Enneagram and the Emotionally Abused Types

[bagelriffic]

I don't think I can follow your logic here. laziness for a Six? aggression for a Five?

i got these concepts from the path of disintegration theory which claims;

The Direction of Stress or Disintegration for each type is indicated by the sequence of numbers 1-4-2-8-5-7-1. This means that an average to unhealthy One under stress will eventually behave like an average to unhealthy Four; an average to unhealthy Four will act out their stress like an average to unhealthy Two

with this said the path of integration is the exact opposite (1, 7, 5, 8, and so on) and is the path for each type that offers the least personality constriction. for the examples i used a 6's heart point is that of a 9 which particularly rests on the characteristic of laziness (as can be found more openly in 9's). an average 5 often lacks an adequate source of the virtue expansion/aggression. and finally the robust 8 represses the often tender/vulnerable qualities of a 2.

within the subjective personality often there are reasons or justifications for why these human qualities are repressed, and according to DA because every personality see's reality subjectively and through shades of bias, often it uses unfavorable events such as emotional abuse/trauma to support its preexisting opinions.

Even being brought up and exposed in the same abusive environment, each child plays a different role in the family and hence would have received different treatment from the parents. Even if every single one of them have been abused in some way, the method and degree of abuse would still be different...

yes, i definitely agree with you here. there are a lot of variables that can go unconsidered if we only relate to our own perception of these personal events.

 

[KazeCraven]

Nature vs Nurture

Even assuming the Enneagram is accurate, I think trying to identify the type of an emotionally traumatized person downplays the importance of life experience.

I have a good friend whose mother committed suicide while he was in high school. He's coped with it like a type 7, and I can see his type pretty easily through my daily interactions with him, but that doesn't seem central to knowing who he is. He's changed, and that experience has left a mark on him. His girlfriend behaves a lot like a 2, but she has mildly abusive parents and I can't tell what really motivates her. Does she please people because she wants others to love her and be indebted to her? Is she actually a type 6 who thinks this type of behavior will protect her? I won't know until I see more of her inner life, and even then, will the Enneagram help me predict what else there is hidden in her nature? Would she feel that any of the types describe who she is well? I'd say it's a hit or miss. Some people seem more influenced by nature, others by nurture.

The Enneagram is a useful lens, but it has its limits. Simply being aware of the range of individuality and watching for recurring patterns seems to me to be a more useful way of getting at a person's core nature. Perhaps you could explain a person's nature far better if you said, "He's been abused, and doesn't want others to suffer as he has."

 

[Tulip]

i got these concepts from the path of disintegration theory which claims;

The Direction of Stress or Disintegration for each type is indicated by the sequence of numbers 1-4-2-8-5-7-1. This means that an average to unhealthy One under stress will eventually behave like an average to unhealthy Four; an average to unhealthy Four will act out their stress like an average to unhealthy Two

with this said the path of integration is the exact opposite (1, 7, 5, 8, and so on) and is the path for each type that offers the least personality constriction. for the examples i used a 6's heart point is that of a 9 which particularly rests on the characteristic of laziness (as can be found more openly in 9's). an average 5 often lacks an adequate source of the virtue expansion/aggression. and finally the robust 8 represses the often tender/vulnerable qualities of a 2.

within the subjective personality often there are reasons or justifications for why these human qualities are repressed, and according to DA because every personality see's reality subjectively and through shades of bias, often it uses unfavorable events such as emotional abuse/trauma to support its preexisting opinions.

What you said seemed to suggest all types can disintegrate into their integration points when they are under stress and exhibit the negative traits of the type they integrate into, and hence becomes abusive: a Six thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Nine and becomes lazy, a Five thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Eight and becomes aggressive, an Eight thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Two and becomes vulnerable.

 

[Tulip]

Perhaps you could explain a person's nature far better if you said, "He's been abused, and doesn't want others to suffer as he has."

Depending on the extent and severity of the abuse and the healthy level of the abused person, in most cases it is an unrealistic expectation and demand to expect the abused to have the extra capacity to be considerate of other people's feelings in addition to dealing with his, to keep his inner motives in check, and to monitor his behaviour so that it is in accord with a healthy person. It is an over-estimation of the abused person's emotional intelligence as well as an minimization of the damage and effect caused by the abuse.

It has always been the case that there are usually more "generous" people among the rich, and more "selfish" people among the poor. It is always easier for the rich people to be "generous" then point out how the poor people are being "selfish".

To assess a person's character based on external behavior alone without taking into account of the background as well as the cause and effect does not seem to be any closer in estimation to the person's true nature.

 

[KazeCraven]

I was actually going to say the exact opposite, but I don't know much at all about what emotional abuse does to a person. So I can see being easily wrong with my example, but I never said anything about assessing a person based on external behavior alone.

I suppose my point was simply that you are trying to parse out type under emotional abuse, and that perhaps in those circumstances we can't really discern much of anything from that perspective. I'm currently convinced that the Enneagram type descriptions, which attempt to discern core motivations by manifested behavior, are only good rules of thumb (stereotypes). Even in normal circumstances they aren't so clear cut, because some people seem to change beyond simply health and "growing up".

The way you phrased your initial question made it seem like emotional abuse wouldn't displace a person from fitting the type descriptions, perhaps coming across simply as an unhealthy version of their type. I think Jung's idea of the falsification of type applies here, in which the natural expression is compromised by strong external pressure at early years of life. I don't see why the same wouldn't happen with E-type, though I have no comment about abuse later in life.

 

[magister343]

Depending on the extent and severity of the abuse and the healthy level of the abused person, in most cases it is an unrealistic expectation and demand to expect the abused to have the extra capacity to be considerate of other people's feelings in addition to dealing with his, to keep his inner motives in check, and to monitor his behaviour so that it is in accord with a healthy person. It is an over-estimation of the abused person's emotional intelligence as well as an minimization of the damage and effect caused by the abuse.

It has always been the case that there are usually more "generous" people among the rich, and more "selfish" people among the poor. It is always easier for the rich people to be "generous" then point out how the poor people are being "selfish".

To assess a person's character based on external behavior alone without taking into account of the background as well as the cause and effect does not seem to be any closer in estimation to the person's true nature.

I don't know about abuse per se, but it has been shown that sadness and depression make one more empathetic.


Also, as a percent of their income or total wealth the working poor are by far the most generous demographic. The middle class is the least generous.

 

[bagelriffic]

What you said seemed to suggest all types can disintegrate into their integration points when they are under stress and exhibit the negative traits of the type they integrate into, and hence becomes abusive: a Six thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Nine and becomes lazy, a Five thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Eight and becomes aggressive, an Eight thinks they are abusive when they integrate to Two and becomes vulnerable.

this was not the connection i was trying to make. a 6 is more likely to suspect they were emotionally abused Because they were lazy, an 8 would most likely assume they were hurt because of the fact they were vulnerable. being a 5 myself i know i particularly blamed the abuse on aggression/expansion which i later came to realize is merely a human quality. see the path of integration is an acceptance that these qualities are not what caused the abuse or problems of the world, without this acceptance any given type will Not travel the path of integration but path of disintegration which would be a 3 for 6's, 5 for 8's, and 7 for 5's.

DA suggests anger is a product of the personality, whereas aggression is a human virtue when it is not biased. it's still something i struggle with, it depends on how aware of my own personality and assumptions i am at any given time. the personality is unbelievably subtle, and unraveling its second nature habits takes time and awareness. the enneagram is only the beginning of DA, its what allows any given type to be aware of some of their personalities broader implications. i would agree kaze that there are many other factors in any given personality than one repression, but it is more the cornerstone the other holes and assumptions of the personality revolve around.

 

[Tulip]

I don't know about abuse per se, but it has been shown that sadness and depression make one more empathetic.

Not necessarily true, depending on what is causing the sadness and the depression, and whether the abuse has been ongoing or happened in the past, and how much stress and pressure the person is currently under.

Also, as a percent of their income or total wealth the working poor are by far the most generous demographic. The middle class is the least generous.

It is not a matter of simply comparing the percentage number. The rich and the poor is nothing more than a simple illustration. Everyone's circumstances are different, expecting the same behavior and outcome does not seem to be a fair means for comparison. People who have been given more should expect to be asked for more.

 

[Tulip]

this was not the connection i was trying to make. a 6 is more likely to suspect they were emotionally abused Because they were lazy, an 8 would most likely assume they were hurt because of the fact they were vulnerable. being a 5 myself i know i particularly blamed the abuse on aggression/expansion which i later came to realize is merely a human quality. see the path of integration is an acceptance that these qualities are not what caused the abuse or problems of the world, without this acceptance any given type will Not travel the path of integration but path of disintegration which would be a 3 for 6's, 5 for 8's, and 7 for 5's.

I don't understand this. A 5 blames himself for being abused because he had been aggressive and expansive?
And you have to accept the negative traits of your integration points in order to "travel the path of integration"?

I don't personally experience much of the integration and disintegration connections other than some occasional, superficial, look-alike traits. If anything, it would be more on the positive aspects of the type of integration and the negative aspects of the type of disintegration.

DA suggests anger is a product of the personality, whereas aggression is a human virtue when it is not biased. it's still something i struggle with, it depends on how aware of my own personality and assumptions i am at any given time.

I don't agree with aggression being a human virtue, assertiveness probably is. It is not necessarily a human quality either. There are people who have never been aggressive in their whole life. When under constant and extreme pressure, sometimes people may swing from being non-assertive to the other end of becoming aggressive, but I see it as more of a defensive response rather than the true nature of the person.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

Interesting

That article taught me something. Thanks.

 

[bagelriffic]

I don't understand this. A 5 blames himself for being abused because he had been aggressive and expansive?
And you have to accept the negative traits of your integration points in order to "travel the path of integration"?

ok first question; it wasn't so much i blamed myself for being expansive, but more i blamed that quality or (what i believe) that inherently human trait in general. it was like i condemned it in myself, but only bc i condemned it in other people first, not because it ever got me into memorable trouble. so like if i saw some bully beating up on some kid i'd think to myself; oop hes being mean and hurting another because he is aggressive, and thats why im not aggressive"

2nd question; well its more about accepting the trait you've been repressing rather than accepting all the negatives and encompassing another type completely. reason being you're coming from a different point entirely, you weren't born in that type.

I don't agree with aggression being a human virtue, assertiveness probably is. It is not necessarily a human quality either. There are people who have never been aggressive in their whole life. When under constant and extreme pressure, sometimes people may swing from being non-assertive to the other end of becoming aggressive, but I see it as more of a defensive response rather than the true nature of the person.

as far as aggressive/assertive goes i think that falls more on semantics than concept. and i can understand that you don't think its a virtue, i mean im not here to force feed anyone, saw a thread and posted my opinion is all. DA isn't for everyone and its probably why its not hugely popular or anything, just posting how i see things in terms of enneagram/EA.

 

[Tulip]

as far as aggressive/assertive goes i think that falls more on semantics than concept. and i can understand that you don't think its a virtue, i mean im not here to force feed anyone, saw a thread and posted my opinion is all. DA isn't for everyone and its probably why its not hugely popular or anything, just posting how i see things in terms of enneagram/EA.

More than just semantics, I do think there is a major difference in terms of concept between aggressiveness and assertiveness.

Aggressiveness gives me the impression of being forceful and taking initiatives to violate other's boundaries
...it is more about attack.

Assertiveness is more about defending your own boundaries when they are being violated
...it is more about defense.

 

[IndigoSensor]

More than just semantics, I do think there is a major difference in terms of concept between aggressiveness and assertiveness.

Aggressiveness gives me the impression of being forceful and taking initiatives to violate other's boundaries
...it is more about attack.

Assertiveness is more about defending your own boundaries when they are being violated
...it is more about defense.

Both of these have the potential to be good or bad depending on how you look at it. It really is an issue of semantics and how you look at each of them. Thus it is a moot point in my eyes. I think both of them are a virtue so long as there are positive intentions that motivate the use of it.

 

[Tulip]

Both of these have the potential to be good or bad depending on how you look at it. It really is an issue of semantics and how you look at each of them. Thus it is a moot point in my eyes. I think both of them are a virtue so long as there are positive intentions that motivate the use of it.

For a Five, as you could probably understand, boundaries not being respected is a big no no, no matter what the intention is...

 

[Tulip]

I'm currently convinced that the Enneagram type descriptions, which attempt to discern core motivations by manifested behavior, are only good rules of thumb (stereotypes). Even in normal circumstances they aren't so clear cut, because some people seem to change beyond simply health and "growing up".

You could see Enneagram types as 9 different boxes while Enneagram typing is more like a sorting exercise. If you have to place a person in one of the 9 boxes, there will be for sure some cases which don't seem quite fit.

Are corals plants or animals? They look like plants but they don't move around like most animals.
It is said that plants make their own food while animals must eat plants or other animals, so corals are animals.
But do corals look like other animals? No, they don't.

Carnivorous plants eat insects and animals. Then why are they plants?
They look like plants when they don't move, but when they are eating, do they look more like plants or animals?

What about starfish? Animals or plants?
Bats? Mammals or birds?

If you only have 9 color boxes to sort with, there will be for certain some colors which you can argue day and night without a conclusion whether it should go into the blue box or the green box...

Does going into the blue box or the green box change the color?
No it doesn't, only if the color changes itself to be more like the color of the box.

 

[Praefect]

Interaction between people happens dynamically. Healthy people should be able to adjust their behavior appropriately based on the responses and reactions from the recipents. For damage to occur, emotional abuse needs to continue with a recurring pattern where the same behavior repeats and the damage deepens.

I can't see how healthy, functional people can create a dysfunctional family and become an abuser without them first becoming dysfunctional and unhealthy. Wouldn't it be normal that healthy and functional people should be able to resolve their incompatibility in healthy and functional ways, (sometimes that would mean separation), other than creating an abusive environment as a by-product?

Normal?

Desirable, yes. But, normal, I don't think so.

A dynamic can flip, easily.

For one, you have to throw out the concept of rationality in people as long as there are emotions involved. That responses and reactions are rational, and can be traced back and understood, this is based on the premise that it is easy for people to read emotions and understand their meaning when this isn't the case for many observers and even those experiencing those reactions as something that they themselves express.

Just for fun, sometimes, I use the line "You are being hysterical". There are enough people out there who actually completely dismiss emotional reactions with that line, and mean it. They don't even TRY to understand strong emotional outbursts. And that behavior can't be called unhealthy, because within society, it's "normal". It's the outburst of emotions that is seen as unhealthy, irrational, and therefore meaningless. Imagine what this does to a feeler.

Communication is also based on perception, and if we perceive the world in fundamentally different ways communication will always be hampered by that. Two examples that come to mind.

Person A is a feeler and thus places a high value on emotional support. Person A is working on something. Person B on the other hand is focused on concrete external achievements and criticizes what person A is working on. Person B believes that criticism is helpful while Person A sees it as undermining of the very drive to achieve something.

Overcome with joy person A sheds tears. Person B is distressed because tears are an external expression of sadness. What to do? How to fix? Bs distress causes the moment of joy to be lost for A.

Tiny things, but over 3000 days, this "corrosion" can lead to some deep, dark places.

You'll find people trapped in hells of their own making. In dynamics harmful to both parties, undermining self esteem, self worth, self image. Drastic defenses are raised to protect what is left. Aggression fueled by frustration, rationalizations fueled by needs that aren't being met.

"It's not cheating if she doesn't find out." "I only read his mail because he never tells me how he feels."

Trust dissolves and a partner becomes the enemy in the relationship that has now become an arena rather than a shared foxhole.

One must keep in mind the potentially insidious nature of dynamics that reinforce negative traits in a relationship between people, so even aware observers may not find their dynamics lacking until the hole is already dug deep enough for pitch black oil to spew forth explosively, them asking themselves the question, "how did I get here? How did it comes to this? I was blind, and only now I see."

Separation might not be an option to many people, for financial, cultural, religious or other reasons. How many people have stayed with the wrong person for 20 years because they've already invested 10? Or a lifetime? Or because there are children part of the equation now?

You'll find countless external factors pressuring onto relationships adding their own spice into the mix. Expectations by friends, family and society.

And so on and so forth. I'd go into dramatic live changing events and how they can work as masks for dynamics shifting in connection with emotional support, how things aren't cut and dried, black and white, easy to read, even good relationships hard work, but I'm le tired. In any case, it's quite possible for healthy, intelligent people to end up in dynamics that turn harmful, and if left unchecked, for long enough, abusive. Emotionally, and physically. Explosively the entire nature of a relationship can change, from one day to the next, if it is under pressure, strong enough, long enough. And that explosion might then not even be aimed at others. Also something to take into account, that abuse might then be self directed.

(with this view it's probably easy to see why for the longest time I thought I was never, ever, ever going to get married. F that noise, not me, not ever)

 

[IndigoSensor]

For a Five, as you could probably understand, boundaries not being respected is a big no no, no matter what the intention is...

This that is your definition of this, and as you wrote it was motivated by a personal view on what each should ideally be. Not everyone is going to see such a thing in this type of light. As it stands it is still a moot point.

 

[Tulip]

This that is your definition of this, and as you wrote it was motivated by a personal view on what each should ideally be. Not everyone is going to see such a thing in this type of light. As it stands it is still a moot point.

http://www.management-issues.com/2006/5/25/opinion/are-you-assertive-or-aggressive.asp

My impression of aggressiveness and assertiveness has nothing to do with my personal inner motivations.
However, the fact that I favor assertiveness probably has something to do with my type...

 

[Tulip]

For one, you have to throw out the concept of rationality in people as long as there are emotions involved. That responses and reactions are rational, and can be traced back and understood, this is based on the premise that it is easy for people to read emotions and understand their meaning when this isn't the case for many observers and even those experiencing those reactions as something that they themselves express.

Just for fun, sometimes, I use the line "You are being hysterical". There are enough people out there who actually completely dismiss emotional reactions with that line, and mean it. They don't even TRY to understand strong emotional outbursts. And that behavior can't be called unhealthy, because within society, it's "normal". It's the outburst of emotions that is seen as unhealthy, irrational, and therefore meaningless. Imagine what this does to a feeler.

Responses and reactions are rational? No.

They can be traced back and understood? Yes. There is a reason for everything.

I don't associate intensity of emotions with mental health. If you knew me well in person, you would probably know that I am much more emotional than I come across on these boards...and my health levels have nothing to do with that.

I don't think everyone can be separated into either thinkers or feelers. Except for the extreme cases, thinkers do feel and feelers do think. There is also a gray area...which is where I am.

Separation might not be an option to many people, for financial, cultural, religious or other reasons. How many people have stayed with the wrong person for 20 years because they've already invested 10? Or a lifetime? Or because there are children part of the equation now?

You'll find countless external factors pressuring onto relationships adding their own spice into the mix. Expectations by friends, family and society.

Regardless of how many years a person has previously invested, if staying together lead him down to the path of ultimate destruction for both himself and his partner, a change is necessary, whether it means seeking professional help or separating if all else fail. Continuing in a destructive relationship which results in a dysfunctional family is also more damaging to a developing child's mind than a single-parent family. I can't see how mentally healthy and functional a person could be for him to go down the self-destructive path without doing anything about it.

In any case, it's quite possible for healthy, intelligent people to end up in dynamics that turn harmful, and if left unchecked, for long enough, abusive. Emotionally, and physically. Explosively the entire nature of a relationship can change, from one day to the next, if it is under pressure, strong enough, long enough. And that explosion might then not even be aimed at others. Also something to take into account, that abuse might then be self directed.

High intelligence level does not make a person immune to abusive relationship. I still can't see how the interaction between two mentally sound and healthy people can become abusive on a continuous basis without them first going down their mental health level. Having said that, healthy people are much more uncommon than people of average and lower health...most people seem to be broken in some way.

 

[soulseeker]

I think I'm really emotionally abused. I don't think.. I know. well I won't and WILL NEVER stick to my abuser which are my parents <--- the root of all the abusing. and so yes I do think that I'm useless and worthless and all that crap.

oh and the worst part is.... they don't know they're doing it. Well I think the effect is......... self destructing. I mean seriously, I don't think I will ever ever ever get out of this situation. oh and....... no one knows I feel this way. I can't believe I can act happy.... or even the happiest person on earth when inside I feel so empty and so worthless.

uhmm...... I don't think I was emotionally abused as a growing child.. or a bit.. yeah just a bit... or not..... actually I don't know all i know now is that it's starting to eat myself. I was physically (just a bit) and verbally abused like a lot when I was a child and now... very emotionally abused. Somehow, I can still judge and think normally yehey! the problem is...... I want to let go.. to let loose.... to just not care about myself....but I CAN'T .. I can't do anything wild .. no I can't can't... I DON't want to do anything like ... taking drugs..drinking.. being wild or whatever..so yeah that leaves me trapped. Because i do not have any outlet. oh plus me feeling like I don't have friends to talk to. Even strangers won't talk to me. uh huh so..... yeah that's me and being emotionally abused.