[HollyGolightly]

I can't help but feel the the type one descriptions paints a picture of a "stern schoolmistress" who is unforgiving and harsh. I totally disagree...when I feel that something is immoral e.g. if I saw someone hurting an animal that's when I am unforgiving and harsh but that's because I believe it is called for. I'm actually soft and gentle but reserved...soft and gentle are never used to describe type 1s and there's plenty of type ones who are extremely empathetic and not harsh at all.

What do you guys think? I feel that the descriptions are inaccurate. This made it hard for me to find my type and I only realised I was a one when looking at basic fears, desires, points of integration and disintegration etc. I feel our type descriptions contributes heavily to the negative stereotype of ones. I found that when I thought I was a type 2 or a type 6 I was treated a lot better but when I "came out" as a 1 I felt I had to try harder to prove to people that I am a good and kind person and not at all like the negative stereotype.

Just wondering what you guys think.

 

[AJ2011]

I think you are kind and gentle. Reactions from others reflect their fears. There are a few types whose stereotypical description can appear very demanding, and Type 1 may be one of them. People's fears of being controlled or imposed upon may come to the fore when they encounter labels with such static associations. However, what you may be dealing with is their fear not a specific reaction to a type.

It would be interesting to understand how fears interact with type labels. So, a person of a certain Type has a specific fear to understand, e.g., Type 1's fear of being corrupt, and the Type invokes other types of fear in other people of certain types. There is a dynamic between labels and people's type-based fear.

 

[skbulletin]

@HollyGolightly

I think you're thinking too much from the description. Just take it as a grain of salt lol. I mean its true, even if your intentions aren't mean. There will always be people who can't see it the way we do, thus "harsh" is accurate. In the end its still mislabeling by the status quo. I mean, the things I do, my friends & siblings consider them harsh & mean. But for me its not. so don't worry about the description, its accurate in its weird ways :]

 

[Steel Magnolia]

I don't think we are portrayed as "harsh", but it does seem that we are often portrayed as "serious". And for myself, I can definitely say that I take myself too seriously. That doesn't mean we're not allowed to ever have fun, though, or that we must always be sticks in the mud. And I don't see myself as "harsh". I am shy, and I think strangers perceive me as "distant" for that reason. That said, when people get to really know me, they actually find that I am not distant at all- just slow to warm up. And a few people have even said that I am compassionate (though I don't think I always am).

 

[kittychris07]

Some of the descriptions can make type 1s seem uptight. Being a 1-fixer, I think I act more like the stereotypical 9 would (being accomodating towards others) unless a boundary has been crossed (i.e. someone does something I see as immoral). But my superego is quite capable of being pretty harsh, so maybe the description is warranted.

 

[Wake]

• Type One-Type Two

...

Both types are serious, and conscience-driven, both like to feel that they are of service, and both can be very altruistic; however, their styles and motivations differ significantly. Ones try to transcend the personal in their dealings, appealing to principles and the evident "rightness" of their positions or suggestions. Twos are highly personal and see their service in personal terms. Ones defend their autonomy–they do not want people to interfere with them. Twos seek close connection and even merging. Ones are restrained in the expression of their positive feelings although they let people know when they are dissatisfied or irritated. Twos may have difficulty with hostile or angry feelings, but they are fairly unrestrained in expressing their positive feelings.

The difference in 1 vs. 2 highlights why people would think this as shown above. First underline, a lacking personal connection when making the point while point through a principled rightness. Second underline, we expect things to be right and don't mind showing discontent, and that message that comes with may not be expressed in the most kind form, harsh sometimes.

I've been called a lot worse things than harsh. That characterization doesn't bother me, but I try to keep an overall positive image.

 

[CallSignOWL]

I think 1s are too often described as harsh, as you said, as well as dry and too contained. If we dont sound cruelly strict, we sound boring...

but I can admit to being harsh at times, especially when my ire is up

 

[Benja]

I don't think we're portrayed as harsh, fair, and we seem to notice people's flaws, but I don't think we're harsh about it.

I do see us coming off as overly-serious though as @Steel Magnolia mentions.

 

[Chipps]

Have you ever seen the show "Flipping Out" on Bravo? The guy in it (Jeff Lewis) is a 1w2-6-4. And when he goes off, HE GOES OFF!


I've also noticed that when I get angry or offended, and the pressure of resentment starts to build, I can become one of the harshest people around. I will lash out at anyone who gets in the way and tries to stop me from attacking the person in my cross hairs. I become very stern when I'm about to blow my top or I feel like everyone around me is against me or defending something I think is wrong and doing so for ridiculous reasons. So, there has to be a stressor for me to be "harsh", but once that stressor is added to the situation, I become a ticking time bomb.