[Type 4] Type 4s and skepticism

[CuriousFeeling]

Although skepticism and questioning authority is mainly a type 5 and 6 trait, according to Enneagram theory, can type 4's be skeptical, especially about authority or wanting the truth to be told, have the desire for others to be authentic about what they say and what facts they deliver? And can type 4's be proponents for free will?

Just curious.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I wouldn't call it "skeptical" in myself.... I think the traits you mention are common, but actually stem from an idealistic mindset. It can appear as devaluing external things, like authority; being true to self is more important than following rules, and when rules threaten the image of self, they may be rejected. From here you get the concepts of free will & authenticity forming. You need these in order to create that "unique" identity after all .

 

[CuriousFeeling]

In other words the "skepticism" might actually root from having an idealistic view of the world, and then upon discovering that reality doesn't match these set ideals, the type 4 paves their own path and if someone challenges their views of how they wish the world would be, or how people should act, they obstinately take the route that they feel best suits their needs. An example of this might be in the case of observing politicians selling their political ideology to get voted into someplace, and if their platform is not congruent with the type 4's ideals, they will end up discounting the politicians and choosing a path that is more authentic to the type 4's core internal values. I think this is similar to the point that you are making.

This is an interesting way of viewing it, though. Basically saying "I don't agree with you because you don't support the same things I support. I cannot will myself to go against my core values."

 

[Adasta]

In other words the "skepticism" might actually root from having an idealistic view of the world, and then upon discovering that reality doesn't match these set ideals, the type 4 paves their own path and if someone challenges their views of how they wish the world would be, or how people should act, they obstinately take the route that they feel best suits their needs. An example of this might be in the case of observing politicians selling their political ideology to get voted into someplace, and if their platform is not congruent with the type 4's ideals, they will end up discounting the politicians and choosing a path that is more authentic to the type 4's core internal values.

You've just explained my own "political quandry" (4w5). Using an example from UK politics, the Labour party moved from its traditionally Left political stance towards the centre-right of the political spectrum after its failure in 1992 general election. When it won the election in 1997, it was a centre-right party. This change was enacted to "make the party electable" while still being to the Left of the Conse greatest attraction, politically speaking.

In terms of scepticism and the desire for "facts", you (or the argument you're describing) are positing things from "the other angle", so to speak. It's not facts I require, or even truthfulness per se, but a loyalty to the ideology to which I (and therefore we) ascribe. I want people to be truthful to this, rather than just "truthful". A truthful politician, for example, could say something like "the economic situation has changed and it would be easier for us at this moment to do this like X rather like Y". S/he is being truthful about the situation while justifying a complete shift in ideology from what was previously agreed/expected.

In short, my scepticism is one based on whether or not the actions are true to the original ("perfect") vision.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

This is definitely eye-opening for me, because I desire that politicians, or any leader, to be truthful and live up to their word, and would rather follow a leader that has values in common with me. But from seeing the state of how a lot of American politicians are these days, ones flipping from one extreme to the other, I feel like not all of my views are shared with both parties. Additionally, I find that what they say and what they do are two completely different things, so I have a great deal of suspicion that they will follow through. Perhaps my skepticism is actually seeking the truth for not only truth's sake, but also to satisfy my ideals of a society that will say what they mean, and mean what they say.

From a scientific standpoint, I have the philosophy of wanting the facts to be proven. But even then, I still end up idealizing the scientific method and put it on a pedestal, and kind of romanticize the acquisition of knowledge through scientific discovery and inquiry. I think it is wondrous and science has unlocked the power leading to innovative inventions that have advanced humanity as a whole. If someone of authority challenges the validity of science (i.e. the natural selection vs. intelligent design argument), I feel as if it is a challenge on my core values. I will end up supporting science in the end. I suppose I support Darwin not only because I agree with his theory of natural selection ,but also his theories were not very popular when they were first published, and I know how it feels like having ideas that aren't popular.

 

[Fan.of.Devin]

I consider myself to be extremely skeptical in the classical sense, and I constantly strive to improve myself to be more effectively so.

I don't so much despise authority, inherently, unless it's specifically being used to prop up fallacies.
...Which it almost always is, but, I digress.

Bullshit originates from many sources; the omnipresent, the obscure, and everything in between.

 

[Adasta]

From a scientific standpoint, I have the philosophy of wanting the facts to be proven. But even then, I still end up idealizing the scientific method and put it on a pedestal, and kind of romanticize the acquisition of knowledge through scientific discovery and inquiry. I think it is wondrous and science has unlocked the power leading to innovative inventions that have advanced humanity as a whole. If someone of authority challenges the validity of science (i.e. the natural selection vs. intelligent design argument), I feel as if it is a challenge on my core values. I will end up supporting science in the end. I suppose I support Darwin not only because I agree with his theory of natural selection ,but also his theories were not very popular when they were first published, and I know how it feels like having ideas that aren't popular.

Just to give a further insight into the "P"...

While I also enjoy science (and Darwin), it is not the theory itself that I enjoy; rather, it is the restructuring of the debate. While a T might wonder about man's relation to the animal kingdom in a temporal sense (the progression to modern man from earlier lifeforms) and analyse the hows/whats/whys of this progression, I tend to focus on how Darwin made us all question what it was to be human. He changed the game, so to speak, by identifying the fact that humans were a higher form of life (intellectually) but still came from a lower form of life. Oddly, I still prefer animals in some regards - they're loyal and their behaviour is predictable/dependable - but the the status of man as "still animal but still more than animal" is an intriguing one. I don't enjoy the details as much as enjoy asking the question "what is the purpose of all this?"

I don't so much despise authority, inherently, unless it's specifically being used to prop up fallacies.

I'm similar but, perhaps highlighting F vs. T, its the disingenious nature of the fallacy that bothers me rather than the intellectual failing. I consider such fallacies to be misleading in a perfidious way; they "dupe" a person, and that is unkind/deleterious to all our efforts/manipulative etc. That is why demagogy bothers me so much - it represents a baseless manipulation of peoples' hopes.