Enneagram Type One and the INTP

[fduniho]

I have recently been thinking that I may be a One, maybe a 1w9, a type which Riso and Hudson say are often mistyped as Fives. One reason for an INTP 1w9 to mistype as a Five is that Riso has identified the Five as an introverted thinker and the One as an extraverted thinker. While this might suggest that I am an INTJ, I do better fit Keirsey's description of INTP than INTJ, though I'll note that he does dispense with the functional interpretation of these types. Another reason is that various Enneagram authors identify type Five with a preferred intellectual center and type One with a repressed intellectual center, and since I see myself as an intellectual, it has been natural to see myself as having a preferred intellectual center.

This line of thinking started when I got really angry with someone, as anger is the main vice of type One. I reflected on other times I've been angry and how I handle anger in general, and it seemed fairly Oneish to me. I have also noticed that the women I've been most attracted to recently and whom I can most relate to seem to me to be Ones. Looking over the list of 1w9s in Personality Types by Riso and Hudson, I spotted a few of my earliest influences: Carl Sagan, C. S. Lewis, and Mr. Spock. The list also includes Thomas Jefferson, whom I regard as one of the greatest American Presidents. Looking at the 5w4 list, which is the type I've normally associated myself with, I find some authors I've read, the most influential among them for me being Friedrich Nietzsche. But the list also includes the author of one of my least favorite novels, Jean-Paul Sartre, whose novel Nausea is just one of the worst things I've ever read. Looking over the list of 1w2s, I didn't see anyone who has been a significant influence on me, which favors the diagnosis of a Nine wing over a Two wing.

From an early age, I have cared about wisdom, which is what Ones are particularly interested in. My intellectual interests have been filtered by what I consider to be useful or practical rather than ranging all over the place. I have had a strong and abiding interest in ethics, which reflects a One's interest in good and evil, and I even wrote my dissertation on evil. My interest in ethics has focused mainly on Perfectionism, the notion that virtue is what is important in ethics. I have read many self-help books and various books on virtue in order to improve myself. My interest in psychology is primarily grounded in its utility for self-improvement. My interest in perfectionism and self-improvement stems from the need to make up for the imperfection that stems from being handicapped. Notably, Ones tend to seek perfection without really feeling that they have attained it.

In contrast to this, Fives seek mastery in particular areas, such as Bobby Fischer seeking mastery in Chess. I share an interest in Chess, but I have shied away from trying to master it. I enjoy it for the intellectual challenge, and I also play and create various other Chess variants. My creation of Chess variants could be interpreted as a reforming of Chess, as Ones are called Reformers. My interests tend to be interdisciplinary rather than focused on particular fields. Ones have been described as pioneers, and that's what I am with respect to Chess variants.

I have other things to do today. One of them is to exercise, which I am fairly disciplined about. This is part of my physical self-improvement project, which also fits into the possibility that I am a One. So I will cut this short to go exercise. And I'll leave by asking if there are any INTP Ones here.

[MacGuffin]

Type 1 INTPs are pretty rare, that type is more associated with STJ.

[Ptah]

I variously type as 1w9 and 5. All pretty much nonsense when I look to sort it out, though.

[fduniho]

Type 1 INTPs are pretty rare, that type is more associated with STJ.

Keirsey calls these the Supervisor and the Inspector. I can see how these roles relate to one aspect associated with type One, but I don't see a connection here with the idealism of type One. Supervisors make sure people are doing what they are supposed to do, and Inspectors verify the quality of work people are doing, but I don't see either as necessarily trying to improve themselves, others, or the world in general. They are more like cogs in the machinery of society than like leaders trying to reshape society. My understanding of the One fits better with Keirsey's description of the NF temperament. Even though I'm an NT, I have been noticing that I have an NF side and am not a pure NT. The women I've been attracted to who strike me as Ones also strike me as NFs. Riso and Hudson call the subtypes of One the Idealist and the Advocate. Keirsey calls the NF temperament the Idealist, and he calls the ENFP the Champion, which is similar in meaning to Advocate.

[fduniho]

I variously type as 1w9 and 5.

I'm not surprised. Given what I was reading about how Ones care about objectivity, you're the one person here who came to mind as a possible One. Anyway, that part of the One description is something I could strongly relate to. I have normally tried to deal with people objectively. Like you, I've also been influenced by Objectivism, which I'm sure has something to do with an interest in objectivity, and which I believe was founded and articulated by a One.

One of the important differences between One and Five is whether Seven is a direction of integration or disintegration. Is moving toward Seven about feeling joy or about getting lost in mindless hedonism? In my experience, it seems to be more about feeling joy. I don't think I experience much gluttony, but I am able to appreciate pleasure. Another difference is whether Four is a direction of disintegration or a wing. That is harder for me to discern, though I will note that when I have felt envy, it hasn't been a very constructive feeling.

[fduniho]

I just checked one of my father's books, and he lists C. S. Lewis as an INTP. Besides studying type, one of the main things my father studied was the Inklings, a group of British writers that included C. S. Lewis. So he was probably more knowledgeable about C. S. Lewis than he was about most of the people he lists as examples of various types. We even once went on a road trip where he visited some of his contacts who studied the Inklings, and I got to go into the wardrobe that C. S. Lewis once owned, as in his book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Between Riso's identification of C. S. Lewis as a 1w9 and my father's identification of him as an INTP, there's one well-known person who may be an INTP 1w9.

Although I have found C. S. Lewis influential, it is more in the matter of values than beliefs. When I read his book Mere Christianity, I was not persuaded at all. The main thing I remember from that book is that he tried to prove the existence of God from our knowledge of mathematics. I don't remember the details, but it struck me as the most ridiculous "proof" of God's existence I had ever come across, and I already knew the standard proofs. On the basis of this book, he seems to be a more light-weight thinker. Although I don't share his conversion to Christianity, I do consider him one of the few Christian writers I can appreciate despite our differences in religious beliefs. He seems more universalistic than many Christian writers, and when I was a Christian, it was his writing that led me to take a more universalistic perspective on religion, which eventually led me to consider the value in eastern religions.

[Flatchett]

...that type is more associated with STJ.

Yes, well that makes sense, given who the OP is.

[fduniho]

Yes, well that makes sense, given who the OP is.

Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. Explain.

[Flatchett]

Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. Explain.

No.

[fduniho]

Claudio Naranjo writes in a footnote, "The fact that ennea-types I and V have been confused is, I think, an expression of similarity beyond the constructing characteristics. We may also speak of a similarity in the case of those characters mapped at the end of the other two antipodes: IV-VIII and VII-II." (Character and Neurosis 42). So he's saying that types One and Five actually resemble each other, and this may lead to greater confusion between these two types than between either of these types and any other Enneagram type. With that in mind, it would be worthwhile to list and clarify the similarities and differences between these two types. I'll work on that as I have time, though I'm too tired to do much right now. I'll start with what I already know, which is mainly the triads for each type. One and Five are both in the competency triad. This refers to the coping style. Neither type tends to be reactive (as 4, 6, and 8 are) or overly positive (as 2, 7, and 9 are). Both types are next to the emotional center without being included in it. Each type is using its preferred center to deal with the emotional center. The One subjects emotions to rules and principles, I think, so that he may behave appropriately despite strong feelings. The Five tends to dissociate from emotions, so that they do not overwhelm him. So I would expect Ones to have greater emotional awareness than Fives. As for the triadic differences, Ones favor the gut (the creative center, instinctive triad, etc) and Fives favor the mind (the intellectual center, the thinking triad, etc). Ones are more focused on knowing what to do, Fives on understanding what is true. Ones are dependent types and Fives are withdrawing types. Ones depend on other people more than Fives do, and their anger often results from being betrayed or let down by those they have depended on. Still, Ones control their anger and do not normally appear as angry as the reactive types do. Fives may be more self-sufficient than Ones. Being dependent, Ones care more about what others believe than Fives do. Ones want those they depend on to share their views. Not that Fives have no interest in persuading people of their ideas, but they are more interested in finding out the truth, whatever that is, than they are in proselytizing their beliefs to others. Ones tend to consider themselves bearers of the truth, while Fives tend to consider themselves seekers of the truth.

On the matter of truth, I think I am principally a seeker of truth, and even when I'm sure I'm right and others are wrong, I often let it go. I do take time to defend and promote some of my beliefs, such as how evolution makes much more sense than creationism, but I don't make a mission out of it. This suggests Five. On the other hand, I am not always as unaware of my emotions as Fives are sometimes made out to be, and I will rely on principles to control my behavior and hold back my expression of emotion at times. But there are other times when I'm just more intellectually focused than emotionally focused, and I keep my emotions at bay simply by not attending to them. So there may be times when I act more like a One and times when I act more like a Five. Right now, I'm tired and not that emotionally focused. For tonight, it is looking like Five more than One. But I think a more systematic analysis of the similarities and differences between these types is still called for, and I will get on it as I find the time.

[MacGuffin]

Keirsey calls these the Supervisor and the Inspector. I can see how these roles relate to one aspect associated with type One, but I don't see a connection here with the idealism of type One. Supervisors make sure people are doing what they are supposed to do, and Inspectors verify the quality of work people are doing, but I don't see either as necessarily trying to improve themselves, others, or the world in general. They are more like cogs in the machinery of society than like leaders trying to reshape society. My understanding of the One fits better with Keirsey's description of the NF temperament. Even though I'm an NT, I have been noticing that I have an NF side and am not a pure NT. The women I've been attracted to who strike me as Ones also strike me as NFs. Riso and Hudson call the subtypes of One the Idealist and the Advocate. Keirsey calls the NF temperament the Idealist, and he calls the ENFP the Champion, which is similar in meaning to Advocate.


Enneagram Type 1:
Perfectionist, Reformer, Judge, Crusader or Critic

Overview
You want to be accurate, thorough, fair and objective. More importantly, you want to be respectable, to do what is right and what you feel is appropriate. You see yourself as rational, orderly and principled. You would like others to see you as reliable, responsible and ethical. Your idealized image is that you are hardworking and do what is right.
Gifted with a strong sense of purpose, you have high ideals and like to follow protocol, policies and procedures. You are sincere, earnest and diligent. You like to excel and take pride in doing things well. You value honesty, integrity and objectivity. Conscientious and methodical you focus on paying close attention to detail. Earnest and hardworking, you are particular and constantly strive to improve. You take action from your heart because, for you, the heart is the only thing that is truly perfect.

Sounds like STJ to me.




Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. Explain.

He's saying you sound like a caricature of an STJ: kind of humorless, not much N, pedantic, etc.

[Ptah]

The One subjects emotions to rules and principles, I think, so that he may behave appropriately despite strong feelings.

*Raises hand* That's me.


The Five tends to dissociate from emotions, so that they do not overwhelm him.

That was me during adolescence.



So I would expect Ones to have greater emotional awareness than Fives.

While I see why you might say so, I'm not so sure, necessarily. Anyhow, it always stuns me that people assume I'm not aware of/ignore emotions. Quite the contrary. I'm very aware of them. I just don't let them rule my decision-making if, when and to the extent I have the wits to have it otherwise.



As for the triadic differences, Ones favor the gut (the creative center, instinctive triad, etc) and Fives favor the mind (the intellectual center, the thinking triad, etc).

Interesting. I used to often say, "I'm only as technical as necessary to be creative", and in a sense that's representive of my overall approach to "intellectual" concerns. The mind serves "the gut", if you will.



Ones are more focused on knowing what to do, Fives on understanding what is true.

The former necessarily follows from the latter, if you ask me. Hence, my orientation is on a synthesis of the two, bootstrapped with the latter.



Ones are dependent types and Fives are withdrawing types. Ones depend on other people more than Fives do, and their anger often results from being betrayed or let down by those they have depended on.


I don't think I "depend" on anyone (I make it a habit not to), but otherwise I do identify with the pattern of reacting strongly to betrayal. Although I suppose you could say I "depend" on people in the sense that I do make the reflective statement, "spite has largely defined who I am."



Still, Ones control their anger and do not normally appear as angry as the reactive types do.

Right. Revenge is best served cold, etc. Moreover, the mind finds weakpoints better than the heart.



Fives may be more self-sufficient than Ones. Being dependent, Ones care more about what others believe than Fives do. Ones want those they depend on to share their views. Not that Fives have no interest in persuading people of their ideas, but they are more interested in finding out the truth, whatever that is, than they are in proselytizing their beliefs to others. Ones tend to consider themselves bearers of the truth, while Fives tend to consider themselves seekers of the truth.

:think: I'm somewhere in the middle of that, honestly. I seek the truth, but I'm also ready to defend it. "Truth" here is as much an evaluation as it is a process of evaluating.

And I cant' say I much care for what others think of me (in the sense of self-evaluations, etc). That said, I tend to be aware of it to the extent it serves my ability to predict people's behavior (so as to guide my own though/around them).



On the matter of truth, I think I am principally a seeker of truth, and even when I'm sure I'm right and others are wrong, I often let it go. I do take time to defend and promote some of my beliefs, such as how evolution makes much more sense than creationism, but I don't make a mission out of it. This suggests Five. On the other hand, I am not always as unaware of my emotions as Fives are sometimes made out to be, and I will rely on principles to control my behavior and hold back my expression of emotion at times. But there are other times when I'm just more intellectually focused than emotionally focused, and I keep my emotions at bay simply by not attending to them. So there may be times when I act more like a One and times when I act more like a Five.

Same here.

edit: Well, slight adjustment. I'm cheifly a seeker of escape. But to escape I need to know (to begin with: ) what I'm escaping, and that involves truth, which then entails the process(es) and mechanism(s) by which one obtains it. Can't hide from what you can't see. Not for long, anyway.

[fduniho]

He's saying you sound like a caricature of an STJ: kind of humorless, not much N, pedantic, etc.

Since I prefer to let Asian girls speak for me when I can, here is my response to that:

Bad Girl, Good Girl by Miss A

[fduniho]

Sounds like STJ to me.

Yes, especially that last part, "the heart is the only thing that is truly perfect." But you may be right about most Ones being STJs. In Please Understand Me II, here is what Keirsey says on the difference between the preoccupations of Guardians (SJs) and Idealists (NFs):


Guardians, even as children, feel responsible for the morality of their group, whether it be their family, their classmates, or their circle of friends. And they are never able to shake off that responsibility, even if they sometimes want to. In this they resemble the Idealists, who early on assume the responsibility for the morale of their companions. But morale and morality, though related, are two different things. Morality is concerned with people doing what they're supposed to and not doing what they're not supposed to, while morale is concerned with how people feel about themselves, and how they should get along with others. Thus, both SJs and NFs are interested in helping or bettering others, but while the NFs nurture good feelings, the SJs guard right and wrong.

What he's saying about SJs sounds like type One to me, and what he's saying about NFs does not.

[fduniho]

While I remember it, I will continue with what I was thinking earlier. The One has to deal with anger, and the Five has to deal with avarice, but the one is not openly angry, and the five is not openly avaricious. Anger is like fire, and the best way to handle fire is to contain it. Avarice is like gravity, and the best way to be free of gravity is through distance. This gives the key to what I think is the essential difference between One and Five. One focuses on containing emotions, while Five focuses on getting distance from emotions. When emotions come to the surface, Fives are more likely than Ones to have emotional outbursts, because they are less skilled at containing emotions. I think that is what happened to me when I became angry the other day. It was the same day that an earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, and I became worried about a Japanese friend I had in college. I'm still worried about her, but I'm also trying to not think about Japan, because I'm calm and collected when I can keep emotionally troubling things out of mind.

[fduniho]

I have been reading How to Analyze People on Sight (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30601/30601-h/30601-h.htm) by Elsie Lincoln Benedict and Ralph Paine Benedict, which describes five body types and provides personality descriptions of them. I'll start another thread to discuss this in more detail, but for this thread I want to mention how it is applicable to the subject at hand. Two of the types described are the Osseous and the Cerebral, i.e. the big-boned and the big-brained. Going by the personality descriptions for these body types, they seem to correspond more or less with the One and the Five. My own body type is predominantly of the Cerebral type, and the description given for this type fits me well, and noticeably better than the description for the Osseous type does. My secondary type seems to be Thoracic, and this fits me in several respects but doesn't cut to the heart of who I am like Cerebral does. My tertiary is Muscular. Osseous may be fourth, with Alimentive last. The Thoracic type, which seems to fit me second best, largely fits with type Four. Based on this analysis of my body type and my matching of body types with Enneagram types, I come out 5w4, which is the Enneagram type I've normally regarded myself as for years. So I'm now inclined to say that the line of thinking I began this thread with was mistaken. But I now have a better understanding of the differences between One and Five and a better grounding for understanding what makes me a Five and not some other type.

[mal12345]

Claudio Naranjo writes in a footnote, "The fact that ennea-types I and V have been confused is, I think, an expression of similarity beyond the constructing characteristics. We may also speak of a similarity in the case of those characters mapped at the end of the other two antipodes: IV-VIII and VII-II." (Character and Neurosis 42). So he's saying that types One and Five actually resemble each other

This is an old theory called Resonance. Resonance occurs between types on opposite sides of the circle, or antipodes. Over the years I haven't found any perfect antipodes, only approximate antipodes. The V can resonate with either I or IX. The VII can resonate with either II or III.

[Eric B]

Claudio Naranjo writes in a footnote, "The fact that ennea-types I and V have been confused is, I think, an expression of similarity beyond the constructing characteristics. We may also speak of a similarity in the case of those characters mapped at the end of the other two antipodes: IV-VIII and VII-II." (Character and Neurosis 42). So he's saying that types One and Five actually resemble each other, and this may lead to greater confusion between these two types than between either of these types and any other Enneagram type. With that in mind, it would be worthwhile to list and clarify the similarities and differences between these two types. I'll work on that as I have time, though I'm too tired to do much right now. I'll start with what I already know, which is mainly the triads for each type. One and Five are both in the competency triad. This refers to the coping style. Neither type tends to be reactive (as 4, 6, and 8 are) or overly positive (as 2, 7, and 9 are). Both types are next to the emotional center without being included in it. Each type is using its preferred center to deal with the emotional center. The One subjects emotions to rules and principles, I think, so that he may behave appropriately despite strong feelings. The Five tends to dissociate from emotions, so that they do not overwhelm him. So I would expect Ones to have greater emotional awareness than Fives. As for the triadic differences, Ones favor the gut (the creative center, instinctive triad, etc) and Fives favor the mind (the intellectual center, the thinking triad, etc). Ones are more focused on knowing what to do, Fives on understanding what is true. Ones are dependent types and Fives are withdrawing types. Ones depend on other people more than Fives do, and their anger often results from being betrayed or let down by those they have depended on. Still, Ones control their anger and do not normally appear as angry as the reactive types do. Fives may be more self-sufficient than Ones. Being dependent, Ones care more about what others believe than Fives do. Ones want those they depend on to share their views. Not that Fives have no interest in persuading people of their ideas, but they are more interested in finding out the truth, whatever that is, than they are in proselytizing their beliefs to others. Ones tend to consider themselves bearers of the truth, while Fives tend to consider themselves seekers of the truth.

On the matter of truth, I think I am principally a seeker of truth, and even when I'm sure I'm right and others are wrong, I often let it go. I do take time to defend and promote some of my beliefs, such as how evolution makes much more sense than creationism, but I don't make a mission out of it. This suggests Five. On the other hand, I am not always as unaware of my emotions as Fives are sometimes made out to be, and I will rely on principles to control my behavior and hold back my expression of emotion at times. But there are other times when I'm just more intellectually focused than emotionally focused, and I keep my emotions at bay simply by not attending to them. So there may be times when I act more like a One and times when I act more like a Five. Right now, I'm tired and not that emotionally focused. For tonight, it is looking like Five more than One. But I think a more systematic analysis of the similarities and differences between these types is still called for, and I will get on it as I find the time.

If you use the old Galen temperaments, then 1 and 5 are both Melancholic: http://www.erictb.info/temperament3.html#enneagram
This correlation still has a lot of loose ends, but the similarity of the types to the temperaments seems to support it to some extent.

In my full theory, INTP's aren't really Melancholic, but instead are a blend of other temperaments that "average out" to a Melancholic, which they do usually get on humour tests. So likewise, they are often 5's, but could identify with 6, 9 and even 8. In my view, 1 would be between 5 and 8, with 5 as introverted, 8 as extroverted and 1 as ambiverted. Since INTP's are usually strong introverts, they will usually lean towards 5, and the Ennea tests don't allow for blends of any types; only those trifixes.

[thexjib]

fduniho. You are a 5w6. I am telling you man.... I watch your videos. I know.

also I think Bobby Fischer was a 6w5.