Enneagram Type 1

[silke]

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."

[Bertrand]

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).

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

[silke]

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. ...

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.

[Samson]

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.

[silke]

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.

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

[Samson]

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.