Enneagram Type 1 Core, Wings, and Instinctual Variants

Wake · Aug 3, 2012

Enneagram Type 1 Core, Wings, and Instinctual Variants

Core Motivation

Enneagram type 1 fixates on the need to be right. They fear that they will not be reliable to do the right thing when the time comes but instead they will do wrong. They also fear possibility that others will take notice and the 1 will be blamed by others as well as their own conscience which then lessens the amount of trust others have in them to do the right thing. The drive to be right is expressed outside of ones own actions, but this matter is covered in the Instinctual Variants section. This type does however have two separate areas where this rightness is expressed, moral and/or logical matters.

[HR][/HR]

Origins

It is thought by most that at birth we have physical characteristics which make us vulnerable to an Enneagram type, and that our experience during development creates the Enneagram type through fears and desires. These personal experiences and innate characteristics allow us to be individuals yet still of the same basic Enneagram type.

Most theorists believe that type 1's only originate from a sense of righteous moral stances, and this rightness bleeds into the sphere of logic to make them the perfectionist. Perhaps it is possible for a type 1 to stem from a self-critical need for consistency of rightness in terms of logical actions, but this seems like it could very easily be a mistyped 6w5, 5w6, or 3w4.

[HR][/HR]

Wings Theory

The more an individual emphasizes the need to make the logically correct decision the more like the 1w9 they appear. The more an individual emphasizes the need to make the morally correct decision the more 1w2-like they will appear.

	Logically Focused (1w9)	Morally Focused (1w2)
Internal Guideline	Live up to your own standards.	Follow good principles.
Superego Message	You are good if you are competent.	You are good if you do good.

The opposite is true as well for this wing theory. The less one emphasizes logical or moral correctness the less the corresponding wing will show. This being the case, the wing theory has a gradient effect taking place.

[HR][/HR]

Instinctive Variants

My belief on this subject is that you're either internally focused and concerned with yourself (self-preservational) or you look outward making you more concerned with the others (social). This factor may change in an individual based on their environment's requirements, but when idle the mind emphasizes either self-preservational or social interests. Due to the nature of the type 1 and their fear of corruption through wrong doings, they have a natural affiliation with self-preservationist tendencies.

My theory was mostly inspired by Riso-Hudson in the book Wisdom of the Enneagram, and like their beliefs, my theory applies the core desire of the Enneagram type to each of the instinctive variants.

Self-Preservation Instinct (SP) of Type 1 - Internal Focus
Emphasis regarding how their actions live up to principles or standards leading to a self-critical nature.

Social Instinct (SO) of Type 1 - External Focus
Emphasis regarding how their desired change would affect the outside world.

The sexual instinct can be viewed as emotional sensitivity leading people to try to fulfill their emotional needs through intimate connections. I do not follow the common belief that this instinct is connected to the others, instead that it is independent of the others and the strength of this instinct is shaped mostly by innate traits and much less by cultural influences in type 1s.

Sexual Instinct (SX) of Type 1 - Emotional Sensitivity
The drive to make deep connections, and ensure those close share their values.

illicit iridescence · Aug 3, 2012

Nicely written, can I ask questions? :3

How about the One's tendency to readily see how things are supposed to be, and being unsatisfied when things are not?

How does perfectionism tie in to your explanation of the core of Ones? Is it like a tendency that Ones may or may not have because they're focused on doing the right thing? Do you feel perfectionism is often too emphasized in descriptions of Ones you come across?

I sense that what you write in the core motivation section relates a lot to the Six' theme of security. "Who can I trust? Who can I rely on?". Perhaps you can expound a bit here?

That's it for now. :3

Wake · Aug 4, 2012

eyenexepee said:
Nicely written, can I ask questions? :3

Thanks. MBTIEnthusiast helped by proofreading it and did a great job in doing so.

I welcome scrutiny of my understandings I've expressed here.

How about the One's tendency to readily see how things are supposed to be, and being unsatisfied when things are not?

How does perfectionism tie in to your explanation of the core of Ones?

That is what was meant by being tied to a logical rightness when the person says when regarding logical matters "This is how things are setup to make everything go right. What is out of place or not being handled properly, and who is doing wrong?" or a moral stance would be "Why can't everyone agree with my beliefs of the right way to affect humanity? Do they not have a conscience like me? I should make them aware of this." to create perfection by righting wrongs in either sphere.

Is it like a tendency that Ones may or may not have because they're focused on doing the right thing?

Well, that is the outward vs. inward focus. If your job is to find others' wrong doing then you'll experience this quite a bit. If you're focused on yourself then it may not strike you. It still seems noticing what others are doing wrong still would eat at you because it will throw other things off and create a level of chaos.

Do you feel perfectionism is often too emphasized in descriptions of Ones you come across?

Well, what level of perfectionism is necessary to get by at times is the question. 1s wouldn't like to think that they're leaving parts out of their standards wouldn't hurt anything, but that doesn't mean they aren't willing to cut a corner and lower the standard for special occasions, like not applying their standards to other people or not having enough time themselves. This goes back to the standards/principles matter, how far can you compromise your most right way of being before you can't take it anymore? *1 explodes in righteous anger*

Because there is a way things should be in the world the perfectionism exists, and we think we play a role in setting things right to aid the ego.

I sense that what you write in the core motivation section relates a lot to the Six' theme of security. "Who can I trust? Who can I rely on?". Perhaps you can expound a bit here?

You can't control others to live up to your standards or principles, so who can you trust the most to make the correct decision? How much control can you or should be have in guiding others? I'm sure standards vary by individual. You're defending not your own well-being or interests like a 6 in their insecurities about the world, but the way the subject at hand should be dealt with because it affects others or other parts of the system, which makes you conscientious as a 1 is. This is expressed from a POV of a logically focused 1 who wants to be competent, and wants others to be competent or a moralistically focused 1 who would moralize others to their perspective. People do shift based on the subject, but we do cling to either logical (1w9 The Idealist as RH dubs them) or moral (1w2 The Advocate by RH) ways of being more than the other in our overall train of thought shaping our personality but people can be closer to a balanced wing more or less.

illicit iridescence · Aug 4, 2012

Wake said:
You can't control others to live up to your standards or principles, so who can you trust the most to make the correct decision? How much control can you or should be have in guiding others? I'm sure standards vary by individual. You're defending not your own well-being or interests like a 6 in their insecurities about the world, but the way the subject at hand should be dealt with because it affects others or other parts of the system, which makes you conscientious as a 1 is. This is expressed from a POV of a logically focused 1 who wants to be competent, and wants others to be competent or a moralistically focused 1 who would moralize others to their perspective. People do shift based on the subject, but we do cling to either logical (1w9 The Idealist as RH dubs them) or moral (1w2 The Advocate by RH) ways of being more than the other in our overall train of thought shaping our personality but people can be closer to a balanced wing more or less.

I see, thanks for that

Well, that is the outward vs. inward focus. If your job is to find others' wrong doing then you'll experience this quite a bit. If you're focused on yourself then it may not strike you. It still seems noticing what others are doing wrong still would eat at you because it will throw other things off and create a level of chaos.

Ah, that's something I hadn't really considered, but also since I'm not that sure about my own wing, I guess. Good point nonetheless.

Tucken · Aug 10, 2012

On the matter of subwings:
1w9(sw9w8): If I adhere to my own standards I have the right to point out how things should be.
1w9(sw2w1): If I am a good example I have the right to point out how things should be.
1w2(sw9w1): I feel compelled to point out what's wrong around me.
1w2(sw2w3): I feel compelled to fix what's wrong around me.

If the 1w9 has a very strong 9wing, then it begins to take on slight characteristics of 9w8.
If it's not so strong, doesn't lean over so much towards 9, it retains some qualities of 2w1.
Like an arrow on a watch.
But then, no one knows how these things work. Unless you're a math wiz, perhaps.

Important or extra-curricular? Who knows! But here they are, anyways.

Wake · Aug 10, 2012

Tucken said:
But then, no one knows how these things work. Unless you're a math wiz, perhaps.

Important or extra-curricular? Who knows! But here they are, anyways.

I am of the belief that all theory which is not given proper reasoning is only created for people to identify with and feel more unique, but we should avoid the Forer effect.

Enfpleasantly · Jan 8, 2013

@Wake, I appreciate your model, but it's also causing me a little bit of confusion. I realize I might not be taken seriously because I typed myself as a 7 for so long, but I hope that's not the case. I've been 7ish for the past year along with little bursts here and there in the past. It's definitely a growth for me because when in my 7 zone, I'm letting go a little. Anyway...

Maybe you could explain the gradient effect further? I'm fairly certain I'm a 1w2 over a 1w9 because of how people oriented I am. I like to help people become the best they can be and encourage them to grow in order to reach their optimal level of self, but unlike a 2, it's not because I need to help others in order to feel loved; it's a sense of duty in a way for me, because it makes me closer to my ideal person while helping others become more ideal as well; a way to ward off corruption by facing fears, if you will. The thing is, I value competence in this regard...introspection, growth, improvement, facing fears via competence, not morals.

So with the points outlined in your model, this would be me;

1w2 sx/sp
Live up to your own standards and follow good principles.
You are good if you are competent.

Bricolage · Jan 8, 2013

eyenexepee said:
Nicely written, can I ask questions? :3

How about the One's tendency to readily see how things are supposed to be, and being unsatisfied when things are not?

How does perfectionism tie in to your explanation of the core of Ones? Is it like a tendency that Ones may or may not have because they're focused on doing the right thing? Do you feel perfectionism is often too emphasized in descriptions of Ones you come across?

I sense that what you write in the core motivation section relates a lot to the Six' theme of security. "Who can I trust? Who can I rely on?". Perhaps you can expound a bit here?

That's it for now. :3

I'd say yes. Although perfection is an outcropping of the one's natural drive towards goodness or correctness, perfection holds the same place (of holy idea) as truth for eights. Truth for eights or wisdom for sevens isn't as emphasized as perfection for ones because eights and sevens have desires towards self-sufficiency/self-protection (eight) and stimulation/contentment (seven) which aren't as ostensibly tethered to their holy ideas, as is the case with ones, goodness, and perfection. Is this making any sense?!

Wake · Jan 9, 2013

Enfpleasantly said:
@Wake, I appreciate your model, but it's also causing me a little bit of confusion. I realize I might not be taken seriously because I typed myself as a 7 for so long, but I hope that's not the case. I've been 7ish for the past year along with little bursts here and there in the past. It's definitely a growth for me because when in my 7 zone, I'm letting go a little. Anyway...

Maybe you could explain the gradient effect further? I'm fairly certain I'm a 1w2 over a 1w9 because of how people oriented I am. I like to help people become the best they can be and encourage them to grow in order to reach their optimal level of self, but unlike a 2, it's not because I need to help others in order to feel loved; it's a sense of duty in a way for me, because it makes me closer to my ideal person while helping others become more ideal as well; a way to ward off corruption by facing fears, if you will. The thing is, I value competence in this regard...introspection, growth, improvement, facing fears via competence, not morals.

The 1w2 stereotype (and that is all the wings are, stereotypes) is based on the idea that doing right for people for the betterment of them, and to not break principles of the 1w2. This means to only do good and not bad. It is a moral ideal because it is the avoidance of doing wrong to others, and instead do right.

I've been studying morals and classifications of actions for the past 1/2 year in school, and there are two types of modes people act in utilitarian and moral duty. Studies have found that most of the time we act in a utilitarian manner to gain to the best of our ability, but every now and then we find a topic that pushes on our feelings for us to act and this forms a sense of moral duty.

The 1w9 model appears to be based off an emphasis on making things work right to create the most good, though the definitions go far beyond that into things like attitude and such. The 1w2 model is portrayed as more outwardly moralistic and this will end up pushing others to become conscientious also and act on it.

This guide was not necessarily argue that all people must be of a wing, but to present where these stereotypes come from because their is little attention given to where these things come from or their divisions, instead much attention is placed on how the system applies to the world around us. If you are to analyze a theory seriously and skeptically then you would think that how the wing theory is currently presented then used is incredibly irresponsible of the creators.

Enfpleasantly · Jan 9, 2013

Wake said:
The 1w2 stereotype (and that is all the wings are, stereotypes) is based on the idea that doing right for people for the betterment of them, and to not break principles of the 1w2. This means to only do good and not bad. It is a moral ideal because it is the avoidance of doing wrong to others, and instead do right.

I've been studying morals and classifications of actions for the past 1/2 year in school, and there are two types of modes people act in utilitarian and moral duty. Studies have found that most of the time we act in a utilitarian manner to gain to the best of our ability, but every now and then we find a topic that pushes on our feelings for us to act and this forms a sense of moral duty.

The 1w9 model appears to be based off an emphasis on making things work right to create the most good, though the definitions go far beyond that into things like attitude and such. The 1w2 model is portrayed as more outwardly moralistic and this will end up pushing others to become conscientious also and act on it.

This guide was not necessarily argue that all people must be of a wing, but to present where these stereotypes come from because their is little attention given to where these things come from or their divisions, instead much attention is placed on how the system applies to the world around us. If you are to analyze a theory seriously and skeptically then you would think that how the wing theory is currently presented then used is incredibly irresponsible of the creators.

Thank you, that clarifies a lot for me.

Adesi · Mar 5, 2013

I think this is the first time I've seen anything that directly addresses the difference between moral and logistical perfection. This has been sorely lacking, imo.

Wake · Mar 12, 2013

Adesi said:
I think this is the first time I've seen anything that directly addresses the difference between moral and logistical perfection. This has been sorely lacking, imo.

I also wonder why so many "experts" never care to break the topic down regarding principles. Some are moral principles, others may have less moral reasoning and more logistical, and to not go into detail on the matter when the type revolves around the need for principles. The more I think about it I realize that all principles are for a purpose not to bring harm for whatever reason, therefore, they both can be linked to the conscience and this type.

Adesi · Mar 13, 2013

Wake said:
I also wonder why so many "experts" never care to break the topic down regarding principles. Some are moral principles, others may have less moral reasoning and more logistical, and to not go into detail on the matter when the type revolves around the need for principles. The more I think about it I realize that all principles are for a purpose not to bring harm for whatever reason, therefore, they both can be linked to the conscience and this type.

They can have that in common and still be distinct. Logistical principles seem to have more to do with maintaining stability in the world, and the way in which people interact with the world. Moral principles seem to maintain stability and balance between people and the interactions between people. It makes sense to me now why you used the wing as a division. That's not to say ones won't have a bit of both, regardless of their wing. It seems a very grey subject matter.

Wake · Mar 14, 2013

Adesi said:
They can have that in common and still be distinct. Logistical principles seem to have more to do with maintaining stability in the world, and the way in which people interact with the world. Moral principles seem to maintain stability and balance between people and the interactions between people.

Well, these principles regarding logic are to protect something, and that is people from trouble. It's the matter avoidance of harm from others and self that is the basis of almost all principle. Type 1 is not built around the efficiency of the world alone. It seems to me the only reason there is a division is one focuses on things (and how they affect their environment including people), and the other people and their affects. The difference in area of emphasis creates different tendencies, and yes, there is certainly a mixture on some level.

Principles can be taken up as part of a standard in which a group follows, like an industry by regulation of some manner.

ruskiix · Aug 14, 2014

I actually hadn't realized before this that 1w9 is why I'm so interested in experience design and interaction design. All of my energy goes into figuring out how to perfect systems to be the most foolproof. This can be something like figuring out how to change my behavior to fix any weaknesses in a relationship, or creating a better system of organization at home so clutter gets cleaned up automatically, or in politics, figuring out how to change laws and programs to reduce suffering as much as possible.

A close friend of mine is a 1w2 and his morals matter more. Like, say, he overcame poverty and moved away to get a good job, so he has no sympathy for able-bodied people who are unemployed. To him, he overcame adversity through his self control and his personal standards, so others should be able to as well. I tend to think more about how hard I had to work to overcome my challenges, and don't think anyone should have to go through what I did. However, he's ISTJ and I'm INFJ, so I'm not sure if the difference is more that.

Does the willingness to apply your personal standards to others come down to wing influence or is it just a coincidence?

Wake · Aug 18, 2014

ruskiix said:
Does the willingness to apply your personal standards to others come down to wing influence or is it just a coincidence?

Standard application to others is not a wing-specific trait.

ruskiix · Aug 18, 2014

Wake said:
Standard application to others is not a wing-specific trait.

I just can't imagine a 1w9 being harsh on someone else for not being good enough unless they were extremely stressed, since otherwise it's much easier and more natural/peaceful to adjust yourself to make a situation the way you think it should be. While a 1w2 sees holding others to high standards as helping people, that it's more important to help other people be as good as they need to be to be happy.
But I know it isn't that simple.

Wake · Aug 18, 2014

ruskiix said:
I just can't imagine a 1w9 being harsh on someone else for not being good enough unless they were extremely stressed, since otherwise it's much easier and more natural/peaceful to adjust yourself to make a situation the way you think it should be. While a 1w2 sees holding others to high standards as helping people, that it's more important to help other people be as good as they need to be to be happy.
But I know it isn't that simple.

How the Enneagram types go is that these factors are supposed to be central to a motivational drive, and come to you in the form of reoccurring thoughts, so they call it a fixation. How you use it in the various situations is really up to the individual.

I made this more to emphasize where the wings and core are derived from, not to really state a stereotype of a type or sub-type's attitude.

Blazkovitz · Aug 24, 2014

ruskiix said:
I just can't imagine a 1w9 being harsh on someone else for not being good enough unless they were extremely stressed, since otherwise it's much easier and more natural/peaceful to adjust yourself to make a situation the way you think it should be. While a 1w2 sees holding others to high standards as helping people, that it's more important to help other people be as good as they need to be to be happy.
But I know it isn't that simple.

I am a 1w2 and while I hold others to high standards, I am not really harsh on people. When I disapprove of a person, I just avoid them.

Hespera · Dec 29, 2014

Adesi said:
Logistical principles seem to have more to do with maintaining stability in the world, and the way in which people interact with the world. Moral principles seem to maintain stability and balance between people and the interactions between people.

Interesting, as this seems eerily similar to Jung's Thinking/Feeling divide.

Enneagram Type 1 Core, Wings, and Instinctual Variants

Wake

illicit iridescence

Wake

illicit iridescence

Tucken

Wake

Enfpleasantly

Bricolage

Wake

Enfpleasantly

Adesi

Wake

Adesi

Wake

ruskiix

Wake

ruskiix

Wake

Blazkovitz

Hespera

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities