PSA: The Sin of E1 is not "Being the Only Moral Type"
I read a comment here, recently, that only Enneagram 1 is concerned with ethics and morals. This could not be farther from the truth. The main problem of 1 is rationalization. They see themselves as correct, against the evidence, because they deny their own animal side. They deny the effects of the instincts on personality. 1s are used to being right, perhaps because they often are, in certain areas. Often they are adept at using logic, facts, and organizing their lives in accordance to their principles. This makes it difficult for them to see when they are being as irrational as anyone else.
Quote from Naranjo: "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."
Here was see, again: denial of the animal side, so that it acts through the person unconsciously, instead of coming under conscious observation. A "deliberate, well-intentioned attitude," as if the 1 were saying, "I cannot possibly have base motives, because I am cheerful, rational, and well-meaning. Therefore, the problem must lie with others, not me."
Another Naranjo quote: "In the domain of testing applications of Jungian typology the best fit is to be found in the “ESTJ” (extraverted, withpredominance of sensation over intuition, thinking over feeling, judgment over perception). David Keirsey and Marilyn Bates say of these scorers that the best adjective to describe them would be “responsible.”
In other words, supposing you fit somewhat into the mold of an ESTJ, or another type that is capable of being responsible in daily life, moreso than other people. You are likely to look around you and see that others are not living up to the standards you set for yourself. Maybe you develop your ego around doing things correctly, better than others. You might be very adept at expressing yourself, so that you can argue your own viewpoint easily, and you mistake that for being correct. Possibly, you use these skills for the good of others, as you see it. If you're always the one to make sure that events go smoothly, and the desired outcomes are achieved, how could you not develop some kind of ego around it?
Again, all this does not mean that you actually care more about the ethics of interpersonal relations, or the feelings of others, than the other types. It means you have an overgrown sense of right and wrong, probably based on being 'right' so often in your own perception. Being right and moral is simply part of your ego.
John Luckovich quote: "In Type One, the Essential Quality of Integrity collapses into the Passion of Anger. The drive to experience the aligned, sacred quality of the present leads to frustration and judgment. Type One critiques their own instinctual needs and resources as a way of controlling ego-boundaries, thereby feeling separate from the objects of their critique."
Do you deny your own immoral, imperfect side, and focus obsessively on enforcing correctness? You may be a 1. On the contrary, is your more primary emotion shame? Do you beat yourself up a lot internally, and see that as perfectionism? You're probably a 4, but you don't see yourself that way because the Enneagram is almost useless for anyone who you doesn't identify with behavioral traits like: wanting to be saved by a romantic partner; being selfish and dramatic; or having an edgelord persona.
If you are indeed that stereotypical kind of 4, then the idea of integrating more to 1 will make sense for you.
If you are not that kind of 4, and you're the kind of 4 that needs to loosen up, for god's sake, don't try to integrate to 1. Skip that and just chill out.
This has been a PSA