variant endows them with strong desires and appetites, but this is difficult to justify to the One’s superego. Sexual Ones may experience intense desire alternating with a need to reject that desire. This may lead to both sexual compulsivity and repression. (“I don’t want to be attracted to him.”) At the same time, they may believe that the other is the source of their obsessions and want to control the other so that the balance of the relationship can be restored. Less healthy Sexual Ones are prey to bouts of intense jealousy. Their fears are such that they constantly question and grill the other. In extreme cases, they may punish the self or others to purge themselves of their desires."
 

KurtCobain

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
40
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Morality for the 1 depends on their source of morality. An evangelical 1w2, for example, could be a "righteous mission" against the LGBT community for instance, and think punishing LGBT people for their "sin" is a good act.
 

Red Memories

Haunted Echoes
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
6,315
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
215
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Morality for the 1 depends on their source of morality. An evangelical 1w2, for example, could be a "righteous mission" against the LGBT community for instance, and think punishing LGBT people for their "sin" is a good act.

this sounds a little more like Fe + So 1. Other one subtypes are gonna be a little "less" crusadery. XD But that is fair, their mission can be based on that morality. But certainly not every E1 is doing that specifically. I feel like part of my moral mission is to tell LGBT+ people that them being themselves and meeting their needs really is not against the will of God. XD
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
Ok, my time to explain.

Morality for the 1 depends on their source of morality. An evangelical 1w2, for example, could be a "righteous mission" against the LGBT community for instance, and think punishing LGBT people for their "sin" is a good act.

That's right! Perhaps it is good that I use your post as example and starting point.
The first thing to note here is that the notion that 1 is a gut type - and the notion that they are an 'instinct type' - comes as after Frauve came up with the notion of head, heart and gut divisions - these divisions does not belong to the original enneagram and they come from 'studies' that are only mentioned by Frauve and are not even shown on her website in any accessible way - and so far I had found no source from Google Scholar referring to Frauve. And the bridges between enneagram and other typing systems, specially MBTI->Jung Typology does suggest that her division is NOT actually proper or right. So I will ignore any affirmations that 1 is an 'instinct type', specially because of the inconsistencies that comes with it (saying that a type is instinctual and them saying that it is rational it is sort of a inconsistency) (fixing it with 'they deny instinct' but are an instinct type does not help much - to try to picture the absurd imagine if I said that INFP is a thinker type because they deny Te).

So, Type 1 main characteristics:
- Idealistic
- Rational
- Principled
- Purposeful
- Self-Controlled
- Perfectionist
- Conscientious (High Conscientious -> Very likely J on MBTI dichotomy)

Some other complementary characteristics:
- Organized/orderly
- Sense of practical action
- Rigid

This set of characteristics is the one which links to Jung Te and they are anti-Ne, but anyway, the first thing to note here is that Fi has a different set of characteristics and yet has some kind of principles - like INFP/ISFP not ones are principled too and can be moralistic as well - looking for the right thing, but on a completely different way. This way is Moral Sentimentalism - this is perhaps the most antagonistic kind of morals to type 1.

Moral sense theory - Wikipedia

"Moral sense theory (also known as moral sentimentalism) is a theory in moral epistemology and meta-ethics concerning the discovery of moral truths. Moral sense theory typically holds that distinctions between morality and immorality are discovered by emotional responses to experience. Some take it to be primarily a view about the nature of moral facts or moral beliefs (a primarily metaphysical view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "sentimentalism". Others take the view to be primarily about the nature of justifying moral beliefs (a primarily epistemological view)—this form of the view more often goes by the name "moral sense theory". However, some theorists take the view to be one which claims that both moral facts and how one comes to be justified in believing them are necessarily bound up with human emotions." - Basically, it is the 'I feel something is good or bad' kind of moralism, that concept was born before Jung conceptualized Fi (it is sort of old). However, this kind of moralism does lack the objectivity that is supposed to be tied to type 1 and it is not rational at all and it does hits indirect aspects of Self-Controlling and Conscientious and there is not really much of a perfectionism notion on it most of the time - so it is a kind of moralism that it is uncovered by enneagram and it is one kind of moralism, that might even bring some sort of activism, that is not at all type 1 because it is against multiple type 1 main traits.

The enneagram definitions of what 'principles and morals' means to type 1 is a lot vague, which makes some of the 'enneagram defenders' not want to admit that there are morals that do not fit type 1 (because that would imply that the enneagram does not cover all types and that additional types, like a type 10 or type 11, could be created independently from enneagram types). But there are set of traits that narrows the kind of morality ones have. The perfectionism united with the "rational-objectivism" that type 1 have need a very specific code or set of codes - this is where the rigidity comes from. If they do not have that code, they lose the objectivity and rationality - it either becomes too subjective (as moral sentimentalism is) and irrational (as moral sentimentalism is mostly, since for Jung it is still rational), which changes the set of characteristics and starts to go against type 1 waayy too hard. The morality from type 1 is of a normative nature, in a lot of times will be a Deontological set of ethics and morals ("In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.[1] It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation-, or rule-based ethics.[2][3] Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism,[4] virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics."), it needs some sort of set of prescriptions (that is why it fits Te and SJ - it has an intellectual formula underneath). These are characteristics that not all ethics and morals have, moral sentimentalism being the best example, but some other that might develop in a different way might be Moral Universalism and the ones that are commonly contrasted to deontological ethics.

So, basically, the source of their morality is the deontological code of morality - which can be viewed as a Jung intellectual formula - so what it is considered principled, right or wrong, but as Jung covered also what is the truth, what is real and what is false, is according to what the set of prescribed rules says, which in the evangelical example that is to punish LGBT people because they are sinners (they are sinners for being against their set of code). That is how the 1 become rigid, dogmatic, intolerant, inflexible.

Not all 1s are these way, only most of them; A 'quality of a type 1' in other kinds of ethics depends a lot on which code they are really adopting and how good or bad the code is. In terms of D&D, 1s are lawful in nature - even though they are not necessarily conformists because their code can be quite unpopular or popular. But they are not necessarily good, they can be evil (think of them following a Sith Code, for example). Some 1s might grow (and in one of the enneagram theories, their path of grow is towards type 7) more spontaneous and flexible - they might 'hear that inner voice' and makes them complement their morality, becoming a sort of less rigid and a morality of higher quality - but if they get deep on that way too much, that loses the conscientious, perfectionism, etc... characteristics.

I am not really an expert in the philosophy of moral and ethics, but I guess my limited knowledge with consulting does do it. So, that is my explanation of 1s kind of morality and my mentions of kinds of morality that are not type 1s. Some people might be a lot moralistic/ethical, yet they end up belonging to other enneagram types because 1 type of morality is not for them. That actually does expose a flaw on enneagram, because not necessarily you are a 1 if you want to be right and nor for having integrity, but also some 1s might falsify evidence or material in the name of their own code, which does not make them corrupt on their point of view (since that is for the code) but makes them corrupt in the very basic ethics for falsifying information that contradicts reality and deceiving in the name of the code. These kinds of things can also trigger wars, 1s that have clashing doctrines tends to be in conflict with each other.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It's been a long time since the first few years of this forum, and a lot changed from then and may no longer be applicable, but I remember some observations I accumulated about how people discussed different types. Back then an absurdly large percentage of people self-typed as either E4 or E5. Perhaps all of the people would really be classified as such types by some perfectly objective typing instrument, and this forum just had a way of attracting those types at the time, but I really doubt it. I think the types were simply over-assigned. There was some element to the culture, either on this forum, or with Enneagram in general, or maybe even society at large (maybe all combined!) that made people inclined to think of themselves as those types. Then there were some second tier types, like E6, E7, E9. E8 was a little rarer than those. But the conspicuously rare were 1, 2, and 3 (conveniently enough). Hardly anyone typed as those back then, and I noticed, seemingly in accord with that, people had the most cartoonish concept of what those types were like. It seemed to me that while 4s and 5s were understood to show a reasonably human variation in personality, 1s, 2s, and 4s were held to unreasonably narrow standards and thus few "qualified". They were more like types that only ever existed elsewhere, in theory, never here in person.

In my case, I think just the fact that I'm an atheist utilitarian pretty much ruled out E1 for a lot of people. Wouldn't you know, there's a post right above saying 1s are deontologists. So I guess I guess correct.

To actually answer the question, instead of meta-answering, I don't actually have a lot to add onto the Riso quotes. They mostly work, and the Enneagram is not science or math, is not anything beyond what the literature says. I will say, in my background, I derived the greater part of my Enneagram understanding from Helen Palmer, not Riso. Her way of putting it was very simple: That festering beneath all of a 1s motives (shallowly or deeply) is the fear that one is not lovable if not perfect, so mistakes are not okay, mistakes are not lovable. Now, if we take that as our only premise (eschewing the many pages of material she wrote in detail about 1s), we can see the potential for a lot of variation. There's never just one way to deal with a motive like that. It grows out like a fractal.

For instance, a 1's fear of being seen in their flaws could on one hand make them blustery posers, basically trying to push ahead with demonstrations of their goodness, but the other hand they could decide that discretion is the better part of valor and become afraid to try anything at all because an attempt means a chance of failure. Perhaps the most fundamental variations in a 1 relate to their estimation of where their worth is at and where it is going. That alone would give us at least three possible modes. You can have a 1 who is ashamed of their imperfections but believes them to be curable and thus works industriously at some notion of self-improvement. You can have a 1 who has resigned to the realization they can never be perfect but has not shaken off the fear that this makes them unlovable and accordingly despairs in a socially avoidant way. Lastly, you can have a 1 that has managed to convince themselves of their achieved perfection and feels entitled to being recognized for it.

The point being, a simple premise like "I must be perfect to be loved" can turn into some very different looking things. Those three different imagined people have the same core premise, so they do have something important in common, but that does not keep them from adopting behaviors externally different enough to perhaps come across as unrelated to the outside observer.
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
The problem is that "perfect" or "moral" is something that is quite culturally defined. Therefore e1 can have quite a diversity in itself.
Similar as e3 or e6. What is probably because all those 3 types represent "the system" and therefore they look quite differently from system to system.
 

Indigo Rodent

Active member
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
439
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
1w9
So many people vary on what makes a 1, a 1. And this discrepancy can explain why many feel 1s differently. E1 is seen as a perfectionistic rule follower. On other notes, especially with Sx 1, they are viewed as moral crusaders fighting for what they feel is right. 1 is inherently a compliance type though, so I would say Sx and 1 are a strange combo that makes the E1 look different than usual.

Nevertheless, how do you define an E1 when you see one? What makes someone an E1 truly?
Core motivations/fears and childhood experiences. Big problem is that E1 stereotype description is based on TJs. Also, just because one is perfectionist, it doesn't mean one is actually capable of keeping up with the perfectionist ideas. For some people for example perfectionist standards of work may be a way to success, for other they may lead to very quick burnout.
In my case perfectionism at school led to basically trying hard for like two weeks and then falling apart, and this repeating every semester. It was partially related not fitting me energetically as an ENFP, partially learning disabilities and partially generally being disabled due to trauma. So for example I'd want to have perfect notes despite having dysgraphia and wanting perfect attendance despite insomnia, IBS, school phobia, etc. etc. etc.

I became E1 mainly beause of childhood experiences. I grew up in evil environment and had to lift myself morally out of it.
I wrote a bit about the evils of my upbringing in this post:
NIGHTMARE — My Struggle Against the Twisted World - An Artist...

My E1 nature often comes through my art:
NIGHTMARE (Posts tagged a twisted world)

NIGHTMARE (Posts tagged world of terror)
 

mancino

Enlightened!
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
125
MBTI Type
NFJ
I agree with most of what's been said. I would highlight a couple of things:

We have named personality type One the Reformer because Ones have a sense of mission that leads them to want to improve the world in various ways, using whatever degree of influence they have. They strive to overcome adversity—particularly moral adversity—so that the human spirit can shine through and make a difference. They strive after higher values, even at the cost of great personal sacrifice."

"Ones are people of practical action—they wish to be useful in the best sense of the word. On some level of consciousness, they feel that they “have a mission†to fulfill in life, if only to try their best to reduce the disorder they see in their environment.
This pretty much summarizes it all: E1 is not a moral person per se, it's a Moralist. Some other sources underline that 1s are people of action, hence the Reformer nickname. The key is not the moral code, is acting in the environment according to a set of inner standards. Picture Si in Cognitive Functions as an inner reference, plus Te as an outer tool. Not only, of course, just as an archetype: Si-Te.

E1 can be moral, or not; it's besides the point.
Also, one can be moral and not be an E1, because, say, one is an Fi-dom (as it has been said) and is a E9, or E4, or E6, for example, all common types for people with deeply held moral values.
E1 has more of a Code of Honor, not necessarily moral, more rules abiding. E1 has also the strongest superego, hence the rigidity: you can't negotiate with your superego.

So, basically, the source of their morality is the deontological code of morality - which can be viewed as a Jung intellectual formula
Yes, pretty much: permanent in satisfactions with the world because it doesn't fit with the formula. Starting from oneself.
Idealism comes to mind, but it's a tricky word, because it's the same word for Keirsey's NFs.

the fear that one is not lovable if not perfect, so mistakes are not okay, mistakes are not lovable
Yes. Just the core motivation. The rest are "common traits", not necessarily all present, sometimes overlapping with other E-types, other times just misleading.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Magic Poriferan said:
the fear that one is not lovable if not perfect, so mistakes are not okay, mistakes are not lovable
Yes. Just the core motivation. The rest are "common traits", not necessarily all present, sometimes overlapping with other E-types, other times just misleading.

Shinji Ikari internal dialogue

I've been meaning to post this for a while. My enneagram 1 score comes up the highest. I believe, enneagram 1 tendency forms due to the parents expecting the child to act like an adult and placing too much expectations on the child.

Sensitive children (i.e. Ni-doms) crumble under this pressure and try to do their best to please the parents, which however results in them an overly developed superego (internal critic/monitor/quality auditor) and consequently an underdeveloped ego/self-esteem, meaning they give precedence to others' needs/expectations of them over their own needs.

As a result, they don't know their own needs because they have not been allowed to developed their own sense of self and style/preferences. In later ages, once the Ones develop their ego, they can reign in their superego dictates. Also, the superego becomes a powerful ally in conceptualizing how things can be improved/optimized (perfection=optimal) because they've been doing that on themselves their whole life.

As an example I've summarized my parent's demeanor below, which might shed some light on why I am scoring very high on enneagram 1 trait.

I'd appreciate any suggestions as to what their enneagram or MBTI types might be.

Father

Mother
 

mancino

Enlightened!
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
125
MBTI Type
NFJ
A quick reply:
Father is R_OEN. I'd say limbic because he seems to be reactive under pressure. If that's the case, I'd say Enneagram 6. Outside ideology clinging points to so 6, showing anger to sx 6.
MBTI: I don't see N whatsoever, so S; he seems conservative and traditional, and rigid (but he's not young anymore). Reserved, tough-minded, not empathic, rigid and difficult to deal with... ISTJ.

Mother: Difficult to say... _LUAN. Limbic is clear. Agreeable, too, although reactive emotionally... If she's mostly numb and lost in trivial stuff, then E9. If she's all into belonging and finding security in her relationships, then E6. A common E6-E9 push-pull, a lot of people are like this. Look for the most stable modus operandi: worrying about what could go wrong or just numbing out. Either way, I'd say Self Preservation.
MBTI: No N again, so S. Between SJ and SP you say she's disorderly, however very consensus-driven and relationship oriented, traditional, not pragmatic... I'd say more Guardian SJ rather than Artisan SP. Her F is quite clear (lack of T), so SP would make her SFP Entertainer vs SJ that would make her SFJ Conservator. I'd go with the latter.
E/I: you say she doesn't initiate, so she's more low-energy, hence I see a I lean.
 

mancino

Enlightened!
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
125
MBTI Type
NFJ
Shinji Ikari internal dialogue
The core is "I have to be what they tell me to be, otherwise I'm nobody, useless, not worthy of their love" this is the Core Motivation of E3! (Notice I haven't seen Evangelion and know nothing about it, though, just this clip.

It's a common mistype and very thoroughly addressed by the Enneagram Institute. Can't say for you or the anime character, but I thought it's worth sharing.

Misidentifying Ones and Threes​


Average Ones and average Threes are sometimes mistaken because both types are efficient and highly organized. If an isolated behavior is the only thing being considered (chairing a business meeting or planning a vacation, for instance), their organizational abilities are similar–hence the confusion between them. Both are highly task-oriented and tend to put their feelings on the back burner to get things done. Also, both share a desire to improve themselves and to meet high standards, although the basis of their standards and their key motivations are quite different in nature.
Average Ones are idealists, striving for perfection and order in every area of their lives, especially their emotional lives, in an effort to control both themselves and their environment so that errors and failures of all sorts will not be introduced. Inner-motivated by strong consciences, they are organized and efficient so as not to waste time and other resources or allow themselves to be in a position for their consciences to rebuke them for being imperfect, for not trying hard enough, or for being guilty of some form of selfishness.
Average Threes, by contrast, are efficient pragmatists, not idealists. Threes are driven more by their goals than by standards–they care more about getting the job done than about the particulars of how it gets done. Ones tend to be attached to particular methods or procedures ("This is the best way to do this.") Threes are more adaptable, and will change tactics quickly if they feel they are not getting the desired result. Average Threes are primarily interested in success, prestige, and advancing their careers, and the efficiency we see in them is a way of attaining those goals.
While both types tend to put their feelings aside for the sake of efficiency, average Threes are more able to mask whatever is bothering them. On the surface, they rarely appear emotionally disturbed for long by anything (although they may become momentarily discouraged or even depressed by setbacks), nor are they generally ever distracted by their feelings. They are able to invest most of their energy into achieving their goals and in staying focused on them single-mindedly. Ones are far less able to conceal their irritations and disappointments. Others are almost immediately aware of their agitation.
Both types can be cool and impersonal, although they are usually polite and well mannered. With average Ones, we get the impression of deeper feelings being held in check or sublimated elsewhere, say into organizing and maintaining their office space, or giving time to a local ecological organization. Even though Ones do not ordinarily allow their passions to be expressed, their emotions remain potentially available should the self-control Ones typically exercise be lifted. (Their most prevalent negative emotions are righteous anger, indignation, irritation, and guilt.) In average Threes, however, the impression of aloofness and of emotional coolness comes more from a detachment from their feelings rather than a suppression of them. At the same time, average Threes tend to present whatever emotion seems appropriate at the time. If seriousness is called for, they tend to project seriousness. If levity is required, they will "do levity," smiling and being chatty, even if inside they are feeling frightened, overwhelmed, or even sad. For better or worse, Threes are more skilled at projecting charm and "personality" than Ones. However, we can discern the underlying detachment from deeper feelings when Threes are "performing" by the abruptness and ease with which they can adjust their affect from situation to situation and from person to person. (In contrast to Ones, their most prevalent negative emotions are hostility, arrogance, and underlying feelings of shame and humiliation.)
In addition, Ones are trying to be perfect to fend off their own superegos, while Threes are trying to excel to overcome feelings of family shame. In effect, Ones say, "Listen to me–I know the right way to do things," whereas Threes say, "Be like me–I have got it together." Ones offer themselves as examples of those who are striving for perfection, particularly moral perfection, they see themselves as those who can meet the highest standards; Threes offer themselves as exemplars of individual perfection, particularly personal desirability, and as those who can accomplish and be the best.
These two types are similar because both types are "thinking" types–the One corresponds to Jung's extroverted thinking type (PT, 381), who attempts to be objective and impersonal, while the Three's thinking is goal-oriented and pragmatic, similar in orientation to the extroverted thinking of the average One, although technically, there is no direct Jungian correlation. Both types have in mind some sort of goal that they want to achieve. The difference is that Ones attempt to discover which objective means will best lead to the desired ideal, whereas Threes are pragmatists who work backward to find the most efficient means to achieve their goal. The differences between these types can be seen by comparing Al Gore (a One) with Bill Clinton (a Three) or between Emma Thompson (a One) and Jane Pauley (a Three).
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
Ones say, "Listen to me–I know the right way to do things," whereas Threes say, "Be like me–I have got it together." Ones offer themselves as examples of those who are striving for perfection, particularly moral perfection, they see themselves as those who can meet the highest standards; Threes offer themselves as exemplars of individual perfection, particularly personal desirability, and as those who can accomplish and be the best.

Shinji doesn't have it together, he doesn't see himself desirable.

These two types are similar because both types are "thinking" types–the One corresponds to Jung's extroverted thinking type (PT, 381), who attempts to be objective and impersonal, while the Three's thinking is goal-oriented and pragmatic, similar in orientation to the extroverted thinking of the average One, although technically, there is no direct Jungian correlation. Both types have in mind some sort of goal that they want to achieve.

This interpretation is wrong in that neither the one nor the the three is a thinking type. One is a gut type, which means they decide not by their heart or head but by instinct.

The three OTOH is a heart type, meaning they decide based on their feelings.


 

mancino

Enlightened!
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
125
MBTI Type
NFJ
Shinji doesn't have it together, he doesn't see himself desirable.
As I said, I don't know the character. But remember: it's not what one DOES or DOESN'T. It's about what one WANTS.
3s can feel really undesirable; actually, most 3s are driven by the fear of being undesirable and thus unlovable. Failure can make 3s spiral downwards and get suicidal if the see the performance they want is unattainable - which usually is by the way.

This interpretation is wrong in that neither the one nor the the three is a thinking type. One is a gut type, which means they decide not by their heart or head but by instinct.
Notice the quotation marks around "thinking" in the quote: they're there for a purpose. They're saying that E1 is a "thinking" type in Jungian terms: Te, actually, the "intellectual formula" @Vendrah pointed out above.
My long quoted passage is from here:
They pretty much know what they're talking about!

Again, Riso-Hudson:

IN THE FEELING TRIAD

In the Instinctive Triad, we saw how seldom we really occupy our bodies and are really present with our full vitality. In the same way, we seldom dare to be fully in our hearts. When we are, it is often overwhelming. We therefore substitute all kinds of reactions for the power of real feelings. This is the core dilemma of the Feeling Triad: types Two, Three, and Four.
  1. CONCERNED WITH: Love of False Self & Self-Image
  2. HAVE ISSUES WITH: Identity & Hostility
  3. SEEKS: Attention
  4. UNDERLYING FEELING: SHAME

They say "Feeling" Triad, but I would not use "Feeling" as a shorthand for any E-type. First of all, because it's a MBTI-Jung loaded word, so prone to misunderstaninding. (Same with "Thinking"). Better HEAD/HEART/GUT, although they're misleading too because you'd hardly put, say, Tom Cruise in the "Heart" group unless you're into this a lot. It's counterintuitive.

2-3-4 are better seen as ATTENTION-SEEKERS

And 1?

IN THE INSTINCTIVE TRIAD

Types Eight, Nine, and One have formed around distortions in their instincts, the root of our life-force and vitality. The Instinctive Triad is concerned with the intelligence of the body, with basic life functioning and survival.
  1. CONCERNED WITH: Resistance & Control of the Environment
  2. HAVE ISSUES WITH: Aggression & Repression
  3. SEEKS: Autonomy
  4. UNDERLYING FEELING: RAGE
I don't have such a clear definition as for the 2-3-4 above. I'll try, though:
8-9-1 are ENVIRONMENT-CONTROL-SEEKERS
I think this includes 9 as well. If you say "Action" center, again, 9s are hard to see there; but with my shorthand, I think it captures the theme of the 3 of them: they all want to control they environment by controlling boundaries:
8 assert (their id) and enforce boundaries outwardly
1 comply (to the superego) and enforce boundaries inwardly
9 withdraw (their ego) and get stuck enforcing boundaries both outwardly and inwardly
 
Last edited:

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I'll just put this here. From thereon, it becomes quite clear which enneagram type might be related to which MBTI function.

Any other MBTI to enneagram correlations proposed are inaccurate either due to mistyping or due to a problem in the design of the tests.

Enneagram 1 as you put it, controls themselves inwardly rather than their environment, which means they cannot be an extravert to begin with, because their primary attitude is to act on themselves.

1659441382369.png
 

mancino

Enlightened!
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
125
MBTI Type
NFJ
I usually don't mix Enneagram and MBTI-Jung, they're best kept separated IMHO. Moreover, I don't like to contradict people that I don't really know, @yeghor , because it's easy to lose control of the debate and turn it into an argument.

However, if you really want to cross-correlate the two system, ask @Vendrah , he's pretty much the Guru of Combos.
Check this out:

If you look at the table, you'll see that ETJs alone add up 10% of 1w9 column (grand total around 40%+) and a whooping 20% of 1w2 column (grand total, again some 40%+). Almost half of E1 are ETJ there.
According to that data, the MBTI dichotomy preference that's incompatible with E1 is P, not E. Almost no Ps in E1. E1 is almost the J archetype; Naranjo relates it with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder.

This is also coherent with the Enneagram Institute take on Jung, correlating E1 with Te (not that I trust Cognitive Functions, either).
I can't manipulate the numbers in the table, but TJs are probably more than 80% of E1, with a somewhat even E/I split. The rest are FJs, with Ps almost nonexistent.
 

yeghor

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
4,276
I usually don't mix Enneagram and MBTI-Jung, they're best kept separated IMHO. Moreover, I don't like to contradict people that I don't really know, @yeghor , because it's easy to lose control of the debate and turn it into an argument.

However, if you really want to cross-correlate the two system, ask @Vendrah , he's pretty much the Guru of Combos.
Check this out:

If you look at the table, you'll see that ETJs alone add up 10% of 1w9 column (grand total around 40%+) and a whooping 20% of 1w2 column (grand total, again some 40%+). Almost half of E1 are ETJ there.
According to that data, the MBTI dichotomy preference that's incompatible with E1 is P, not E. Almost no Ps in E1. E1 is almost the J archetype; Naranjo relates it with Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder.

This is also coherent with the Enneagram Institute take on Jung, correlating E1 with Te (not that I trust Cognitive Functions, either).
I can't manipulate the numbers in the table, but TJs are probably more than 80% of E1, with a somewhat even E/I split. The rest are FJs, with Ps almost nonexistent.
Correlations are wrong. Even you yourself said enneagram 1 applies the controls inwardly on himself rather than on the environment. How can someone be an enneagram 1 and an extravert at the same time? They can't.

That means there's something wrong with how enneagram test questions are evaluated to associate the person with a certain enneagram score. If they fine tune it, and the person answers the questions fairly consistently, we wouldn't have extraverted thinkers associated with an introverted gut type (that means either Ni or Si).
 
Top