The times I remember refraining from emotional display (not crying, yelling, etc) revolved around the image of weakness. It feels weak to cry and get upset. It's a loss of control and a sign the other person has power/sway to upset you. As I once read, he who makes you angry controls you (although I would change this to he who makes you emotional controls you).
Other times I have cried have been when I am ashamed or hurt and wish to hide this from others (this comes back to Fi, probably, as I'm pretty big on my emotions being nobody else's business but my own). The vulnerable feeling that comes when crying in front of others is...terrifying. I do not like it.
When I do cry in public, it's ridiculous looking. My face stays very passive/stone like. But my eyes are just streaming. Like this:
Emotional display in public (primarily sadness/extreme anger) feels...vulnerable and weak. Like a total loss of control. An admission of loss of control.
Thank you for being honest about your views. I can't tell you how much it means.IMO, you're either core 1w2 or 3w2. I am a regular lurker in the enneagram section, and have stumbled upon many of your posts. When you typed as an 8, I thought everything you wrote screamed 3. But when you identified as a 3w4, I thought something was off...I didn't see w4's need for unique presentation or other 4 themes(elitism, melancholy, romanticized presentation of flaws=done stylishly) in you. 3w2 is still possible, as I see 3 themes in you and w2 would color your core differently, explaining why you seemed different than 3w4s here.
Three. And four. And nine. Those three types make my skin crawl. Which is hilarious seeing as I get along great with threes in real life (several of my good friends are threes), my soul-mate of a friend was a four wing five, and my sister is a nine (all are self-typed).The following links are wonderful representations of the 3ish and 1ish pattern. Which strikes a cord whithin you, creates an unpleasant "I-feel-as-though-a-million-of-insects-are-crawling-on-me-naked" reaction? I expect you to experience some kind of unpleasant recognition when you discover your true type. Sounds very lame and cliche, and I used to scoff at people telling others to expect an emotional "Oh..." at some point when reading about their core, because I thought myself soooo introspective that no information about my enneagram could affect me, but then I experienced the nasty recognition myself...It happens because your fixation, core beliefs and whatnot are so deeply buried in your psyche that faced with the defense mechanisms you have but never realized how "far" they went, it affects you on a emotional level...They're the center of you, after all.
The sacrifing nature of threes for the sake of public image is...repulsive. The ability to change the self to fit public perception is something every fiber of my being freaks at. It's disconcerting in a way that makes me want to scream (I see my three friends do it and it both amuses/horrifies me).
I am very staunch in my own beliefs and do not sacrifice them on the principal of fitting in. That is probably the strongest one-ish aspect of me.
Four represents unhealthy self-obsession and narcissim. To me, there is something obnoxious in the way fours keep searching for their "true selves." A long period of bad experiences with my unhealthy four friend have led to an almost instant negative reaction against other fours in real life and online. As it is, I struggle to even step in their forum without wanting to puke.
Nines-- I can't understand a passivity towards life. Life is meant to be grasped, molded, and taken. It's meant to be seized, controlled, and used. The accepting nature of nines is probably what more of the world needs, and Lord knows my sister has taught me more about myself and my failings than I would ever have seen otherwise. But we do clash on the aspect of proactivity. For her, life is about enjoying the moment. For me, life is about whipping the moment into shape, squeezing the life and opportunity out of it, and using it to get somewhere else.
Nines are my antithesis in a way.
Neither? I have no problem playing second fiddle to someone I respect. I've found through experience that being second in command allows me to control the scenario without having to take the spotlight. Essentially, I don't have to work as hard as the person on the top, but I get all the control benefits that come with being at their side. Sounds snake-ish, but it's true. I'm not a maniuplative person, but I know how to be subtle (I've gotten much, much better at it in years). Then again, if I were trying to be subtle and someone kept resisting, I would step out and steamroller them into submission. I generally play nice the first few rounds, then pull out the guns when I find that doesn't work.Are you principally driven by the acquisition of self-worth by winning the top spot somewhere(is being second best the worst thing ever?), or the refinement/perfection of your moral compass to feel like a good, irreprochable person?
As to being a better person, sure. I'm always working on improving myself in different ways that are useful towards my goals. As to being ethical-- that's usually a second-thought thing. I'm fairly ethical by nature, so I don't think about it in the day to day. I just follow the laws I have set for myself. If I overstep them, I don't realize it until after I've gotten what I wanted. Then I feel like crap.
For example, there have been times where I was a total intolerable jackass to people who were only trying to help. When I realize afterwards how much I hurt them, I'm usually quite apologetic.
I would never sacrifice the self for the sake of presentation, and right usually comes before winning (although losing would piss me off and drive me to fight harder).http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/d/images/levels3.gif
Also, I would ask you where is your main focus of attention? Inner standards of perfection or outstanding presentation?
Winning/success or what is right?
For example, although I would love to enter politics, I'm pretty sure I'd make a god-awful politician. I could never pretend to have stances I don't, even if it cost me the election. I can't imagine pretending to be something I'm not. That is the ultimate form of cowardice, in my mind. If you can't stand up for yourself, you might as well not exist.
Interestingly, I'm beginning to learn how to manipulate image (without sacrificing convictions) for the sake of getting what I want. It's an unsteady, interesting personal experiment.
Hmmmm....on that aspect, I would probably veer towards outstandingness. At least work-wise.It can be hard for 3-1-Xs and 1-3-Xs to decide which fix is their core, as 1s and 3s have many similarities. I myself was stuck between 1w9 and 3w4 for a while, before noticing that my attention is always directed towards threeish ends FIRST. Despite needing both perfection and outstandingness in my work, at all times, I spend 85% of my energy building a vision of "what can surpass everyone else's work".
I would be the same as you, although I hate making mistakes on small details like grammar. To me, that's sloppy and inexcusable.Heck, when I am short on time I even sacrifice grammar, "the proper format to follow", teacher's guidelines, and other 1ish things to come up with the most original idea the prof has ever seen, the most insightful analysis, the bolder style of writing, and blah blah blah...I'd rather submit something grandiose but filled with mistakes, than follow directions properly and produce something perfect with a "second-place" idea/presentation/etc. I strive for both, but when something has to go, it's perfection. What are your thoughts on that?
But I was very well known in college for manipulating the rules to be creative. Oftentimes because I didn't want to follow what the teacher asked, but still wanted the grade. I found that if I could interpret the rules in a different light, I could break them on technicalities (which meant I would get to argue my point with the teacher afterwards, something I relished). It allowed me to create something new and different while pissing the teacher off.
For example, I was once asked to write a creative piece centered around a character's action. Being the snot I was, I decided that my character's action would be inaction. So I wrote a piece around that and turned it in. The teacher brought it up later and planned to dock me a grade for it, but I argued my point. And won. I had followed his rule, but I had broken it to create something else. It made me proud (it amuses me to think screwing with people makes me proud).
In general, I often broke the rules my teachers laid out for me on papers and projects because following their requirements in the obvious fashion seemed dull and uninteresting. A thousand kids had done it before. I would do it differently and get an argument out it. Win win situation!
On the first question, I definitely lean towards the three. I follow external rules as they suit me. My personal rules, however, are not to be broken no matter what the situation.The Harmonic Groups This link is about the differences between competency types(1,3,5). Do you need to always follow the system on ethical grounds(1), or do you see the system as something to be used for your own ends, followed when it brings you something, but abandonned when you gain nothing from it/when it slows you down(3)? How do you feel about shortcuts? Efficiency or ethics first?
Shortcuts piss me off. Taking shortcuts is being lazy. Very rarely is shortcutting actually efficient.
Oh shit. Efficiency or ethics. Hot damn, that's a question for the ages. Probably ethics. My three friend has been maniuplative for efficiency's sake and it pisses me off (especially when she attempts to maniuplate me using it).
I've tried to be manipulative in order to make others more efficient, and I find it leads to me feeling disgusted with myself even if it pays off (it's a shortcut).
The objective of life isn't to improve myself. It's to get what I want. But self improvement generally helps me get closer to my end aims.You should reflect about your life mentalities too, as each enneagram type has its own perspectives on life, stemming from the loss of perception of one of the Holy Ideas (Holy Perfection for E1 and Holy Law, Holy Hope for E3), and from there developps your dominant fixations, drive, and defense mechanisms to cope with it. "If you believe that the world is ultimately imperfect, that you must be competent, and that the objective of life is to improve yourself and the world around you, then you might be:"=E1. VS. "If you believe that the world is ultimately yours for the taking, that you must be competent, and that the objective of life is to succeed, then you might be:"=E3. From @ timeless 's descriptions, I highly recommand them. Enneagram History and Origins: The Traditional Enneagram
Thanks.From the misidentification section:
- Type Three-Type One
Average Ones and average Threes are sometimes mistaken because both types are efficient and highly organized. If an isolated behavior is the only thing being considered (chairing a business meeting or planning a vacation, for instance), their organizational abilities are similar–hence the confusion between them. Both are highly task-oriented and tend to put their feelings on the back burner to get things done. Also, both share a desire to improve themselves and to meet high standards, although the basis of their standards and their key motivations are quite different in nature.
Average Ones are idealists, striving for perfection and order in every area of their lives, especially their emotional lives, in an effort to control both themselves and their environment so that errors and failures of all sorts will not be introduced. Inner-motivated by strong consciences, they are organized and efficient so as not to waste time and other resources or allow themselves to be in a position for their consciences to rebuke them for being imperfect, for not trying hard enough, or for being guilty of some form of selfishness.
Average Threes, by contrast, are efficient pragmatists, not idealists. Threes are driven more by their goals than by standards–they care more about getting the job done than about the particulars of how it gets done. Ones tend to be attached to particular methods or procedures ("This is the best way to do this.") Threes are more adaptable, and will change tactics quickly if they feel they are not getting the desired result. Average Threes are primarily interested in success, prestige, and advancing their careers, and the efficiency we see in them is a way of attaining those goals.
While both types tend to put their feelings aside for the sake of efficiency, average Threes are more able to mask whatever is bothering them. On the surface, they rarely appear emotionally disturbed for long by anything (although they may become momentarily discouraged or even depressed by setbacks), nor are they generally ever distracted by their feelings. They are able to invest most of their energy into achieving their goals and in staying focused on them single-mindedly. Ones are far less able to conceal their irritations and disappointments. Others are almost immediately aware of their agitation.
Both types can be cool and impersonal, although they are usually polite and well mannered. With average Ones, we get the impression of deeper feelings being held in check or sublimated elsewhere, say into organizing and maintaining their office space, or giving time to a local ecological organization. Even though Ones do not ordinarily allow their passions to be expressed, their emotions remain potentially available should the self-control Ones typically exercise be lifted. (Their most prevalent negative emotions are righteous anger, indignation, irritation, and guilt.) In average Threes, however, the impression of aloofness and of emotional coolness comes more from a detachment from their feelings rather than a suppression of them. At the same time, average Threes tend to present whatever emotion seems appropriate at the time. If seriousness is called for, they tend to project seriousness. If levity is required, they will "do levity," smiling and being chatty, even if inside they are feeling frightened, overwhelmed, or even sad. For better or worse, Threes are more skilled at projecting charm and "personality" than Ones. However, we can discern the underlying detachment from deeper feelings when Threes are "performing" by the abruptness and ease with which they can adjust their affect from situation to situation and from person to person. (In contrast to Ones, their most prevalent negative emotions are hostility, arrogance, and underlying feelings of shame and humiliation.)
In addition, Ones are trying to be perfect to fend off their own superegos, while Threes are trying to excel to overcome feelings of family shame. In effect, Ones say, "Listen to me–I know the right way to do things," whereas Threes say, "Be like me–I have got it together." Ones offer themselves as examples of those who are striving for perfection, particularly moral perfection, they see themselves as those who can meet the highest standards; Threes offer themselves as exemplars of individual perfection, particularly personal desirability, and as those who can accomplish and be the best.
These two types are similar because both types are "thinking" types–the One corresponds to Jung's extroverted thinking type (PT, 381), who attempts to be objective and impersonal, while the Three's thinking is goal-oriented and pragmatic, similar in orientation to the extroverted thinking of the average One, although technically, there is no direct Jungian correlation. Both types have in mind some sort of goal that they want to achieve. The difference is that Ones attempt to discover which objective means will best lead to the desired ideal, whereas Threes are pragmatists who work backward to find the most efficient means to achieve their goal. The differences between these types can be seen by comparing Al Gore (a One) with Bill Clinton (a Three) or between Emma Thompson (a One) and Jane Pauley (a Three).
Good luck at finding your type.