[Type 1] what really is enneagram 1?

[yeghor]

Yep, its present in E1 and E5 at least, if not on head types also as well, and also E9 on another way...
So it is not that of a good argument for a type.

Interesting that the compulsion for optimizing the self and other things does not come up associated with other enneagram types on google search. Do you have any definitions that associate other enneagram types besides E1 with this compulsion?

For E1, on the Conscientious route there's no XNXP 1 for sure... While for the moral crusader route there is barely any relationship with SJ-NP. So a XNXP E1 voted on PDB is pretty much inside the moral crusader... When they don't get mad enough to vote ENFP/ENTP E1.

Fi in MBTI very well matches with E4 compulsions, authenticity in expression and fine tuning of the self/individuation. It is easy to deduce that E4/Fi is a compulsion for maximal expression of the ego, and disdain for others and the world suggests low humility. Consequently, external truths that clash with their ego-ideal will be rejected and denied, so authenticity is a bit of a misnomer for E4, it is more like prioritizing E4's feelings and values over other people's feelings and values. Hence, E4/Fi can authentically be dishonest if it serves the ego-ideal.

Compare that to E1 traits and compulsions. It is clear that E1 strives to satisfy a a super-ego (above-self) ideal rather than an ego-ideal (self-ideal), see the inner critic note there. Also mind the item that explains how E4 and E8 values/ideals serve the ego-ideal whereas E1 the super-ego ideal (rules, principles, code of good conduct etc.).

The super-ego ideal sacrifices the needs of the ego-ideal (self) if the circumstances/facts dictate it. That means truths/facts will be accepted and acknowledged even when they are against the needs/values of the ego-ideal (self).

Conversely, to the ego-ideal, the needs of the individual outweigh the needs of others unless the needs of the others can be traced back to the need of the individual, i.e. unless the individual can identify themselves with the others. In that vein, to someone pursuing an ego-ideal, external truths/facts not fitting the ego-ideal will be rejected, resulting in lack of honesty and humility.

As an example, what is meant by logic below is actually the logic coming from a super-ego ideal rather than an ego-ideal. An E5 logic would be more concerned about maximizing the chances of survival of the individual, and when not accompanied by a strong E1 compulsion, E5 would not have any qualms about what happens to others in the process, they would be come secondary concerns, unless they serve the needs of the individual.

 

[yeghor]

As an example, what is meant by logic below is actually the logic coming from a super-ego ideal rather than an ego-ideal. An E5 logic would be more concerned about maximizing the chances of survival of the individual, and when not accompanied by a strong E1 compulsion, E5 would not have any qualms about what happens to others in the process, they would be come secondary concerns, unless they serve the needs of the individual.

See for Spock:

P.s.: They made the new Spock too violent/aggressive, he is closer to ISTJ than INTJ btw.

 

[Vendrah]

Interesting that the compulsion for optimizing the self and other things does not come up associated with other enneagram types on google search. Do you have any definitions that associate other enneagram types besides E1 with this compulsion?

Except that if you put optimization and enneagram, there are very few results that relates the word optimization and enneagram, and most definitions of the Enneagram lacks the word "optimization". It does not have any attention.

...

I have zero idea of how what you say links much with INFP/INTP E1, you probably think there can't be INFP/ISFP 1 I guess. I don't think it is a worth discussion because it is at least a odd combination.

 

[mancino]

I would like to re-frame the debate widening the scope a bit, if you don't mind.

Let's take a look at this list of traits:

• Austerity or Thrift
• Courage
• Determination
• Discipline
• Fortitude without self-pity ("Learn to suffer without complaining")
• Frankness or Probity
• Godliness, coupled with religious tolerance ("Let everyone find salvation according to their own beliefs")
• Humility or Modesty
• Incorruptibility
• Industriousness or Diligence
• Loyalty
• Obedience ("Be obedient, but not without frankness")
• Punctuality
• Reliability
• Restraint
• Self-denial
• Self-effacement ("More substance than semblance!")
• Sense of duty or Conscientiousness
• Sense of justice ("May all get their due")
• Sense of order ("Know your place")
• Sincerity
• Straightness or Straightforwardness
• Subordination
• Toughness ("Be even harder on yourself than on others")

It seems to fit our E1 archetype quite nicely: a good combo of a J-type with Morals. It does describe E1, only that it doesn't: it's a list of Prussian Virtues:

Prussian virtues - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a description of the well-known "Prussian character", that indeed seems to resemble E1. Except, again, that it doesn't: Naranjo clearly associates the Prussian character with SO 6.

My point is that no list of traits is going to get the gist of any Enna-type. It can get close, but not quite. Many mistypes are possible. In this case, E1 and SO E6 are very, very close to one another, until you scratch the surface and get beyond simple lists of traits:

Naranjo is unfortunately brief on the matter:

I/VI:
The predominantly dutiful variety of E VI may be difficult to discriminate from E I; one difference lies in the greater assertiveness of the latter; another, the greater difficulty of the fearful in coming to decisions. Also, E I is more active.

Chestut is more elaborate:

Ones and Sixes

Ones and Sixes share several traits in common. Both Ones and Sixes excel at analytical thinking, and both worry about things going wrong. Ones tend to feel anxious about making mistakes, and Sixes tend to experience more general anxiety related to many different things potentially going wrong in life. In response to their worry, Ones try to be perfect and avoid making mistakes and Sixes catastrophize and imagine worst-case scenarios. Both Ones and Sixes are uncomfortable with success.

Both styles create problems for themselves in completing tasks and moving toward success, Ones because they believe something is never perfect and so constantly criticize themselves, and Sixes because they continually doubt and question themselves and believe that becoming successful will make them a target. Both styles also tend to be activists in support of social causes they care about, Ones because they feel responsible for making the world a better place, and Sixes because they identify with underdog causes and are sensitive to people in authority positions exercising power over others in unjust ways.

Ones and Sixes also differ in specific ways. Ones worry about making mistakes and being wrong, according to their own standards, while Sixes worry about danger and external threats of all kinds.

Ones are self-critical and tend to judge others, and Sixes doubt themselves and others. Related to self-criticism and self-doubt, Ones try,—and inevitably fail—to be perfect and Sixes either try and fail to find certainty, or find it in a specific source of authority.

One particularly stark contrast between Ones and Sixes is that Ones tend to obey authority, whereas Sixes tend to be suspicious of authority and may even rebel against it. Ones follow the rules, while most Sixes question them. (One exception to this is the Social Six, who adheres to an outside authority and may strictly follow the rules offered by that authority.) Both styles can procrastinate, but they do it for different reasons: Ones fear making a mistake and so always want more time to make what they do more perfect. Sixes continual doubting and questioning makes it hard for them to move forward.

In terms of relating to people, generally, Ones tend to trust people and give them the benefit of the doubt unless they break the rules or engage in some kind of bad behavior, whereas Sixes mistrust others initially until they have observed them enough to satisfy themselves that they are trustworthy.

After a person has earned their trust, Sixes are very loyal and supportive.

R&H you can read here:

Misidentifying 1 and 6

www.enneagraminstitute.com

So it seems to me that:
E1: worry, critical, obedient and trusting, decisive.
E6: anxiety, doubt, loyal but skeptical, indecisive.

But the main difference is in the emotions, as R&H describe in much detail (especially referring to 6w5 vs 1). And emotions are usually very hard to tell from the outside, but also from the inside, especially if you are a Compliant type; it does require EI too.

The conundrum here is that, just going by traits, one can't get to a proper type assessment, nor with self-reports or other-reports. It's all too easy to read the list above, identify with most and assign the type. We're analyzing E1 here but it's true with most types, in any system.

(side note: it would be nice to get some feedback on the Prussian character by some German native speaker, for example @noname3688 )

 

[yeghor]

Except, again, that it doesn't: Naranjo clearly associates the Prussian character with SO 6.

What I am wondering is how he does that? What's his reasoning to not associate those traits with E6.

Btw I've just read E6 traits, it is so ambigous that I don't know what to make of it. They make E6 sound like a crazy paranoid anxious person who doesn't want to stand out and merge with the masses/herd for safety and who always worries about potential problems and potential hostility from others. Someone who wants to be sure that people around them are loyal to them and will constantly provide security and support.

I'll try to make sure based on the wheel charts below:
Chart 1: E6 sounds like Se, E1 sounds like Ni (improvement/optimization).
Chart 2: E6 sounds like collectivism (a J type), E1 sounds like any type.
Chart 3: E6 sounds like IxxJ, E1 sounds like IxxJ
Chart 4: E6 sounds like xxTJ, E1 sounds like IxxJ
Chart 5: E6 sounds like xSxJ, E1 sounds like xNxJ

Conclusion: E6 xSxJ, probably xSTJ due to finance and detail orientation. E1 IxxJ.

Naranjo is unfortunately brief on the matter:
I/VI: The predominantly dutiful variety of E VI may be difficult to discriminate from E I; one difference lies in the greater assertiveness of the latter; another, the greater difficulty of the fearful in coming to decisions. Also, E I is more active.

What is he basing on his conclusion that E1 is more assertive/active and E6 is more indecisive/passive? How do they provide detailed description for each type in the first place? Do they identify people they deem E6 or E1 then observe their traits thru interviews?

Chestut is more elaborate:

Ones and Sixes
Ones and Sixes share several traits in common. Both Ones and Sixes excel at analytical thinking, and both worry about things going wrong. Ones tend to feel anxious about making mistakes, and Sixes tend to experience more general anxiety related to many different things potentially going wrong in life. In response to their worry, Ones try to be perfect and avoid making mistakes and Sixes catastrophize and imagine worst-case scenarios. Both Ones and Sixes are uncomfortable with success.

I am not uncomfortable with success, why does he assert that? Because of humility and avoiding being in spot light?

Both styles create problems for themselves in completing tasks and moving toward success, Ones because they believe something is never perfect and so constantly criticize themselves, and Sixes because they continually doubt and question themselves and believe that becoming successful will make them a target.

I don't constantly criticize myself, I criticize myself until I am satisfied, I am in my 40s though, maybe that applies to younger E1s. As for E6 that sounds like humility to blend into the background, Si maybe?

Both styles also tend to be activists in support of social causes they care about, Ones because they feel responsible for making the world a better place, and Sixes because they identify with underdog causes and are sensitive to people in authority positions exercising power over others in unjust ways.

E6 sounds like Si or Fi?

Ones and Sixes also differ in specific ways. Ones worry about making mistakes and being wrong, according to their own standards, while Sixes worry about danger and external threats of all kinds.

E6 sounds like an extravert, hypervigilant, always scanning the horizon for problems. Sounds like a low N type, prone to paranoia.

Ones are self-critical and tend to judge others, and Sixes doubt themselves and others. Related to self-criticism and self-doubt, Ones try,—and inevitably fail—to be perfect and Sixes either try and fail to find certainty, or find it in a specific source of authority.

E6 refers to some sort of authority (father figure) to feel safe? Which type is that?

One particularly stark contrast between Ones and Sixes is that Ones tend to obey authority, whereas Sixes tend to be suspicious of authority and may even rebel against it. Ones follow the rules, while most Sixes question them. (One exception to this is the Social Six, who adheres to an outside authority and may strictly follow the rules offered by that authority.) Both styles can procrastinate, but they do it for different reasons: Ones fear making a mistake and so always want more time to make what they do more perfect. Sixes continual doubting and questioning makes it hard for them to move forward.

E1 wanting more time to make what they do more perfect = optimization. E6 sounds like Se, some low N type who is paralyzed by unforeseen potential problems.

In terms of relating to people, generally, Ones tend to trust people and give them the benefit of the doubt unless they break the rules or engage in some kind of bad behavior, whereas Sixes mistrust others initially until they have observed them enough to satisfy themselves that they are trustworthy. After a person has earned their trust, Sixes are very loyal and supportive.

Again E6 sounds like a high Se type.

So it seems to me that:
E1: worry, critical, obedient and trusting, decisive.

E1 Sounds like IxTJ

E6: anxiety, doubt, loyal but skeptical, indecisive.

E6 sounds like ExxP

Still what I am wondering is how they can so confidently assert that E1 does this and that and E6 something else. What are they basing on their type definitions?

It feels like they've tried to cram up human psyche into 9 demeanors and came up with subjective definitions for each demeanor, and we are arguing on something very subjectively defined

I just want to use Enneagram as a supporting element to cross-check MBTI typings but there are so many things that can go wrong when doing typing in both systems.

 

[mancino]

E6 [...] a person who doesn't want to stand out and merge with the masses/herd for safety and who always worries about potential problems and potential hostility from others. Someone who wants to be sure that people around them are loyal to them and will constantly provide security and support.

I don't know about any of us here really, but I know plenty of people IRL who fit the type. Not so extreme, but still. The biggest category of E-types, for sure.
(Remember: Naranjo is "pick your insanity")

Still what I am wondering is how they can so confidently assert that E1 does this and that and E6 something else. What are they basing on their type definitions?

Ichazo, then Arica, then SAT. I think Ocean Moonshine has a nice intro.
It's about people IRL, retreats, a shared spiritual journey... new age stuff. Finding"Essence", the True Self...

Internet forums are a very poor substitute.

It feels like they've tried to cram up human psyche into 9 demeanors and came up with subjective definitions for each demeanor, and we are arguing on something very subjectively defined

Maybe.

BTW, your constant skepticism - and mine likewise - both point towards us both being head types, hands down.

I just want to use Enneagram as a supporting element to cross-check MBTI typings but there are so many things that can go wrong when doing typing in both systems

You can do that with the big E, it works up to some point, but it's not the intended purpose, and it falls down pretty fast.

As I stated at the beginning, they're two equally valid systems about the same stuff. Equal dignity, different focus, complementary.
You CAN prefer one, actually most people here prefer MBTI.

Just don't try to map one onto the other. Forget about functions, not even basic dichotomies like E vs I. Most E-types can be both.
And the hardest to grasp is E6. The only stable Big5 preference is Limbic. E6 IS the limbic archetype, really.
The rest, I'd say just Any. @Vendrah knows more about it.
E6 is traditional, so usually S, and cautious, so usually I, and methodical, so a bit more J, and there are more man than females, so slightly more likely to be T... But plenty of female ENFP E6 - Meg Ryan and her characters, and Joyce Byers from Stranger things just to name a couple.

Richard Rohr claims that maybe up to half of the population is E6!

 

[yeghor]

Richard Rohr claims that maybe up to half of the population is E6!

E9 = 16% ISFJ + ISTJ = 25% OK with enneagram 2 added
E6 = 16% ESTJ + ENTJ = 10.5% NOT OK
E4 = 15% ISFP + INFP = 13.2% OK
E7 = 14% ENFP + ENTP = 11.2% OK
E3 = 10% ESFJ + ENFJ = 14.8% NOT OK
E1 = 9% INFJ + INTJ = 3.7% NOT OK
E2 = 9% This can be considered part of ISFJ (enneagram 9), taking the enneagram 9 up to %25
E8 = 6% ESTP + ESFP = 12.7% NOT OK
E5 = 5% ISTP + INTP = 8.7% NOT OK

Enneagram 6 and 1 over-represented, Enneagram 3, 8 and 5 underrepresented.

Some E1s may actually be E3s, taking E1 down to 4% and E3 up to 15%, checks out.

That means some E6s and E7s are actually either E5s or E8s.

 

[Vendrah]

Btw I've just read E6 traits, it is so ambigous that I don't know what to make of it.

It feels like they've tried to cram up human psyche into 9 demeanors and came up with subjective definitions for each demeanor, and we are arguing on something very subjectively defined

Richard Rohr claims that maybe up to half of the population is E6!

The E6 traits has the "whatever you say about a six, the opposite is true" card, so if you're willing to you can fit whoever you want as an E6 and E6 works well for people who does not fit the other 8 types.

Just to give merit, it was @Radical Doubt that wondered and questioned first if E6 (and E9 to a less degree) isn't simply the "others" of the enneagram and I agree it works well for that. Some sources are going to describe phobic 6 only and this is the one on the tables; Other will pull the card entirely, others will put phobic and counter phobic and describe some dynamic; Some others will even treat as even E6 is the only enneagram type that can act like a herd, and that is quite likely false, others treat them as the normies and that goes on.

And about 2nd quote of Yeghor, I think your feelings are right, because objectively speaking and taking into account the history of the enneagram as it is recorded, it is indeed what you say.
TThat is why, if you want a better "moral crusader" type or pursue a strong moral compass, forget the enneagram, it will lead you more to confusion while it pretends to have all the answers,

 

[yeghor]

This is related to enneagram 1.

Parentification and the Highly Sensitive Person

Sensitive, gifted and empathic children are particularly prone to be parentified, especially when they have experienced empathic failure from a parent with autism or emotional instability. This is not because the adults maliciously try to harm the child, but because the highly sensitive child intuitively picks up on emotionally unsafe and unstable conditions and takes it upon themself to provide care and support for the family. This can eventually lead to an overwhelming sense of anxiety about the needs and feelings of others and, eventually, an early advance into maturity that equates with a ‘lost childhood’.

Being robbed of their innocent childhood, the parentified child grows up to become adults who have a gap in their psyche. They bury anger, resentment and grief, which may burst out at unexpected times, affecting their ability to be close to someone, sustain a career, and feel stable. They may resort to filling the void in their souls by ways of substance abuse, avoidance responses in relationships, and other short-term self-soothing strategies.

The harsh reality is amplified to the extreme while a significant portion of their most formative developmental is, essentially, removed.

 

[yeghor]

Childhood Wounds of Every Enneagram Type

 

[yeghor]

Is Parentification Abuse?

In parentification, one or both parents are unable to cope with what it means to be a parent to their child. The parentified child takes over the caretaking responsibilities for a sibling or even the parents themselves, becoming caretaker, mediator, and protector. In many instances, the parentified child feels as though their siblings or their parent cannot survive without their help. This creates a huge emotional burden that can follow one for life.

The parentified child may have immature and emotionally limited parents. Some of them may have mental illnesses such as Borderline Personality Disorder. The parents are unable to love the child the way they need to be loved. This is a controversial statement in our culture, and yet, acknowledging reality could be the most bitter yet powerful medicine for our souls.

Mature parents can love their children with liberal and consistent love and attention, emotional openness, allowance for mistakes and playfulness, as well as act as models for virtues such as courage, empathy, temperance, and compassion. In contrast, immature parents may be emotionally unstable, punitive, controlling, and unable to separate their projections, desires and wishes from their parentified child’s life.

Immature parents are not ‘bad people’, but simply children living in adults’ bodies, and therefore have limited capacity. They may do their best but still be unable to sufficiently offer us what we need as children. If you were a parentified child, you can be traumatized even when no one has actively done anything physical to harm you. It is the invisible pain that hurts the most. It is not about what was said, but what was not said to the parentified child— the praise, the affirmations, the positive feedback. It is not what was done, but what was not done to the parentified child— the absence of physical presence, quality time, intellectual stimulation, meaningful conversations, family rituals, fun and games.

There might not have been any explicit trauma, but on a level deep inside, the parentified child did not feel welcome in the world. When we have immature parents, parentification is inevitable. The parentified child is the counsellor, confidant, problem-solver, emotional regulator, and the one everyone counted on. Sometimes, they even took on the role of a scapegoat. They were given all the responsibilities, but none of the power.

But regardless of how mature they might have been or acted, the parentified child is still a child. Being burdened with excessive responsibilities sets a toxic trap; the parentified child believed it was their failure that caused bad things to happen to the family, planting the seeds of guilt and shame that they carry into adulthood.

Is Parentification Trauma?

The roles in the family were reversed in the first place because it was not safe for the parentified child to act age-appropriately as their child-self in the relationship. If they were to bring their needy, vulnerable child out to their parents, hoping and yearning for care, they would be disappointed, traumatized and hurt.

So, from the get-go, the parentified child learned that the only safe thing to do was to rise above their pain. They might have been angry, but the only solution they knew was to suppress that emotion. They might have been depressed, but all they could do was hide it and soldier on.

It was never a conscious choice the parentified child made, but suppressing their feelings was the only option they had. This need to dissociate from their inner experience, however, create a psychic split in them. A part of the parentified child goes on with life as the ‘Apparently Normal Self’, acting stoic, stable and strong. However, their ‘Traumatised Self’ remain buried deep within and their rage festers unconsciously. Later in life, they may feel haunted by the symptoms of their trauma without knowing why.

Therefore, even as a grown-up, the once parentified child struggles to play, be spontaneous, relax in intimacy, trust their instincts or other people, and they ultimately feel that they are only living a partial life. They may be stuck in a half- dissociated state where they watch life goes by without being in it. They are disconnected from their sense of vitality, joy, and passion.

Parentification Trauma: Turning Against Yourself

The classic symptoms of chronic childhood trauma, or Complex PTSD, are shame and guilt. This is a result of what the parentified child has carried forward from their childhood. As children, it was very difficult for us to be angry at our parents, even if they had hurt us and let us down. Admitting that our parents were neglectful or abusive was a life-threatening prospect, for they were the only people we could depend on.

If we knew our parents could not tolerate disobedience, or that we would be punished for creating conflicts, it ‘made sense’ for us to blame ourselves rather than risk confronting them. We dared not be critical of the authority figures whose goodwill was essential to our survival, so our young minds preferred to deny our pain. This results in the psychodynamic process of ‘turning against oneself’, where we redirect anger and resentment for others internally toward ourselves. We started to interpret any mistreatment as our fault or as something we deserved. Our righteous indignation became internalized guilt and shame.

In part, self-blame is also related to our need to feel in control. More terrifying than anything else in this world is the feeling of complete powerlessness in an unpredictable, precarious universe. Even to adults, this is an existential threat, let alone to children.

To evade such horror, we resorted to the conclusion that it was our fault that bad things happened. We would rather believe we had done something to make it happen — because we were not good enough, or that we didn’t do what we could. We thought that if we hadn’t expected too much, hoped too much, and trusted so much, we would not have been hurt. Self-blame gives us an explanation for the unbearable injustice that occurred; somehow it was more tolerable than the alternative — that the people we trusted had betrayed us, or that the world is a hostile place.

Parentification was a survival mechanism ​

​

(Yeghor: Sounds like parentification results in Enneagram E7 flighty, E8 defiant, E9 compliant or E1 perfectionist behaviour depending on the nature of the recipient child, and it arrests healthy ego development)​

To survive in a home with immature parents, we have adopted various strategies based on our personalities and the resources that were available, but the impact of parentification carries on beyond childhood. Some of us made jokes and became the comedian in the family. Now we don’t know how to be vulnerable to others without the disguise of humour. (Enneagram 7)​

Some of us became extra compliant, hoping that by being an ‘easy child’ we would be loved. We came to believe it was our duty to serve, help and rescue, and this pattern continues into our adulthood, when we become people-pleasers and unable to set boundaries.

Some of us left home early to pursue our freedom, but the trauma never left us. We may become wary of relationships and fearful of engulfment, so we isolate ourselves and push away love and intimacy.

Some of us shouldered all responsibilities diligently and became perfectionist adults who are unable to release control or relax. If our parents were not just unavailable but also emotionally volatile, we would also have trained ourselves to become hyper-vigilant, always watching out for signs of upset or anger in the people around us. We may blame ourselves for everything that goes wrong, assuming responsibility for other people’s dysfunctions or misfortune. We constantly try to fix things and even neglect our own needs while trying. When things do not go the way we want them to or when we make the slightest error, we drown in cycles of guilt and shame.

The parentification trauma impact we carry depends on a myriad of factors, part nature, part nurture:

If your parents tended to praise you only for what you did and not for who you were, your internalised inner critic would always be evaluating your success. Rather than allowing you to just ‘be’, you are pushed to be a ‘human doing’. The only way you know to survive in the world is to work hard, to achieve the next credential, and to never slow down. You live according to metrics and standards set by society, rather than your spontaneous true self. Your patterns leave you empty on the inside, and from time to time, you wonder if you are acceptable without something impressive to show.

If your parents were depressed and relied heavily on you for love and comfort, you would have learned to define yourself through the eyes of others. You feel ungrounded, as though the centre of gravity lies in other people and not in yourself. While you are highly empathic and attuned to people’s needs, you lose touch with your own needs. You may feel you are constantly trying to earn love from those around you, and yet however helpful and loving you are, people may not reciprocate. When they don’t, it hurts deeply.

If you were overburdened with responsibilities as a child, it is likely that you have become highly sensitised to errors, imperfection and unfairness in the world. You have a harsh inner critic inside of you, constantly telling you that you are not doing things correctly or perfectly enough. You live with constant pressure to fix things, correct things and make things right again. Being highly judgemental and critical, your inner critic also comes between you and those you love. Those around you feel scrutinised and pressured, even if you do not mean to make them feel that way.

If your parents have emotionally or physically abandoned you, you may, for your whole life, feel like an orphan spiritually. You feel misunderstood and alone in the world, unable to fit in. Your inner critic derails your self-esteem by comparing you to others, telling you they all have a happier, more ‘normal’ and fulfilling life.

If your childhood environment was unstable and unsafe, you would have been deprived of the opportunity to cultivate trust in the universe. Doubt and fear become your primary habits. Rather than taking productive action, you are often held in ‘analysis paralysis’, making a long list of ‘what might go wrong’. Always vigilant and watchful, you scan the environment for threats or danger.

If your parents were bullies, you would have learned early in your life to survive on power and assertion. You see the world as a dog-eat-dog place, and it is risky to let your guard down. It becomes impossible to reveal your vulnerabilities to anyone, or to let people in to help and comfort you. You are ‘allergic’ to soft emotions such as sadness and neediness. You have put up a wall to keep you safe, but it also keeps you in isolation. Even if you have achieved power in the world, you feel incredibly alone.

How Do I Move on From Parentification Trauma?

Despite the horrific impact of parentification trauma, healing from it is possible. Adults who have been parentified are highly sensitive, empathic, kind and intuitive. In a way, those who were once a parentified child can become gifted parents because they have been doing it since they were young.

The goal of therapy or coaching is to start prioritizing your needs before you jump into rescuing or pleasing others. You might have been a skilled parent figure to others all your life, but now it is time for you to parent yourself. As a child, you needed love, attention, and to be listened to. You also needed room to play, make a mess, and freely explore the world without being burdened with responsibilities. If you were deprived of these in the past, it is now within your power to reclaim your lost childhood.

The first step to healing is to tell your story of being a parentified child as it is. You might have spent years trying to hide or deny the truth, in order to protect yourself and your family. Perhaps you have few memories of your childhood or find yourself hitting a wall of emotional numbness when you search within.

When someone asks you about your parents, you are unable to speak negatively of them. You may even feel guilty for not having been a ‘happier’ person given everything on the outside seemed ‘fine’ in your childhood. Since the trauma you experienced was mostly invisible, you have difficulty gaining recognition for the trauma you have endured.

But the insidious nature of your trauma does not make it any less valid. Acknowledging the reality of your lost childhood, however painful at first, is the first step to healing. You begin to grieve the childhood you deserved but never had, and can make room for healthy and justified anger. Without this step, you will continue to expend energy in denying, suppressing and rationalising your past, which blocks the healing process.

In this delicate and potentially precarious process, compassion is essential. Before we generate compassion for anyone else, however, we must learn to cultivate self-compassion. Self- compassion is a relatively new concept in western psychology, whereas self-contempt is a common trait in western culture.

Having been parentified, your automatic default is to assume things are your fault. Your inner critic constantly tells you that you are not doing enough, you are not good enough, and that when bad things happen, it is your job to mop up the consequences. As you spiritually mature into becoming your own person, however, the time comes to put things right and to say no to your internalised bully.

But we do not hate our ‘adapted self’ who is perfectionistic, highly anxious and trapped in people-pleasing ways.

Our defensive mechanism forms an honourable part of us. We can greet it, bow to it, thank it. We say: ‘Thank you for your service, my brave soldier. I now know what to do, and finally, you can relax and rest.”

Then we turn to the child in us that has been neglected. We say: ‘I am sorry about what you had to go through. I am sorry no one was there for you when you most needed someone to stand up for you.’

To the sad, lonely, wounded one in us, we say: ‘I am sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you.’ Then, we repeat in the gentlest, most compassionate whisper, again and again: ‘I am sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you.’ (Hoʻoponopono)


You, too, deserved to be unconditionally loved for who you were, not for what you did or how you looked to the outside world. You were a completely innocent being, birthed into this world from the universe. Even if your actual childhood was nauseatingly painful and full of holes, it is never too late to give yourself the childhood that you deserved.

“Our parents cannot love us the way we need them to.” Acknowledging this truth involves us courageously processing challenging emotions such as deep grief, anger, and hurt. But these feelings are temporary if we don’t block them. If we know that we are on a path towards liberation, and allow these feelings to go through us, we will be liberated and rewarded with freedom in the end.

Inner peace and tranquillity might be the highest form of joy. Doing the emotional work to heal our childhood hurt and transcend the wounds created by our parents is an essential path to attaining that joy. If we never transform our wounds, then our triggers for anger, guilt and shame will always be lurking in the background, catching us off guard, sabotaging our relationships, and blocking our creativity. It is only when we can walk the courageous path of seeing the truth that we can get to the other side of it.

Our childhood wounds do not block our path towards happiness and freedom, they are the path.

 

[mancino]

This is related to enneagram 1.

Parentification and the Highly Sensitive Person

Thanks for sharing, @yehgor. I didn't know the term, although I do know some who were parentified.

I'm not sure it relates to E1, or to the Enneagram, actually. I empathize with whomever went through this. I would add that self-help through the Enneagram or typology only goes so far. As the above texts suggest, therapy is the way to go.

How Do I Move on From Parentification Trauma?

Despite the horrific impact of parentification trauma, healing from it is possible. Adults who have been parentified are highly sensitive, empathic, kind and intuitive. In a way, those who were once a parentified child can become gifted parents because they have been doing it since they were young.

The goal of therapy or coaching is to start prioritizing your needs before you jump into rescuing or pleasing others. You might have been a skilled parent figure to others all your life, but now it is time for you to parent yourself. As a child, you needed love, attention, and to be listened to. You also needed room to play, make a mess, and freely explore the world without being burdened with responsibilities. If you were deprived of these in the past, it is now within your power to reclaim your lost childhood.

The first step to healing is to tell your story of being a parentified child as it is. You might have spent years trying to hide or deny the truth, in order to protect yourself and your family. Perhaps you have few memories of your childhood or find yourself hitting a wall of emotional numbness when you search within.

When someone asks you about your parents, you are unable to speak negatively of them. You may even feel guilty for not having been a ‘happier’ person given everything on the outside seemed ‘fine’ in your childhood. Since the trauma you experienced was mostly invisible, you have difficulty gaining recognition for the trauma you have endured.

But the insidious nature of your trauma does not make it any less valid. Acknowledging the reality of your lost childhood, however painful at first, is the first step to healing. You begin to grieve the childhood you deserved but never had, and can make room for healthy and justified anger. Without this step, you will continue to expend energy in denying, suppressing and rationalising your past, which blocks the healing process.

In this delicate and potentially precarious process, compassion is essential. Before we generate compassion for anyone else, however, we must learn to cultivate self-compassion. Self- compassion is a relatively new concept in western psychology, whereas self-contempt is a common trait in western culture.

Having been parentified, your automatic default is to assume things are your fault. Your inner critic constantly tells you that you are not doing enough, you are not good enough, and that when bad things happen, it is your job to mop up the consequences. As you spiritually mature into becoming your own person, however, the time comes to put things right and to say no to your internalised bully.

But we do not hate our ‘adapted self’ who is perfectionistic, highly anxious and trapped in people-pleasing ways.

Our defensive mechanism forms an honourable part of us. We can greet it, bow to it, thank it. We say: ‘Thank you for your service, my brave soldier. I now know what to do, and finally, you can relax and rest.”

Then we turn to the child in us that has been neglected. We say: ‘I am sorry about what you had to go through. I am sorry no one was there for you when you most needed someone to stand up for you.’

To the sad, lonely, wounded one in us, we say: ‘I am sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you.’ Then, we repeat in the gentlest, most compassionate whisper, again and again: ‘I am sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. I love you.’ (Hoʻoponopono)


You, too, deserved to be unconditionally loved for who you were, not for what you did or how you looked to the outside world. You were a completely innocent being, birthed into this world from the universe. Even if your actual childhood was nauseatingly painful and full of holes, it is never too late to give yourself the childhood that you deserved.

“Our parents cannot love us the way we need them to.” Acknowledging this truth involves us courageously processing challenging emotions such as deep grief, anger, and hurt. But these feelings are temporary if we don’t block them. If we know that we are on a path towards liberation, and allow these feelings to go through us, we will be liberated and rewarded with freedom in the end.

Inner peace and tranquillity might be the highest form of joy. Doing the emotional work to heal our childhood hurt and transcend the wounds created by our parents is an essential path to attaining that joy. If we never transform our wounds, then our triggers for anger, guilt and shame will always be lurking in the background, catching us off guard, sabotaging our relationships, and blocking our creativity. It is only when we can walk the courageous path of seeing the truth that we can get to the other side of it.

Our childhood wounds do not block our path towards happiness and freedom, they are the path.

I agree very much. It's so true, for everybody. The Enneagram teaches this, too. It's all to easy to get stuck in technicalities or semantics about "the System" and forget the purpose of all this.
Hurt.
Grief.
Acceptance.
Liberation.
Transformation.
Joy.

 

[yeghor]

Thanks for sharing, @yehgor. I didn't know the term, although I do know some who were parentified.

I'm not sure it relates to E1, or to the Enneagram, actually. I empathize with whomever went through this. I would add that self-help through the Enneagram or typology only goes so far. As the above texts suggest, therapy is the way to go.

It is easy to see the similarities in the wounds described in parentification and E1 traumas in my earlier post linked below. It is a perfect match. You've been made to believe by definitions that E1 is a victimizer than a victim so you find it hard to believe.

https://www.typologycentral.com/threads/what-really-is-enneagram-1.107952/post-3367636

 

[mancino]

It is easy to see the similarities in the wounds described in parentification and E1 traumas in my earlier post linked below. It is a perfect match

It is indeed a good match, but not the only match.
I see 9, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as well.
Unfortunately, suffering can take many, many forms.

 

[yeghor]

It is indeed a good match, but not the only match.
I see 9, 2, 3, 4 and 6 as well.
Unfortunately, suffering can take many, many forms.

Inner critic defined in the parentification trauma is specifically mentioned in E1.

If we knew our parents could not tolerate disobedience, or that we would be punished for creating conflicts, it ‘made sense’ for us to blame ourselves rather than risk confronting them. We dared not be critical of the authority figures whose goodwill was essential to our survival, so our young minds preferred to deny our pain. This results in the psychodynamic process of ‘turning against oneself’, where we redirect anger and resentment for others internally toward ourselves. We started to interpret any mistreatment as our fault or as something we deserved. Our righteous indignation became internalized guilt and shame.

In part, self-blame is also related to our need to feel in control. More terrifying than anything else in this world is the feeling of complete powerlessness in an unpredictable, precarious universe. Even to adults, this is an existential threat, let alone to children.

To evade such horror, we resorted to the conclusion that it was our fault that bad things happened. We would rather believe we had done something to make it happen — because we were not good enough, or that we didn’t do what we could. We thought that if we hadn’t expected too much, hoped too much, and trusted so much, we would not have been hurt.

However I can see a child caving in under being parentified can develop several other coping mechanisms as you mentioned. Child letting go of own needs and trying to be helpful sounds like E2 and E9. Still the inner critic aspect however, specifically points at E1, which is not observed in E2 and E9.


E9's coping mechanism is defined as numbing oneself and tuning out so it doesn't fit with the traumatic effect of parentification defined as developing a harsh inner critic. E2 sounds related in that they try to be helpful around the household to feel that they exist.

E3, E4, E6 and E7 types of coping mechanisms are clearly not related to parentification trauma, which was described as:

The parentified child takes over the caretaking responsibilities for a sibling or even the parents themselves, becoming caretaker, mediator, and protector. In many instances, the parentified child feels as though their siblings or their parent cannot survive without their help. This creates a huge emotional burden that can follow one for life.

In other words, the parentified child has to assume the role of the parent/adult cause the parents don't act like one. It is clear from below infocards that E3, E4, E6 and E7 coping styles are not related to inflicting self-blame on self for everything that goes wrong inside the house and trying to assume the role of the responsible helpful parent to right the wrongs inside the house.

 

[mancino]

Not 7, you're right.

But parentification and...
high-performance, you-are-what-you-do E3? Absolutely
permanently stressed suffering E4? Absolutely (sp 4)
anxiety-driven duty-ridden E6? Absolutely (so 6, but also sp 6)
9 and 2 you've already mentioned.

"Doing things for others" can be a lot of types.
Complying with the superego is Compliance Triad, 1-2-6, by definition.
9 are self-effacing, so yes, pretty compatible.
3 are other-directed in defining their identity. (example: the movie "The game"; Micheal Douglas is an E3 and very much parentified - here the trauma is the father's suicide).
And 4, well, childhood trauma and not being able to be happy is E4 by definition. Not all 4s are depressed.

 

[yeghor]

Not 7, you're right.

But parentification and...
high-performance, you-are-what-you-do E3? Absolutely
permanently stressed suffering E4? Absolutely (sp 4)
anxiety-driven duty-ridden E6? Absolutely (so 6, but also sp 6)
9 and 2 you've already mentioned.

"Doing things for others" can be a lot of types.
Complying with the superego is Compliance Triad, 1-2-6, by definition.
9 are self-effacing, so yes, pretty compatible.
3 are other-directed in defining their identity. (example: the movie "The game"; Micheal Douglas is an E3 and very much parentified - here the trauma is the father's suicide).
And 4, well, childhood trauma and not being able to be happy is E4 by definition. Not all 4s are depressed.

You are missing the point.

Parentification trauma is a specific type of trauma that results in the child having to assume the role of the parent in the household and blaming oneself for all kinds of faults and errors. Not everyone who is subjected to parentification (or other type of) abuse become parentified children.

In earlier posts it is specifically mentioned that highly sensitive and intuitive/empathic children are particularly susceptible to assuming this role. Other children develop other coping mechanisms.

E3 doesn't assume parental role. They want to be praised for their success/beauty/charm and they are good at it. This is probably due to narcissistic parents rather than a childlike parent.

E9 doesn't assume parental role. They tune out and keep a low profile so that they won't be noticed. This is probably due to aggressive parents who would lash out on the child so the child learned to blend into the background and not to provoke them.

E4 doesn't assume parental role. They tell themselves that they are worthy and special. This is probably due to negative/critical parents that kept telling them they suck so they retreated inside and stopped looking for praise and compassion from the parents.

E1 does assume parental role. Because there was no one around besides them who did. This is due to parents being childlike, inept and feeble, unable to take care of themselves.

Each type does whatever comes easy to them under abuse/stress or negative family environment, so certain types develop specific coping mechanisms. In case of E1, that is assuming the role of the responsible and self-critical parent/adult.

 

[yeghor]

E1 does assume parental role. Because there was no one around besides them who did. This is due to parents being childlike, inept and feeble, unable to take care of themselves.

I believe this is because the parents covertly or overtly signalled to the child that the child should not burden them with his/her problems and should take care of himself/herself. Or the child observed that whenever he/she burdened the parents with his/her problems, the parents became distressed/overburdened and thus the child was subtly conditioned to not be a burden and take care of his/her problems on his own.

In the case of E1, this must've resulted in the child feeling defective for not being able to take care of his/her problems (i.e. for not being an adult), and becoming overly critical of himself/herself, internalizing and believing in their defectiveness/inadequacy. One of the parents should've told them and the other parent that this is just a child and they shouldn't be expected to act like adults and need to be taken care of by the parents but for some reason it didn't happen, reinforcing the child's belief about themselves.

 

[yeghor]

The main issue here with the line of reasoning is focusing too much on the external end result while losing track of the internal works. Try cross checking the basis of different theories instead of focusing on the end result. Try decomposing the different possible causes to an apparent identical outcome.

I already did that in the previous posts in detail.

 

[yeghor]

I read that. And I'm explaining yours vs @mancino 's line of reasoning.
Reality is much more complex.
Cause A gives outcomes X, Y, Z, etc, with even more different possible external results.
External outcome M could be due to causes J, K, L, etc.
It's not so linear.

Even when you attempted to analyze (not so) different causes, you still fell for the same bias. Over and over.

To put it in mathematical terms, since I'm sure you're familiar with linear algebra: you're attempting a change of base on a base whose axis are not orthogonal. This is why counts aren't adding up.

Ozzacidatsetasutto.

I really feel like I am trying to describe colors to blind people in this forum.

That's some E4 authenticity for you. Conclusion: Authenticity does not always equate to moral/mature behaviour.

Parentified child = Hypersensitive intuitive child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of responsible parent/adult in the household because the parents were not responsible/adults themselves. Due to this burden, the child became hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

E1 = Gifted child who, due to his nature, assumed the role of reliable adult because the parents overburdened him and were not responsible themselves. Consequently, the child developed an overdeveloped superego and is hypercritical of themselves with low self esteem, always striving to do the right thing like a responsible mature adult.

I cannot keep holding your hands and walk you through it all the time. If you cannot see that both mechanisms are identical after all the material I've posted, we are discussing in vain. And the more you or anyone else are butthurt by this comment, the less intuition they must have.