All those villains that are obsessed with perfection and/or being perfect.
I know that the idea of the Hulk is something that a lot of 9s relate to, but Bruce Banner himself seems like more of a 1w9 to me. Most comic book runs I've seen have him genuinely hate the Hulk and want to kill it. He considers it to be an "evil" part of him and is obsessed with controlling it. He's not avoidant and "meh everything's fine I don't care" like a 9. He intensely cares and if anything is way more negative on the Hulk than most of his allies are. His whole shtick is trying to control his emotions to avoid letting his dark side out.
(If you're wondering why there's a gray hulk and he's talking in multisyllabic phrases... it's a long story. Basically Bruce Banner's going through therapy during that scene)
See Matt Fraction's Hawkeye run for an archetypal Type 9 superhero instead.
Last edited by Stellafera; 03-08-2017 at 12:26 PM.
Type 1 Defense Mechanism - Reaction Formation
- Tom Condon
"Ones dissociate from their anxieties and shadows through a defense mechanism called reaction formation, – building a verbal argument against what you secretly want or desire. A One will use words to judge and suppress their desires in the hope that a good scolding will make them go away. It’s like talking yourself out of what you want, a variation on the old practice of saying “Get thee behind me” to sinful impulses. Whatever Ones disapprove of in their own behavior is what they will “reverse project” and condemn in others. This follows the logic of the HG Wells quote: “Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo.”
Out for an evening walk with a One friend of mine, we paused before the window of a rock shop. My friend, a geology buff, stood transfixed by a the display of a beautiful chunk of amethyst crystal for sale. I could almost feel him salivating with desire for the rock. Then he saw the amethyst’s price and began to complain that all the stores in town seemed to be catering exclusively to rich people with nothing better to spend their money on. This line of logic broadened into a tirade about the extravagance and gullibility of the population at large, especially all the poor souls duped into believing that they need unnecessary, expensive objects. After a little while I said, “So I guess this means that you really wanted that amethyst.” My friend looked surprised and burst out laughing, nodding ruefully."
labelling it reaction formation makes it seem like because his response was psychologically rooted that his analysis was fatally flawed from the onset, whereas to summarize "this is why we (I) can't have nice things" seems like it could totally have been on point. true, the stimulus for him may have been the frustration of his own personal desires, but you could just as easily "label" his call to action as sublimation of his desire into a productive social end, assuming he advocates for positive changes etc etc. everyone has desires that at bottom fuel their pursuits; I feel like it is an impossible standard to only accept those we can trace back to only pure altriusm, mainly because such a thing doesn't exist, or if it does, it could always be interpreted as less than such in some way shape or form... "feeling" if nothing else is a "call to attention"--a completely dispassionate "discovery" of injustice seems like it would be unethical in its own way, for failing to "care" about bad things is essentially sociopathy and a kind of moral defect in its own right (can people only speak against "bad things" that they don't feel are bad, or have never been personally affected by?--obviously not!). At some point there is an impossible standard set by the immutable conditions of human existence and ethics itself, the two are in tension to such a degree that some level of hypocrisy or inconsistency is unavoidable--it is to be human--this should serve as the basis of mutual understanding and humility but not to squelch (unless there's more going on that merits squelching).Originally Posted by silke
you may say that, well in his heart it was obvious all that moralizing was a cover for pure greed, and that what really is manifest by it (the lecture, the call to action) is simple will-to-power, but I feel like that is no less a projection than what we call projection here "condemnation in others"...
in other words, while this is all true, it is not unethical. what matters--what has always mattered--is the spirit you do things in. everything is a swindle if not done in the right spirit, but "reaction formation" can go either way-- for 1's, for anyone.
It is, however, insightful to know these things in order to catch yourself in the act and stop if it really is something bad (greed, etc) motivating you... for that it is good there are people pointing these things out
Bruce Lee. 1w2 Beta NF. Yoda may be a 1 too and is based on Lee.
Never take your eyes off an opponent, even when you bow.
it has been an on-going problem with many of the enneagram descriptions. quite a few of them treat enneagram types as some kind of psychological disorders or neurotic states with their choice of terms being subtly disparaging. the message is that one should 'get over it' i suppose but they forget that one cannot supersede the type only progress to healthier levels of expression.
The idea is more about catching oneself in the act. To not act out of habit, to be conscious of your choice. We didn't choose to be born (or did we...), but we can make the choice to live, instead of being lived by our automated reactions. Awareness of one's inclination can mend a lot of pain.
In other words; mindfulness.
But one first has to see that there is a problem. That's why type 1 is type "1". The first type. The first step in the spiral of life. Be critical and assess what needs to be corrected. Hence the linking of types to disorders and neuroticism.
if you tell someone that their responses are a "reaction formation" mindfulness is unlikely to be the end result of this exchange - noble goal but the method is ineffective
Mindfulness isn't easy, the goal isn't to evade the problem. If you want to not act out of automation, then recognizing the automation is key. We do have maladaptive thinking styles in the average to unhealthy health ranges. So when describing these thinking styles like reaction formation, we can start catching it as it happens.
It's facing the dark in order to go through it. Calling a problem a problem isn't an ineffective method in my experience. It's a harsh and painful, but also an extremely necessary step to take. Our ways are not perfect, and if we're looking to grow as a person, we have to be able to admit that we can be wrong. The goal is to handle and perceive the world in a different way.
Anyways, the naming of the "reaction formation" is but one element to take into account about type. It is not to be stared at, it's a starting point. It's basically telling the type 1 individual that they are misplacing their anger. Recognizing this, they can choose to intervene when this happens, and then look into what they are condemning in themselves. This in turn can lead to a more relaxed super-ego.
actually you know what
there we go
Phobic So/Sp 6w7 3w2 9w1
Bit of a comic books nerd, bit of a fashion nerd, a lot of a generalized nerd
This is how I see 1
Unhealthy Type 1, consumed by his attraction to a woman who rejected him,
and now he sees her as evil and someone trying to seduce him into being sinful.
E1 as antagonists?
YES. I tried to generate a whole lot of thoughts/explanations on this.
- They come with major plot turns as the reformer of everything. When you need change you need a villain, it has always been like that. People need to get rid of something vile, and that has to manifest in an archetype that's overthrown. I predict that the same is currently going on with Donald Trump because America wants to get rid of it's 8,3, and 7 tendencies. Explicit change and reform = often E1-related, in positive and negative aspects
- It's because idealism and ideology - both come together in E1 - make a good impetus
- Unhealthy ones think they are right about their agenda. The more persuaded a villain is that they are NOT evil, the better.
- The idea of wanting perfection is easy to stigmatize and villainize. Sometimes the 1 is born into a world that expects precision of them and they really do their best as they are told, are even very healthy - but then the world is altered and now they look like a bad person who made things too perfect. Example: "Create the Perfect System!" - CLU from Tron Legacy, a tritype 136, who took the task of his master too seriously and now turns against him, disappointed:
One of his speeches:
Greetings, programs! Together we have achieved a great many things. We have created a vast, complex system. We've maintained it; we've improved it. We've rid it of its imperfection. Not to mention, rid it of the false deity who sought to enslave us! My fellow programs, let there be no doubt that our world is a cage no more. For at this moment, the key to the next frontier is finally in our possession! And unlike our selfish creator, who reserved the privilege of our world only for himself, I will make their world open and available to all of us. Yes, to all of us! And whatever we find there, there, our system will grow. There, our system will blossom! Do this, prove yourselves, prove yourselves to me, be loyal to me, and I will never betray you! - Maximize efficiency, rid the new world of its imperfection! My vision is clear, fellow programs. Out there is a new world! Out there is our victory! Out there... is our destiny.
- "Next frontier" - key phrase for 1. Every good plot needs something like that.
- Ones are relentless in their pursuit. The drive is strong. You can't have an idle villain! That would be more of a "normal, undriven protagonist who suddenly gets into action" thing. The villain already has to be all up there working hard all day.
- Enneagram 1s are legit. No half-assing things. In order to take them down, you need effort. The villain needs to be meticulous, well-prepared, steadfast, so the conflict is hard and real and can be prolonged. Otherwise your protagonists cannot grow from it.
- E1 takes on the scapegoat parts of life and can become a projection sphere for that as well.
- This is a villain who doesn't need to relax. Relaxed villains are not credible.
- They become sentimental at 4 and funny at 7 so you have more bonus character features that make them entertaining and interesting to watch
- The backstory of every 1... you know the deal. This is awesome to use as an author.
people resent the hand of correction
the popularity of e1 villains is just tapping into that widespread resentment... its easier to dismiss them as evil than work on yourself; and fiction that unambiguously validates that dismissal is bound to be popular
Type 1 villain
One of the most intense and twisted Type 1 villains in cinema history...
Likely Sx/So. Definitely not SO blindspot.
1w9 so/sx (Fi) - Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi
@3:30
@0:50
1 SOC
1w2 syn-flow (LII?) - Jordan Peterson
Royal Albert Hall, London
Never seen anything this perfect.
yeah that looks awesome, a lot of it is the sky thoughRoyal Albert Hall, London
Never seen anything this perfect.
ESI e1 (Angry Foreigner)
Seinabo Sey seems 1w9 (so/sx?)
1w9
Phobic So/Sp 6w7 3w2 9w1
Bit of a comic books nerd, bit of a fashion nerd, a lot of a generalized nerd
by the amount of anger I'm assuming this man is a 1
Anger, Perfectionism, Being overly Civilized & Controlled
– Claudio Naranjo, Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View. . . Yes, there is anger in the heart, mostly in the form of resentment, yet not so prominently as anger may be experienced by the lusty, the envious, or the cowardly. As for verbal behavior, it is most characteristic of the anger type to be controlled in the expression of anger, in any of its explicit forms: we are in the presence of a well-behaved, civilized type, not a spontaneous one. In regard to action, ennea-type I individuals do express anger, yet mostly unconsciously, not only to themselves but to others, for they do so in a way that is typically rationalized; in fact, much of this personality may be understood as a reaction formation against anger: a denial of destructiveness through a deliberate, well- intentioned attitude.
. . .
Christian writers who shared an awareness of anger as a capital sin, that is to say, as one of the basic psychological obstacles to true virtue, mostly seem to have failed to realize that it is precisely under the guise of virtue that unconscious anger finds its most characteristic form of expression.
. . .
On the whole, this is a well-intentioned and overly virtuous character arisen as a defense against anger and destructiveness. It would be a mistake, however, to conceive of it as a violent character-for it is on the contrary, an over-controlled and over-civilized interpersonal style.
. . .
A good name for the character (and one applicable beyond the explicitly sick region of the mental health spectrum) is perfectionism-for in spite of the fact that people in some other characterological styles may appropriately refer to themselves as "perfectionistic," this is definitely the orientation in which perfectionism is most prominent. This involves an obsession with improving things that result in making their lives and those of others worse and a narrow-minded concept of perfection in terms of a matching of experience or events with a pre-established code of values, standards, ideas, tastes, rules, and so on.
As a sequel to the word perfectionist-more colloquially -I have caricatured the character as one of "angry virtue," a label that has the advantage of including both the emotional (anger) and the cognitive (perfectionistic) aspects.
Though I personally appreciate Erikson's re-statement of anality as an issue of autonomy that arises at the time of learning sphincter control and walking, I think Abraham and Freud deserve the homage of having for the first time drawn attention to the connection between the prohibition of soiling oneself and obsessive cleanliness.
Criticality
– Claudio Naranjo, Character and Neurosis: An Integrative ViewIf conscious and manifest anger is not always one of the most striking characteristics of this personality, the more common traits in the type may be understood as derivatives of anger, expressions of unconscious anger or anger equivalents.
One of these is criticality, which is not only manifest in explicit fault finding, but sometimes creates a subtle atmosphere that causes others to feel awkward or guilty. Criticality may be described as intellectual anger more or less unconscious of its motive.
. . .
A specific form of criticality in ennea-type I is that bound to ethnocentrism and other forms of prejudice, in which case there is vilification, invalidation and the wish to "reform" inquisitorially those who constitute an outgroup to one's race, nation, class, church, "Crusader," and so on. [Displaying the mechanism of "authoritarian aggression" (described by Adorno, Sanford, et al.,) anger towards the ingroup's authority is repressed, inhibited, and displaced onto those below in the hierarchical ladder and especially those in the outgroup-who then become scapegoats.]
Preaching
– Claudio Naranjo, Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View. . . Along with demandingness proper we may group together characteristics such as those which make these individuals the most disciplinarian both in the sense of inhibiting spontaneity and the pursuit of pleasure in others as well as exacting hard work and excellent performance. They tend to sermonize, preach and teach without regard for the appropriateness of such a role, even though this compulsive characteristic of theirs may find its niche in activities such as those of school teacher and preacher.
Together with this corrective orientation is that of being controlling, and this not only in relation to people but to environments or personal appearance: an obsessive is likely to prefer a highly "manicured" garden, for instance, where plants are in clear order and trees pruned into artificial shape, over one that conveys a "Taoistic" organic complexity.
Self-Criticism
– Claudio Naranjo, Character and Neurosis: An Integrative View. . . Though self-disparagement may not be apparent to the outside observer and tends to be hidden behind a virtuous and self-dignified image, the inability to accept oneself and the process of self-vilification not only are the source of chronic emotional frustration (and unconscious anger) but an ever present psychodynamic background for the perfectionistic need to try harder in the pursuit of worthiness.
Denial of Pleasure, Puritanical
– Claudio Naranjo, Character and Neurosis: An Integrative ViewAnd just as a vindictive element may be discerned in interpersonal demands, a masochistic element may be discerned in the postponement of pleasure and natural impulses, for beyond a mere subordination of pleasure to duty the individual develops, to a greater or lesser extent, a "puritanical" disposition of being opposed to pleasure and the play of instinct.
I just saw this.
I'd agree that he's Type 1
But I think he's actually contraflow Sx/So (just have a look at the gender identity controversy), and ILI-Te.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
