# [Type 1]what really is enneagram 1?

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
The main issue here with the line of reasoning is focusing too much on the external end result while losing track of the internal works. Try cross checking the basis of different theories instead of focusing on the end result. Try decomposing the different possible causes to an apparent identical outcome.

I already did that in the previous posts in detail.

#### Methylene

##### Now with more salt.
I already did that in the previous posts in detail.
I read that. And I'm explaining yours vs @mancino 's line of reasoning.
Reality is much more complex.
Cause A gives outcomes X, Y, Z, etc, with even more different possible external results.
External outcome M could be due to causes J, K, L, etc.
It's not so linear.

Even when you attempted to analyze (not so) different causes, you still fell for the same bias. Over and over.

To put it in mathematical terms, since I'm sure you're familiar with linear algebra: you're attempting a change of base on a base whose axis are not orthogonal. This is why counts aren't adding up.

Ozzacidatsetasutto.

Last edited:

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
I read that. And I'm explaining yours vs @mancino 's line of reasoning.
Reality is much more complex.
Cause A gives outcomes X, Y, Z, etc, with even more different possible external results.
External outcome M could be due to causes J, K, L, etc.
It's not so linear.

Even when you attempted to analyze (not so) different causes, you still fell for the same bias. Over and over.

To put it in mathematical terms, since I'm sure you're familiar with linear algebra: you're attempting a change of base on a base whose axis are not orthogonal. This is why counts aren't adding up.

Ozzacidatsetasutto.

I really feel like I am trying to describe colors to blind people in this forum.

Parentified child = Hypersensitive intuitive child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of responsible parent/adult in the household because the parents were not responsible/adults themselves. Due to this burden, the child became hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

E1 = Gifted child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of reliable adult because the parents overburdened him and were not responsible themselves. Consequently, the child developed an overdeveloped superego and is hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem, always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

I cannot keep holding your hands and walk you through it all the time. If you cannot see that both mechanisms are identical after all the material I've posted, we are discussing in vain. And the more you or anyone else are butthurt by this comment, the less intuition they must have.

#### Methylene

##### Now with more salt.
I really feel like I am trying to describe colors to blind people in this forum.

Parentified child = Hypersensitive intuitive child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of responsible parent/adult in the household because the parents were not responsible/adults themselves. Due to this burden, the child became hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

E1 = Gifted child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of reliable adult because the parents overburdened him and were not responsible themselves. Consequently, the child developed an overdeveloped superego and is hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem, always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

I cannot keep holding your hands and walk you through it all the time. If you cannot see that both mechanisms are identical after all the material I've posted, we are discussing in vain. And the more you or anyone else are butthurt by this comment, the less intuition they must have.
Conclusion: e4 doesn't always equate Fi.

Please, try to use your reason. I walked you through it, to use your same words. This discussion is about the issues with the reasoning, you made it about something else. So the following paragraph is gonna be a reply to that.

N has nothing to do with this. Escape your limitations. Functions aren't an excuse for your pain or issues with people.

Last edited:

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
Conclusion: e4 doesn't always equate Fi.

Also, you're everywhere on this forum.
N has nothing to do with this. Escape your limitations. Functions aren't an excuse for your pain or issues with people.
?

#### mancino

##### Enlightened!
I'll omit personal references and judgments and stick to dry logic.

both mechanisms are identical
It equates to:
Parentified child = E1 fixation

In logical terms:
Parentified child <=> E1 fixation
i.e. they're both necessary and sufficient condition one for the other. One strictly implies the other, both ways.

In order to disprove it, I just can use demonstratio ad absurdum.

First implication
Parentified child <= E1 fixation
It equates to
NOT Parentified child => NOT E1 fixation

It's easy to disprove: one just has to find counterexamples, and there are plenty. I'm sure we all know
NOT Parentified child
who indeed have
E1 fixation.
A random list from the web:
Some classic examples of type 1 personalities include Confucius, Plato, Joan of Arc, Gandhi, Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, Kate Middleton, Michelle Obama, Al Gore, Hilary Clinton, Tina Fey, Katherine Hepburn, Meryl Streep, Harrison Ford and more.
Even if we don't agree on all of them, were they all parentified? A cursory look at some biographies points at that not being the case.

Second implication
Parentified child => E1 fixation
It equates to
NOT Parentified child <= NOT E1 fixation

It's also easy to disprove.
one just has to find counterexamples, and there are plenty. I'm sure we all know
NOT E1 fixation
who indeed are
Parentified child.

It's harder to come up with a list here, but suffice it to say that I know my ESFJ E2 mother-in-law.
A fictional example, as I already mentioned:
The main character (played by Michael Douglas) is an almost unanimous E3 on PDB
but still has was parentified, he is told so at one point in the movie (he "played dad" to look after his younger brother after their father committed suicide).

TL;DR:

Some Parentified Children are E1
Some E1 were Parentified Children.
But there's plenty of PC who are not E1, and also plenty of E1 who were not PC.

______

As an extra:

Parentified child = Hypersensitive intuitive child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of responsible parent/adult in the household because the parents were not responsible/adults themselves. Due to this burden, the child became hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

E1 = Gifted child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of reliable adult because the parents overburdened him and were not responsible themselves. Consequently, the child developed an overdeveloped superego and is hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem, always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

I've bolded traits in your PC definition that do not fit with the stereotypical E1 profile, as we've already discussed here. You argue E1=Ni. I - and others - disagree.
Also, low self esteem is NOT a strait of E1, it's in the 4-5 territory; sometimes in 9 and 6. (stereotypically, I mean).
Equating low self esteem with E1 is plainly wrong, IMHO.

And gifted is not related to type. You have to specify which gifts, at the very least.
Multi-talented, for example, is E7.
Analytical is E5.
Not only, mind you.

The error is the same: you are taking anecdotal evidence and infer general rules from it. It's never that simple. Sorry.

I'm sure you know (are) the case for which they all imply one another, but it's not NECESSARILY that way.

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
I'll omit personal references and judgments and stick to dry logic.

It equates to:
Parentified child = E1 fixation

In logical terms:
Parentified child <=> E1 fixation
i.e. they're both necessary and sufficient condition one for the other. One strictly implies the other, both ways.

In order to disprove it, I just can use demonstratio ad absurdum.

First implication
Parentified child <= E1 fixation
It equates to
NOT Parentified child => NOT E1 fixation

It's easy to disprove: one just has to find counterexamples, and there are plenty. I'm sure we all know
NOT Parentified child
who indeed have
E1 fixation.
A random list from the web:

Even if we don't agree on all of them, were they all parentified? A cursory look at some biographies points at that not being the case.

Second implication
Parentified child => E1 fixation
It equates to
NOT Parentified child <= NOT E1 fixation

It's also easy to disprove.
one just has to find counterexamples, and there are plenty. I'm sure we all know
NOT E1 fixation
who indeed are
Parentified child.

It's harder to come up with a list here, but suffice it to say that I know my ESFJ E2 mother-in-law.
A fictional example, as I already mentioned:
The main character (played by Michael Douglas) is an almost unanimous E3 on PDB
but still has was parentified, he is told so at one point in the movie (he "played dad" to look after his younger brother after their father committed suicide).

TL;DR:

Some Parentified Children are E1
Some E1 were Parentified Children.
But there's plenty of PC who are not E1, and also plenty of E1 who were not PC.

______

As an extra:

I've bolded traits in your PC definition that do not fit with the stereotypical E1 profile, as we've already discussed here. You argue E1=Ni. I - and others - disagree.
Also, low self esteem is NOT a strait of E1, it's in the 4-5 territory; sometimes in 9 and 6. (stereotypically, I mean).
Equating low self esteem with E1 is plainly wrong, IMHO.

And gifted is not related to type. You have to specify which gifts, at the very least.
Multi-talented, for example, is E7.
Analytical is E5.
Not only, mind you.

The error is the same: you are taking anecdotal evidence and infer general rules from it. It's never that simple. Sorry.

I'm sure you know (are) the case for which they all imply one another, but it's not NECESSARILY that way.
You don't know right from left.

#### The Cat

##### Just a Cat who hangs out at the Crossroads...
Staff member
Ah what a happy Wednesday on the forum.
Do be a lamb and try to keep it that way...

#### mancino

##### Enlightened!
You don't know right from left.
Now that's an irrefutable argument!

I had been warned about having a debate with you. It turns out the warnings were sound.

We've shared some ideas, some we agree, some we don't. From you I've learned some stuff I didn't know before, for which I thank you.

But I won't go on, sorry @yeghor.

Maybe you are right, maybe we're all just stupid dumbasses who know nothing. But still, then, what are you going to do about it?
What if you're the only person who's right on Earth? Would you like to be that guy? I certainly do not.

If you already know, then what are you doing here? Alienating the very few who are willing to listen?

I'll give you a nugget of unsolicited wisdom: we're most probably all worng, pretty much all the time.

If you think you know, you'll never learn more than what you think you know.

"The only thing that I know is that I know nothing".

I wish you the best of luck.

## Social and Emotional Traits​

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
...
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

I think:

-Mom's an xNFP, probably ENFP cause she was more confused and had a weaker sense of self than an INFP. That would also explain her Tourettes.
-Dad's an INTP though I can't understand why his logical reasoning comes so off or lacking to me or why he's so awkward with technology. I'd almost say he's an INFP if he were more emotional or artistic.

In relation to my childhood, that means Mom couldn't be relied on cause she was confused most of the time and had anxiety problems, and that Dad was detached and not compassionate, hiding in his corner to avoid problems around.

To a child that means Mom is distressed and freaks out easilty so cannot show compassion unless the child behaves, and Dad is distant and cannot show compassion unless the child outperforms peers. As both sides are Ps, they are inclined to avoid problems or sweep them under the rug rather than sorting them out so household environment is prone to chaos/conflict.

E1 child takes it on themselves to resolve the chaos and conflict, thinks or is made to think that they are responsible for it for some reason and they believe/internalize it.

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
I think:

-Mom's an xNFP, probably ENFP cause she was more confused and had a weaker sense of self than an INFP. That would also explain her Tourettes.
-Dad's an INTP though I can't understand why his logical reasoning comes so off or lacking to me or why he's so awkward with technology. I'd almost say he's an INFP if he were more emotional or artistic.

In relation to my childhood, that means Mom couldn't be relied on cause she was confused most of the time and had anxiety problems, and that Dad was detached and not compassionate, hiding in his corner to avoid problems around.

To a child that means Mom is distressed and freaks out easilty so cannot show compassion unless the child behaves, and Dad is distant and cannot show compassion unless the child outperforms peers. As both sides are Ps, they are inclined to avoid problems or sweep them under the rug rather than sorting them out so household environment is prone to chaos/conflict.

E1 child takes it on themselves to resolve the chaos and conflict, thinks or is made to think that they are responsible for it for some reason and they believe/internalize it.

These descriptions seem to fit roughly. I think one of them needed to be SJ, so practical matters at home would be handled by the SJ partner. This explains well the circumstances under which parentification happens.

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
This also sounds possible for my father. The thing is he's not coming across as feminine in his demeanor. I wonder if he's denying his INFPness and trying to pose as an ISTJ instead to fit in with the society. As a child, he would try to imposehis choices on me when it came to clothing, life choices, hobbies and would become condescending and overreacted (like in a "I hate you, you are worthless" mannerism) when I rejected his choices.

Given my recent INTP typing in another thread for a Belgium minister, Dad looks nothing like the minister. So maybe I should go with my original typing for Dad and Mom as INFP and ENFP, respectively. As I said, Mom is less rigid than Dad in her preferences and values and more confused and prone to anxiety. Dad comes across more like a distant and self-centered person.

It needs to be mentioned that "toxicity" in the below sense is a consequence of the parents not being parented properly themselves as a kid, and a symbolism for parents having their own unresolved traumas.

Mom came from a troubled, low-income household and had to deal with an overbearing mother-in-law and 2 step children about to enter puberty from Dad's first marriage, and Dad wasn't supportive of her authority in the household and avoided problems and ran away whenever therewas conflict in the house between Mom and the his own Mother. So Mom has kept buckling under pressure and getting distressed.

"

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
I am beginning to think my siblings are:

-Stepsister 1 - ENFJ - on bad terms with dad (INFP), estranged so I don't know her that well. Her husband is probably an INTP, he likes getting lavished with free stuff and is a bit egotistical.

-Stepsister 2 - INFP - became extremely materialistic and greedy now in her 50s, also lazy and tries to manipulate others into doing her chores by feigning helplessness or by making herself absent. Overdecorates her house, turns it into a fucking museum, gets off on surrounding herself with items purchased overseas, thinks they make her special and sets her apart than others. In conversations, likes dropping the information that she's working abroad to signal to others that she's important. Dad's favorite. Cannot stay in the same place with her for long as it results in conflict. Showing signs of egotism mixed with feminism and projects her veiled misandry on me.

-Stepbrother - ISFP - expects me to respect him just because he's older without bothering to assume the role of protective/provider older brother (i.e. without giving any benefit in return), lazy and dependent on his wife to keep him organized. Fascinated with metal music and bikers. He was condescending and dismissive of me and my younger brother when we were kids and he was a teen. Wife is manipulative and controlling, probably ISTP (they remind me of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle). I cut contact with them 2 years ago as he cannot reign in his wife's manipulative actions but endorses them, they value their own needs above ours and wife uses subterfuge, which results in them taking advantage of others.

-Younger Brother - ISTJ - He's better adjusted to life than me. Likes food and spirits and going to exotic places and consuming exotic drinks so that he can brag about them to his friends and show off. Can recall things he's read easily and has good history knowledge. Gets irritated if I ask him too many hypothetical questions.

His wife is probably INFJ, she cannot fit in with the mainstream culture (i.e. sensors), believes in things like aliens and Anunnaki, fortunetelling, rituals and stuff, she likes spending time in the kitchen and cooking, is overall well-meaning and mellow. She enjoys travelling. They are having S vs N type of conflicts from time to time.

She is cold towards Stepsister 2 (INFP) cause the latter has acted a bit like an entitled sister-in-law and expected them to cater to her whims. She is also on bad terms with Stepbrother's wife (ISTP) as the latter, she says, has tried to manipulate her somehow when my younger brother and she got married. She doesn't give in the details.

As an E1, the persons I can relate the most among them are my younger brother (ISTJ) and his wife (INFJ).

I am not into mysticism as much as the younger brother's wife (INFJ) though so I wonder if it's because I am a male INFJ, or is it because I am rather an INTJ. I haven't been feeling very caring towards people lately, I prefer telling them what I think they need to hear regardless of how bad it might make them feel, cause they cannot grow if people avoid telling them the bitter truths and enable them to stay in fantasy denial land.

The thing is I thought INTJs to be smarter, as I've known lots of people smarter than I am. Either way, the number of people I can relate to keeps dwinling as I get older and I don't yearn for company any more.

#### yeghor

##### Well-known member
I wonder if this gent is an E1 or E9. Channel title is in Japanese, don't know what it says. He looks orderly and chilled.

Replies
1
Views
338
Replies
2
Views
383
Replies
3
Views
505
Replies
0
Views
579
Replies
0
Views
85