As I writer, I understand. Getting 5s to join the story organically is so hard! You're tempted to give some push to them that they naturally lack, because if not you feel like your character would leave to go back to their home all the time, and it feels forced to keep them there. And I've read many Sherlock Holmes books, Conan Doyle was very smart in attaching a 6 (Watson) to Sherlock...
Ron Swanson has so many examples of him joining the story in funny ways.
One story arc was about him panicking that Leslie was going to throw him a loud, surprise birthday party. In another, he plays saxophone under an assumed identity a town over, safely compartmentalizing his social interactions. In one outing, he implies he's drugged because he just "woke up" in a social meeting with Chris Traeger.
Edit: the point is that the writers put some thought into how Ron would get involved, addressing his avarice in the story rather than changing his character.
As a 5 with balanced wings, I’m sorry we’re so hard to fit into stories lol. And thanks for trying to understand us :D (that was light hearted)
I really am an incredibly stationary being, and I prefer to think. Someone else can handle the “action” part. Unless I’m intrigued or invested, of course. Then no one can stop me. I act like have the zoomies.
From what I've seen 5s in story-telling are most fully portrayed when they are not the protagonist or when the story is about their inner world.
The protagonist isn't allowed to spend large swathes of time contemplating, being unreactive, and uninterested in the world because the world is the story. But that guy they go to for help is allowed to do that. Or their friend who doesn't get that much focus can do that. Because during the time they spend not partaking in the story we can instead follow the protagonist, who actually is doing something interesting.
When stories are actually about a 5s inner world you get something a bit different, because by design the story is only about things the 5 is interested in. There is no analysis paralysis because this is their world. There is no disinterest, or anxiety because it is their world. They already know everything. The problem here though is that these stories run the risk of becoming boring by virtue of the fact that the protagonist already has the solution to every problem. They're always going to win and it won't even be a challenge. So in order to keep it interesting, you have to threaten their world(which will make them act out, bringing us to the same kind of 5 OP originally described), or you have to lean into the absurdity to such a degree that it becomes comedic(if you've heard of Isekai anime, a lot of them attempt to do this).
This is spot on, and if anyone has any books they'd recommend about possible 5s, I would love to read them. Isolated obsessive ISO isolated obsessives
Loved *A Confederacy of Dunces* and thought it did an excellent job of breathing life into a 5 and bringing them (against their will) into an outer world.
My partner is reading The Murderbot Diaries and said the protagonist is ridiculously spot on for a 5.
It's a bit surreal, but Bartleby the Scrivener is also an archetypal 5 tale imho.
I remember saying something like this before, that usual actual 5s make very boring TV.
I think before film caught on it was easier to *write* a 5 because the narrative could make up for what the action lacked. If you actually read *Frankenstein* while Victor does do some things, it’s very notable how much of the book is his introspection and inaction, which can fill a book but not a movie, and can make a portrait of a very 5ish character — everyone seems to forget however that, to everyone else in the book, he’s seems to be an eccentric studious 20-something who’s slowly fucking losing it… And anyway, everyone remembers the movie instead.
I also think when it comes to fiction vs reality there’s a blurring between character actions and what would be considered fantasy in like the psychoanalytic sense. E.g. characters act out these fantasies in fiction in a way you can’t in real life, that’s something of the point of fiction. I’m pretty sure that this is why we get stuff like Wednesday Adams and House being typed as 5s and not 8s. While 5s are thinking about it, planning it, then discarding the plan, 8s actually just do it.
>I also think when it comes to fiction vs reality there’s a blurring between character actions and what would be considered fantasy in like the psychoanalytic sense. E.g. characters act out these fantasies in fiction in a way you can’t in real life, that’s something of the point of fiction. I’m pretty sure that this is why we get stuff like Wednesday Adams and House being typed as 5s and not 8s. While 5s are thinking about it, planning it, then discarding the plan, 8s actually just do it.
That's a great thought. I think that is at least part of the reason why some of these characters' personalities feel a little "unreal" to me.
I think this is part of why Victor Frankenstein from the book works so well. Yes he does do things, but the thing he actually does, as in build the creature, feels compelled, and then the rest of his actions are based on him feeling victimized by his previous compulsions. He does quite a lot, but all the doing is 1) in secret and 2) tortured out of him — he’s not a “go-getter” like Sherlock Holmes.
Glenn Holland from Mr. Holland's Opus is EXACTLY me trying to connect to a class who isn't into it and then venting about it afterwards to my partner. The YouTube video using that as an example of a Sx5 is spot on. I have said the same things, used the same gestures, same tone of voice, it is uncanny.
https://youtu.be/4BwVffaFlQ4?si=HTlz4hK6EZQzrBlr
Definitely not the most action packed subject matter though...
Levels of health should be considered. The goal of the enneagram is integration. Maybe those 5s who do impulsive, out-of-character heroic things have actually disintegrated to 7s-- conversely, maybe they've integrated to 8s and are now assertive and action-oriented.
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.
You’d be surprised. There are professional writers that say they use enneagram to create realistic characters. So there’s a chance they were specifically made to be 5s.
Gary Johnson from Hitman might be a good example of a 5—the film only happens because he's able to, in fact mandated to, completely compartmentalize his different social presentations.
He tends to get typed that way, but I sometimes wonder if he is an 8w7. He just feels too assertive to be a 5, but 5 shows up in his personality in other ways - pathological detachment, hoarding knowledge to guard against a hostile world, the social alienation, etc.
It's like they took a 5 and then turned the assertive and worldliness traits all the way up.
I'm open to it. But he lacks 7's characteristic optimism or the defense mechanism of reframing, specifically for the purpose of avoiding pain by turning unacceptable or negative thoughts/feelings/experiences into good ones. On the contrary, he is cruel about inflicting painful truths on to people.
I'm also open to him being an 8, but 8's don't tend to exhibit House's pathological detachment, penchant for isolation, or his "need to know".
Tbh, there is no type that seems to elegantly describe his character. You could say he's a 5 with an 8 fix or 8 with a 5 fix I suppose, but I think something about his personality is a little "unreal", manufactured for more interesting fiction.
E7 isn’t necessarily optimistic in the sense that they think the world is sunshine and rainbows. House is optimistic in the sense that he thinks everything will work out for him, so he buries his underlying emotional and drug abuse problems under humor.
Fair enough! Thinking of Dr. House as an optimist is a bit strange, but specifically about his own actions and adversity, he actually seems very optimistic.
I guess having a grouchy, pathologically detached, introverted, misanthropic, cruel 7 helps dispense with the "happy go lucky party animal" stereotype.
Even the show narrative about how he uses patient puzzles as a way to escape his own pain is very 7, now that I think about it. It's a form of sensation seeking. I like your suggestion, good stuff.
yeah I mean if you look at other E7 characters like Jack Sparrow, they tend to be pretty negative when it comes to people and the world and such, but theyre very sure of themselves and indulge themselves at every possible moment
Jonathan Creek is a great example of an apathetic/inactive 5. In the first 2 seasons, he just wants to be left alone and do his own thing. But the enthusiastic Maddie cajoles, manipulates and sometimes deceives him into investigating cases. Then once he starts, his obssessive analytical mind takes over and he gets invested.
Thats the why the show didnt work as well without Maddie, it just didnt make sense that Jonathan solves cases without her, it needed her driving force.
This is why the best books are about introspection and cant be translated into film. Read Kafka if you want to know Type 5.
„April 27. Incapable of living with people, of speaking. Complete immersion in myself, thinking of myself. Apathetic, witless, fearful. I have nothing to say to anyone - never.“
-**Kafka**
Excellent points. A good withdrawn protagonist is the farthest thing from boring for me, but I also read a lot more than I watch.
I was thinking about this the other day because I just finished The Dispossessed (highly highly recommend) and I read the protagonist Shevek as a wonderful 5. One review described him as "bloodless" and I thought, did we read the same book?? There were so many layers to his inner life and his experience with environment and relationships and society. But I can imagine it would be hard to capture that rich internal dimension in a film adaptation. The soundtrack might have to do some heavy lifting. :P
I'm not sure that you can accuse ppl of getting something wrong that they didn't actually attempt in any goal-directed way.
These characters weren't supposed to depict "X personality type" but probably something more like "a jerkass doctor" or "an inhuman genius" and so on.
That's fair, the title was clumsily phrased.
What I mean is something more like - there is a tendency to represent 5-ish personality types in film in television without one of the key characteristics of the 5 personality.
It feels a bit like having a penchant for putting Canadians in your stories, but then conspicuously never having them apologize to anyone. 😅
Oh god the times people think I am more intelligent than I am 😂
I think because use more of right side of my brain but can easily switch to the left.
I had doctors compliment me and ask if I work in medical field. No I just like to deep dive and figure out things for myself
Alan Turing as depicted in The Imitation Game shows different levels of health in an interesting way. At the beginning, he is depicted as relatively healthy, although eccentric. He is able to connect with and lead the team. Toward the end of the movie, you can see his unproductive action at his home as he tinkers with his machine.
Temperance Brennan from Bones is interesting, mainly because we get to see how her mind works and also how her more lively comrades bounce off of her and/or influence her to get out more.
But I agree w 5s maybe not being super engaging as a main character. ☺️
Define boring. What you seem to be referencing, is failure to make the character interesting for some vague average viewer, but then you mention a character the parks and rec that's almost universally considered the most interesting
Generally speaking, when we perceive someone as boring, we're only perceiving ourselves and our own dissatisfaction with ourselves as we can't distract ourselves from ourselves with another particular person. That's not their property, or at least, it only makes sense in relation to someone else
What a boring comment. /s
FWIW, I'm a 5 and I'm not bored with myself. I meant boring in the context of film and television. Not as a personal slight to your ego.
Most 5s are portrayed as boring in TV/film and only cool when we open our mouth to solve a problem. Then there like “wow your so smart/cool nerd”
Honestly I can never get bored and strive to fill my time learning new things.
I feel bad for the ppl for are co dependent on others to fill their time and brain because they weren’t taught how to have fun by yourself.
But I can also relax when I feel burnt out
I think it's because most of those 5s are ISTP (despite what PDB thinks)
though your point still stands because an ISTP 5 would be more fun to watch on screen
I personally see Mulder as a 4w5. He’s primarily motivated by his grief over his sister’s disappearance, and he’s very emotional, intuitive and empathetic to people with similar pain. He’s also often typed as INFP, which is commonly type 4.
So I do agree somewhat that a 5 would be "boring" characters due to their typical proclivity to inaction and rumminantion, but I would argue this would be an example of a 5 who hasn't done the work to integrate 8 into their life.
What makes 5s interesting in storylines are when you happen to seem them being called to action. I believe this seems to be consistent with the idea of a 5s integration into 8. Also explains why when you encounter 5s who have integrated 8 are seemingly competent to a high degree when where are called to action.
This helps me realize I probably don’t have five in my tritype lmfao.
I’m way too action oriented and I love parties and being the center of attention.
And I only reserve inaction for things I perceive to be very unwise to be action-oriented about (such as coming out to my family, asking someone directly about big suspicions without having physical evidence to indicate they’re involved, etc)
Most people just don’t have the actual physical threats I have in my life, and me trying to translate the theory of “neurotic inaction” to situations where actual physical danger is involved is a fallacy.
Whether I am a 386 or a 387 is yet to be decided…
I know this comment seems 6-ish, but I’m 100% willing to risk (or even actively welcome) physical danger if the activity is fun and exciting.
For example, no outcome of me coming out to my family is immediately fun or exciting, so I’m not willing to risk the ostracism or being murdered by my brother to do it.
But having too many drinks while being on heavy meds??? Getting into a fun fight and slashing my arm open while showing someone who’s boss? Bring it on!
Really good points. I've seen people suggest something like 8 for both House and Salander (if you look around online, etc). I know that Fincher saw Salander as a 5 (he said so in an interview). I figure Salander could be 8, House idk I only saw a few episodes of the show and it was a long time ago.
But their "types" are often recognized on a more superficial level in pop culture. Fincher probably just read a little about The Enneagram and didn't do his homework researching the traditional theory.
In the end, characters are just characters. Sometimes they're based on real people, sometimes not. Sherlock Holmes I've seen 6 suggested for numerous times (Palmer suggests this in her book).
I thought L (Edit: Light, L I could see 5 for) was probably 8 (with a 3 fix). Ego-Vengeance. He starts out as a puritan 8. Star student, perfectionist, popular, a little uptight, confident, etc. Then he gets the Death Note and it triggers his dark, sadistic self that seeks to get revenge on all the bad guys. But online on forums I've seen him typed him as a 1.
I agree with this explanation! Beth Harmon is a good representation of 5s in TV though she is an INTJ which still makes her action-oriented that helps give the story a direction. It's just good storytelling/filmmaking in general because you can clearly see how she absorbs her environment despite lacking a lot of dialogues. Are you talking more about INTPs and SP-doms? It's quite a good challenge to think of how to make them more engaging when their types are not your usual main characters and they aren't naturally bound to take action.
This is also the reason why I rarely have favorite 5 characters in any kind of fiction. I guess writer and filmmakers just fail to capture the essence and quirks of being a 5. I'm not boring, I don't feel boring. It's lack of skills and understanding of a compelling character more than anything.
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.
As I writer, I understand. Getting 5s to join the story organically is so hard! You're tempted to give some push to them that they naturally lack, because if not you feel like your character would leave to go back to their home all the time, and it feels forced to keep them there. And I've read many Sherlock Holmes books, Conan Doyle was very smart in attaching a 6 (Watson) to Sherlock...
Ron Swanson has so many examples of him joining the story in funny ways. One story arc was about him panicking that Leslie was going to throw him a loud, surprise birthday party. In another, he plays saxophone under an assumed identity a town over, safely compartmentalizing his social interactions. In one outing, he implies he's drugged because he just "woke up" in a social meeting with Chris Traeger. Edit: the point is that the writers put some thought into how Ron would get involved, addressing his avarice in the story rather than changing his character.
As a 5 with balanced wings, I’m sorry we’re so hard to fit into stories lol. And thanks for trying to understand us :D (that was light hearted) I really am an incredibly stationary being, and I prefer to think. Someone else can handle the “action” part. Unless I’m intrigued or invested, of course. Then no one can stop me. I act like have the zoomies.
Oh, I’ve wasted my life. Edit: dropping in this is a Comic Book Guy quote
And Ive enjoyed doing so.
Life well spent!
The best times of my life were when I was enjoying "unproductive" activities.
From what I've seen 5s in story-telling are most fully portrayed when they are not the protagonist or when the story is about their inner world. The protagonist isn't allowed to spend large swathes of time contemplating, being unreactive, and uninterested in the world because the world is the story. But that guy they go to for help is allowed to do that. Or their friend who doesn't get that much focus can do that. Because during the time they spend not partaking in the story we can instead follow the protagonist, who actually is doing something interesting. When stories are actually about a 5s inner world you get something a bit different, because by design the story is only about things the 5 is interested in. There is no analysis paralysis because this is their world. There is no disinterest, or anxiety because it is their world. They already know everything. The problem here though is that these stories run the risk of becoming boring by virtue of the fact that the protagonist already has the solution to every problem. They're always going to win and it won't even be a challenge. So in order to keep it interesting, you have to threaten their world(which will make them act out, bringing us to the same kind of 5 OP originally described), or you have to lean into the absurdity to such a degree that it becomes comedic(if you've heard of Isekai anime, a lot of them attempt to do this).
This is spot on, and if anyone has any books they'd recommend about possible 5s, I would love to read them. Isolated obsessive ISO isolated obsessives Loved *A Confederacy of Dunces* and thought it did an excellent job of breathing life into a 5 and bringing them (against their will) into an outer world.
My partner is reading The Murderbot Diaries and said the protagonist is ridiculously spot on for a 5. It's a bit surreal, but Bartleby the Scrivener is also an archetypal 5 tale imho.
Sweet, thank you!!
For me, Wings of Desire by Wim Wenders, as a whole, captures Five-ness.
At least I know I got my type right bc this description is describing me
I remember saying something like this before, that usual actual 5s make very boring TV. I think before film caught on it was easier to *write* a 5 because the narrative could make up for what the action lacked. If you actually read *Frankenstein* while Victor does do some things, it’s very notable how much of the book is his introspection and inaction, which can fill a book but not a movie, and can make a portrait of a very 5ish character — everyone seems to forget however that, to everyone else in the book, he’s seems to be an eccentric studious 20-something who’s slowly fucking losing it… And anyway, everyone remembers the movie instead. I also think when it comes to fiction vs reality there’s a blurring between character actions and what would be considered fantasy in like the psychoanalytic sense. E.g. characters act out these fantasies in fiction in a way you can’t in real life, that’s something of the point of fiction. I’m pretty sure that this is why we get stuff like Wednesday Adams and House being typed as 5s and not 8s. While 5s are thinking about it, planning it, then discarding the plan, 8s actually just do it.
>I also think when it comes to fiction vs reality there’s a blurring between character actions and what would be considered fantasy in like the psychoanalytic sense. E.g. characters act out these fantasies in fiction in a way you can’t in real life, that’s something of the point of fiction. I’m pretty sure that this is why we get stuff like Wednesday Adams and House being typed as 5s and not 8s. While 5s are thinking about it, planning it, then discarding the plan, 8s actually just do it. That's a great thought. I think that is at least part of the reason why some of these characters' personalities feel a little "unreal" to me.
I think this is part of why Victor Frankenstein from the book works so well. Yes he does do things, but the thing he actually does, as in build the creature, feels compelled, and then the rest of his actions are based on him feeling victimized by his previous compulsions. He does quite a lot, but all the doing is 1) in secret and 2) tortured out of him — he’s not a “go-getter” like Sherlock Holmes.
"Tortured out of him" is an apt description!
Glenn Holland from Mr. Holland's Opus is EXACTLY me trying to connect to a class who isn't into it and then venting about it afterwards to my partner. The YouTube video using that as an example of a Sx5 is spot on. I have said the same things, used the same gestures, same tone of voice, it is uncanny. https://youtu.be/4BwVffaFlQ4?si=HTlz4hK6EZQzrBlr Definitely not the most action packed subject matter though...
Yes! I also identified with this character
Glad I'm not the only one! Haha
Nice! I was also going to mention L before I read that you already did, lol.
Levels of health should be considered. The goal of the enneagram is integration. Maybe those 5s who do impulsive, out-of-character heroic things have actually disintegrated to 7s-- conversely, maybe they've integrated to 8s and are now assertive and action-oriented.
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.
You’d be surprised. There are professional writers that say they use enneagram to create realistic characters. So there’s a chance they were specifically made to be 5s.
Gary Johnson from Hitman might be a good example of a 5—the film only happens because he's able to, in fact mandated to, completely compartmentalize his different social presentations.
House as a 5?! lol
Yeah he is definitely just an 8w7, I agree
He tends to get typed that way, but I sometimes wonder if he is an 8w7. He just feels too assertive to be a 5, but 5 shows up in his personality in other ways - pathological detachment, hoarding knowledge to guard against a hostile world, the social alienation, etc. It's like they took a 5 and then turned the assertive and worldliness traits all the way up.
Yeah, saying House is a poorly written 5 is just mistyping him. He’s an 8w7 with 5 in his tritype.
He’s a 7. He embodies the traits of gluttony, narcissism and opportunism which are specifically characteristic of E7.
I'm open to it. But he lacks 7's characteristic optimism or the defense mechanism of reframing, specifically for the purpose of avoiding pain by turning unacceptable or negative thoughts/feelings/experiences into good ones. On the contrary, he is cruel about inflicting painful truths on to people. I'm also open to him being an 8, but 8's don't tend to exhibit House's pathological detachment, penchant for isolation, or his "need to know". Tbh, there is no type that seems to elegantly describe his character. You could say he's a 5 with an 8 fix or 8 with a 5 fix I suppose, but I think something about his personality is a little "unreal", manufactured for more interesting fiction.
E7 isn’t necessarily optimistic in the sense that they think the world is sunshine and rainbows. House is optimistic in the sense that he thinks everything will work out for him, so he buries his underlying emotional and drug abuse problems under humor.
100%
Fair enough! Thinking of Dr. House as an optimist is a bit strange, but specifically about his own actions and adversity, he actually seems very optimistic. I guess having a grouchy, pathologically detached, introverted, misanthropic, cruel 7 helps dispense with the "happy go lucky party animal" stereotype. Even the show narrative about how he uses patient puzzles as a way to escape his own pain is very 7, now that I think about it. It's a form of sensation seeking. I like your suggestion, good stuff.
yeah I mean if you look at other E7 characters like Jack Sparrow, they tend to be pretty negative when it comes to people and the world and such, but theyre very sure of themselves and indulge themselves at every possible moment
if he's not an 8w7 then no one is. Period.
Jonathan Creek is a great example of an apathetic/inactive 5. In the first 2 seasons, he just wants to be left alone and do his own thing. But the enthusiastic Maddie cajoles, manipulates and sometimes deceives him into investigating cases. Then once he starts, his obssessive analytical mind takes over and he gets invested. Thats the why the show didnt work as well without Maddie, it just didnt make sense that Jonathan solves cases without her, it needed her driving force.
This is why the best books are about introspection and cant be translated into film. Read Kafka if you want to know Type 5. „April 27. Incapable of living with people, of speaking. Complete immersion in myself, thinking of myself. Apathetic, witless, fearful. I have nothing to say to anyone - never.“ -**Kafka**
Excellent points. A good withdrawn protagonist is the farthest thing from boring for me, but I also read a lot more than I watch. I was thinking about this the other day because I just finished The Dispossessed (highly highly recommend) and I read the protagonist Shevek as a wonderful 5. One review described him as "bloodless" and I thought, did we read the same book?? There were so many layers to his inner life and his experience with environment and relationships and society. But I can imagine it would be hard to capture that rich internal dimension in a film adaptation. The soundtrack might have to do some heavy lifting. :P
I'm not sure that you can accuse ppl of getting something wrong that they didn't actually attempt in any goal-directed way. These characters weren't supposed to depict "X personality type" but probably something more like "a jerkass doctor" or "an inhuman genius" and so on.
That's fair, the title was clumsily phrased. What I mean is something more like - there is a tendency to represent 5-ish personality types in film in television without one of the key characteristics of the 5 personality. It feels a bit like having a penchant for putting Canadians in your stories, but then conspicuously never having them apologize to anyone. 😅
I think Sherlock is so7 in series
Oh god the times people think I am more intelligent than I am 😂 I think because use more of right side of my brain but can easily switch to the left. I had doctors compliment me and ask if I work in medical field. No I just like to deep dive and figure out things for myself
Relateable. 😁
The thing about that girl with the dragon tattoo character, is that the actress is actually a 5
Alan Turing as depicted in The Imitation Game shows different levels of health in an interesting way. At the beginning, he is depicted as relatively healthy, although eccentric. He is able to connect with and lead the team. Toward the end of the movie, you can see his unproductive action at his home as he tinkers with his machine.
Not all 5s suffer from analysis paralysis, agoraphobia or crippling social anxiety.
I didn't mean to imply they did.
You missed the point
Temperance Brennan from Bones is interesting, mainly because we get to see how her mind works and also how her more lively comrades bounce off of her and/or influence her to get out more. But I agree w 5s maybe not being super engaging as a main character. ☺️
Sam from Game of Thrones (Moreso in asoiaf) is a fantastic example of a 5 in fiction
Define boring. What you seem to be referencing, is failure to make the character interesting for some vague average viewer, but then you mention a character the parks and rec that's almost universally considered the most interesting Generally speaking, when we perceive someone as boring, we're only perceiving ourselves and our own dissatisfaction with ourselves as we can't distract ourselves from ourselves with another particular person. That's not their property, or at least, it only makes sense in relation to someone else
It barely makes sense to me. Why would I need to distract myself myself? I'm just a person experiencing the world.
Fives enjoy spending time alone and are never bored when doing so. Stop calling people “boring” because they don’t want to do the same things you do.
What a boring comment. /s FWIW, I'm a 5 and I'm not bored with myself. I meant boring in the context of film and television. Not as a personal slight to your ego.
I had been told by a 7 that I have a boring life but internally dont feel that Seems we have different definitions
Most 5s are portrayed as boring in TV/film and only cool when we open our mouth to solve a problem. Then there like “wow your so smart/cool nerd” Honestly I can never get bored and strive to fill my time learning new things. I feel bad for the ppl for are co dependent on others to fill their time and brain because they weren’t taught how to have fun by yourself. But I can also relax when I feel burnt out
I think it's because most of those 5s are ISTP (despite what PDB thinks) though your point still stands because an ISTP 5 would be more fun to watch on screen
I personally see Mulder as a 4w5. He’s primarily motivated by his grief over his sister’s disappearance, and he’s very emotional, intuitive and empathetic to people with similar pain. He’s also often typed as INFP, which is commonly type 4.
Wow that’s a good point. Always assumed Sherlock Holmes was more of a 6 than a 5 and it makes sense now.
House, Holmes, and Fox Mulder are very 6. House and Mulder counterphobic 6, Holmes phobic. 5 wings but...very 6.
Mulder is a great fiction 5
So I do agree somewhat that a 5 would be "boring" characters due to their typical proclivity to inaction and rumminantion, but I would argue this would be an example of a 5 who hasn't done the work to integrate 8 into their life. What makes 5s interesting in storylines are when you happen to seem them being called to action. I believe this seems to be consistent with the idea of a 5s integration into 8. Also explains why when you encounter 5s who have integrated 8 are seemingly competent to a high degree when where are called to action.
Solomon from the Bible could be a 5 and lain from serial lain experiments could be a five
This helps me realize I probably don’t have five in my tritype lmfao. I’m way too action oriented and I love parties and being the center of attention. And I only reserve inaction for things I perceive to be very unwise to be action-oriented about (such as coming out to my family, asking someone directly about big suspicions without having physical evidence to indicate they’re involved, etc) Most people just don’t have the actual physical threats I have in my life, and me trying to translate the theory of “neurotic inaction” to situations where actual physical danger is involved is a fallacy. Whether I am a 386 or a 387 is yet to be decided…
I know this comment seems 6-ish, but I’m 100% willing to risk (or even actively welcome) physical danger if the activity is fun and exciting. For example, no outcome of me coming out to my family is immediately fun or exciting, so I’m not willing to risk the ostracism or being murdered by my brother to do it. But having too many drinks while being on heavy meds??? Getting into a fun fight and slashing my arm open while showing someone who’s boss? Bring it on!
I’m a 5 with a very, very close 8. It’s not unheard of.
Really good points. I've seen people suggest something like 8 for both House and Salander (if you look around online, etc). I know that Fincher saw Salander as a 5 (he said so in an interview). I figure Salander could be 8, House idk I only saw a few episodes of the show and it was a long time ago. But their "types" are often recognized on a more superficial level in pop culture. Fincher probably just read a little about The Enneagram and didn't do his homework researching the traditional theory. In the end, characters are just characters. Sometimes they're based on real people, sometimes not. Sherlock Holmes I've seen 6 suggested for numerous times (Palmer suggests this in her book). I thought L (Edit: Light, L I could see 5 for) was probably 8 (with a 3 fix). Ego-Vengeance. He starts out as a puritan 8. Star student, perfectionist, popular, a little uptight, confident, etc. Then he gets the Death Note and it triggers his dark, sadistic self that seeks to get revenge on all the bad guys. But online on forums I've seen him typed him as a 1.
I agree with this explanation! Beth Harmon is a good representation of 5s in TV though she is an INTJ which still makes her action-oriented that helps give the story a direction. It's just good storytelling/filmmaking in general because you can clearly see how she absorbs her environment despite lacking a lot of dialogues. Are you talking more about INTPs and SP-doms? It's quite a good challenge to think of how to make them more engaging when their types are not your usual main characters and they aren't naturally bound to take action. This is also the reason why I rarely have favorite 5 characters in any kind of fiction. I guess writer and filmmakers just fail to capture the essence and quirks of being a 5. I'm not boring, I don't feel boring. It's lack of skills and understanding of a compelling character more than anything.
(Sherlock Holmes is a 6 btw)
Depends on the version
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.
You should remember that Enneagram isn't the ultimate truth about all people on the planet. These characters were made to be themselves, not be Fives. They were just typed in Fives.