# Enneagram Childhood Wounds



## mrhcmll

Taken from the EnneaApp by Lori Ohlson. I'm unsure if this has been posted on PerC before, but I wanted to share in case it isn't.

*Type 1*
These children felt heavily criticized, punished, or not good enough. Household rules may have felt inconsistent. As such, they became obsessed with being good/not making mistakes to avoid condemnation. The principle message was: "You must always be better than you are."

*Type 2*
These children felt loved only if they were helping or pleasing others, their personal needs felt selfish. As a result they closed off their own needs and feelings and tuned into those of others. Love became defined as giving to others - though the love often didn't feel received or reciprocated.

*Type 3*
To the heart - These children felt rewarded only for what they did and how well they did it. Their feelings were discounted and ignored, only their performance and what was expected of them mattered. This harmed their ability to love themselves and others. Admiration replaced real love.

*Type 4*
These children felt abandoned by one or both caretakers. They felt alone, cut off from the source of love for reasons they couldn't understand. They were not "seen" or mirrored, and felt different from their parents. As a result, they turned inward to their feelings and imagination to cope in isolation.

*Type 5*
These children received no meaningful interaction, emotion, or affection from caretakers. OR, the child had intrusive, over-controlling parent(s) and felt exposed and defenseless in the face of this intrusion. As a result, they built walls around themselves and retreated to the mental realm.

*Type 6*
To the trusting nature. These children were raised in an unpredictable situation with no safe place to go. They lost faith they would ever be protected. As such, they turned to their own inner defense of doubting - disbelieving reality and rejecting their own instincts/inner guidance.

*Type 7*
These children were deprived of nurturing, or it was too-soon removed. They handled this lack by searching for distractions to minimize/repress the fear and pain. They decided to focus on positive options and rely on themselves to fulfill their desired and gain a sense of nurturance.

*Type 8*
These children often grew up in an unsafe environment (emotionally and/or physically) and had to mature way too soon. They didn't feel safe to show any vulnerability, and may have felt controlled. Weakness was used against them, so they focused only on building their strength.

*Type 9*
To the gut, the core of being. These children were overlooked or neglected and felt unimportant or "lost." They were ignored/attacked for having needs or expressing themselves (especially anger) and decided to keep a low profile and instead focus on the needs/experience of others.


----------



## Stellafera

mrhcmll said:


> *Type 6*
> To the trusting nature. These children were raised in an unpredictable situation with no safe place to go. They lost faith they would ever be protected. As such, they turned to their own inner defense of doubting - disbelieving reality and rejecting their own instincts/inner guidance.


Not true remotely for me, honestly. More of the opposite... parents that wanted to hold my hand through everything.

Seems odd that all of them seem to deal with some sort of environment of neglect. There's more ways to screw up a kid than that.


----------



## not enough

Here is another interesting theory, with some confusing statements that contradict the previous theory (e.g. type 7!)...:dry: would be interesting to know which one applies more to you

*Chilhood Scenarios for Enneatypes based on three basic orientations* 
source

Here are the associated traits for each basic orientation:

*Active:* demanding, assertive, bossy, outspoken, intimidating, egocentric, expressive, willful.

*Responsive:* supportive, responsive, engaging, affectionate, friendly, sympathetic, cooperative.

*Neutral:* avoidant, withdrawn, indifferent, apathetic, absent, reserved, ignoring, neglectful.

Apparently, each child comes into the world with one of these predefined attitudes toward their environment and each parent will address their children with a certain parenting style, which can be, but isn't necessarily determined by their Enneagram type.

Any Enneagram type can use any of the three orientations to attend to their children. For example - an Enneatype 5 can be a Responsive parent, an Enneatype 8 might use a Neutral approach with their offspring, while an Enneatype 1 may lean towards an Active style. What determines the environmental component of a child's future type is not necessarily the main caretaker's type, but rather their particular approach to relating to the child.

*Nine Interaction Scenarios: Child vs. Parent*

Here are the 9 childhood scenarios that correspond to each of the 9 Enneagram types.


* *




*Active child vs. Active parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 8*.

The child and parent experience open conflicts on a regular basis. They both have different agendas and oppose each other, thus giving rise to power struggles and explosive arguments. The Active parent is impatient and intolerant of the child's rebellious nature and tries to impose his will in an authoritarian fashion. The Active child, on the other hand, becomes aggressive, argumentative and persistent in getting his own way. The relationship becomes a sort of battlefield, which is how the child will later perceive the world around him (type 8).

Such a childhood scenario encourages the child to develop a keen eye for spotting other people's weaknesses and a thirst for imposing their will in an overly aggressive fashion. They learn to be assertive, strong and deny their fears and feelings of intimidation. These are the traits they needed to have in order to stand up to their domineering parents and still keep their own Active inborn approach.

*Active child vs. Responsive parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 7*

The demands and concerns of the Active child are usually received with benevolence and a supportive, encouraging attitude. This creates a tolerant environment in which the child can express himself openly and receive attention without much effort from his part. The Active child becomes self-confident, carefree and expects his interactions to be positive and favorable to his needs. The Responsive parent is sympathetic and loving, thus stimulating the child's playful, self-expressive side and giving him a good deal of personal freedom.

This childhood scenario promotes a cheerful, optimistic type who knows how to charm and manipulate others into easily getting his way. Entertaining and expressive, such a child may later expect instant gratification for all his needs and desires and avoid investing time and effort into long-term goals.

*Active child vs. Neutral parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 4*

In this relationship, the child usually tries to grab the attention of an indifferent or absent parent, by expressing himself with increasing intensity, until a response is achieved. The Active child may act in a dramatic, exaggerated manner, attempting to get his message across to the unconcerned caretaker. The Neutral caretaker will typically ignore the child's emotional needs, making the youngster feel frustrated, misunderstood and possibly abandoned. Sometimes the child turns these negative feelings inwardly, believing that they are unlovable and not special enough to deserve attention.

This scenario teaches the Active children that they are different than other children that seem to be getting the support they lack. They want to make themselves heard so they amplify their feelings, resorting to dramatic expressions of their emotions. These children may later become overly sensitive, artistic and theatrical, but also melancholic, self-loathing and depressive.

*Responsive child vs. Active parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 1*

This interaction is generally centered around the parent's agenda, to which the child will subscribe in order to receive the desired approval. The Active parent will be demanding, dominating and will criticize any perceived "bad" behavior. The Responsive child, on the other hand, is unusually sensitive to criticism so he will try to adjust and adhere to the parent's values and perspectives, by being obedient, well-behaved and an altogether "good kid". This attitude will help him build the desired rapport with the fastidious main caretaker.

With time, the child will learn to put aside his real needs and wishes in order to do the right thing, to be correct and morally ethical. These types will prefer to have a clear set of standards and rules to adhere to and will only feel worthy and lovable when they live a righteous life, in accordance with their upstanding principles. Their parents taught them that acceptance comes only through obedience and discipline.

*Responsive child vs. Responsive parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 6*

This child will usually establish a very close relationship with his caretaker and will tend to become dependent on the nurturing, affectionate figure that offers him support and understanding. A strong desire for harmonious relationships is created and the Responsive child will reject and feel threatened by conflicts and lack of stability. Such types will seek playmates and groups that share their values and interests and will take an 'us against the world' stance, typically towards unfamiliar people and circumstances.

These Responsive children will prefer to play by the rules in order to keep themselves safe from any disharmony that will endanger their comforting, supportive relationships. They will be playful, endearing and loyal to their chosen groups and intimates, while at the same time remaining alert and vigilant to avoid any conflicts and hidden threats. Suspicion of other people's motives can arise as a protection from abandonment and rejection - they are in fact very afraid of losing their safe, nurturing grounds.

*Responsive child vs. Neutral parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 2*

In this case, the Responsive child will act in a pleasing, appealing matter but will most likely encounter an indifferent attitude on the part of the Neutral parent. Confronted with this apathy and lack of interest, the child can only resort to becoming even more pleasing and irresistible to the parent, until he manages to break through the shell of indifference and obtain the desired rapport. Such types will be helpful, empathetic, lovable and attractive and will have a knack for getting on the same wavelength with their parents - they know when and how to approach them in order to obtain their attention.

Growing up, the Responsive children will learn to intuitively sense and assess other people's moods and will know exactly how to fulfill their needs in order to be appreciated and loved by them. They have a wide repertoire of seductive behaviors and know exactly which approach to use in order to successfully engage others into a close relationship.

*Neutral child vs. Active parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 9*

The Neutral child is often overwhelmed and frightened by the controlling, domineering Active parent. Lacking self-assertion skills, he prefers to withdraw and stay out of the way, minimizing his own needs and avoiding the parent as much as possible. On the few occasions the child reaches out to the caretaker, he ends up feeling rejected and bullied around for no apparent reason, which causes him to withdraw again. The loneliness, however, also feels like rejection and soon enough the youngster will be ambivalent towards both being alone and being with others.

Most of the time, a compromise will be made. This type will seek out company but will not invest themselves in it, preferring to keep in the background and go with the flow, partly removed from their actual situation. When alone, they will avoid introspection, which will bring about old feelings of depression and rejection, instead they'd rather numb themselves out with food, TV or other unimportant routines to avoid emotional pain.

*Neutral child vs. Responsive parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 5*

In this relationship, the Responsive parent is inclined to give a lot of unrequested attention to the Neutral child, who perceives his parent's supportive and affectionate attitude as a form of smothering. The youngster will tend to withdraw from his environment, preferring solitary activities and contemplation, but as opposed to the previous scenario (of type 9), loneliness will not be accompanied by a feeling of rejection. At the contrary, being alone is a matter of choice and it gives a feeling of security and well-being, knowing that there is always someone to communicate with when they decide to seek out company.

Such children are genuine loners, who prefer and enjoy their solitude. They are introspective, insightful and love learning and discovering things on their own, usually rejecting any help or intervention from the outside. They are afraid of being intruded upon because their parents used to make a fuss over them and suffocate them with attention and demands for closeness.

*Neutral child vs. Neutral parent*
This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 3*

This Neutral child's solitude is encouraged by his parent's own withdrawal and indifference, which doesn’t necessarily make the Neutral child feel openly rejected, but rather intrigues and challenges him. Serious, focused and rather unemotional, this youngster will most likely try to fulfill his occasional need for attention by impressing his parents with outstanding accomplishments and high aspirations, which make him feel worthy and valuable in their eyes.

Later in life, these children become motivated achievers who put great emphasis on results, performance, efficiency and a successful image that will make others appreciate and admire them. Deep inside they dislike being ignored because it makes them doubt their own value, therefore they tend to hide their weaknesses and flaws and project a desirable, attractive, "I-have-it-all" persona.


----------



## Quernus

Stellafera said:


> Not true remotely for me, honestly. More of the opposite... parents that wanted to hold my hand through everything.
> 
> Seems odd that all of them seem to deal with some sort of environment of neglect. There's more ways to screw up a kid than that.


There are! Of course, I think that these things can be interpreted in different ways. I've known type Sixes to have grown up more in the type of environment you describe, but also, with parents constantly overreacting to things and making the kids feel like there was always something to be on the lookout for. Making them over-reliant, so that no matter how much hand-holding they got, it was never safe at all, never mind trying to find safety in independence.

Or, parents focused on practical needs/hazards but not at all emotional needs/hazards so there was never any building up or encouragement of self-confidence and validation, sometimes to the point where it started to seem dangerous to ever feel at ease with ones own ability to cope no matter how thorough they learned to be. Like.. DON't EVER RELAX, YOU'LL GET CAUGHT WHEN U LEAST EXPECT IT! 

idk

I'm not a six or even a 6-fix but my mom is either a 6 or a 9 and is regardless VERY much like how I just described. It's wearisome to me and I've always grown up taking on a dynamic of trying to parent *her* because of it.


----------



## Quernus

not enough said:


> Here is another interesting theory, with some confusing statements that contradict the previous theory (e.g. type 7!)...:dry: would be interesting to know which one applies more to you
> 
> *Chilhood Scenarios for Enneatypes based on three basic orientations*
> source
> 
> Here are the associated traits for each basic orientation:
> 
> *Active:* demanding, assertive, bossy, outspoken, intimidating, egocentric, expressive, willful.
> 
> *Responsive:* supportive, responsive, engaging, affectionate, friendly, sympathetic, cooperative.
> 
> *Neutral:* avoidant, withdrawn, indifferent, apathetic, absent, reserved, ignoring, neglectful.
> 
> Apparently, each child comes into the world with one of these predefined attitudes toward their environment and each parent will address their children with a certain parenting style, which can be, but isn't necessarily determined by their Enneagram type.
> 
> Any Enneagram type can use any of the three orientations to attend to their children. For example - an Enneatype 5 can be a Responsive parent, an Enneatype 8 might use a Neutral approach with their offspring, while an Enneatype 1 may lean towards an Active style. What determines the environmental component of a child's future type is not necessarily the main caretaker's type, but rather their particular approach to relating to the child.
> 
> *Nine Interaction Scenarios: Child vs. Parent*
> 
> Here are the 9 childhood scenarios that correspond to each of the 9 Enneagram types.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Active child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 8*.
> 
> The child and parent experience open conflicts on a regular basis. They both have different agendas and oppose each other, thus giving rise to power struggles and explosive arguments. The Active parent is impatient and intolerant of the child's rebellious nature and tries to impose his will in an authoritarian fashion. The Active child, on the other hand, becomes aggressive, argumentative and persistent in getting his own way. The relationship becomes a sort of battlefield, which is how the child will later perceive the world around him (type 8).
> 
> Such a childhood scenario encourages the child to develop a keen eye for spotting other people's weaknesses and a thirst for imposing their will in an overly aggressive fashion. They learn to be assertive, strong and deny their fears and feelings of intimidation. These are the traits they needed to have in order to stand up to their domineering parents and still keep their own Active inborn approach.
> 
> *Active child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 7*
> 
> The demands and concerns of the Active child are usually received with benevolence and a supportive, encouraging attitude. This creates a tolerant environment in which the child can express himself openly and receive attention without much effort from his part. The Active child becomes self-confident, carefree and expects his interactions to be positive and favorable to his needs. The Responsive parent is sympathetic and loving, thus stimulating the child's playful, self-expressive side and giving him a good deal of personal freedom.
> 
> This childhood scenario promotes a cheerful, optimistic type who knows how to charm and manipulate others into easily getting his way. Entertaining and expressive, such a child may later expect instant gratification for all his needs and desires and avoid investing time and effort into long-term goals.
> 
> *Active child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 4*
> 
> In this relationship, the child usually tries to grab the attention of an indifferent or absent parent, by expressing himself with increasing intensity, until a response is achieved. The Active child may act in a dramatic, exaggerated manner, attempting to get his message across to the unconcerned caretaker. The Neutral caretaker will typically ignore the child's emotional needs, making the youngster feel frustrated, misunderstood and possibly abandoned. Sometimes the child turns these negative feelings inwardly, believing that they are unlovable and not special enough to deserve attention.
> 
> This scenario teaches the Active children that they are different than other children that seem to be getting the support they lack. They want to make themselves heard so they amplify their feelings, resorting to dramatic expressions of their emotions. These children may later become overly sensitive, artistic and theatrical, but also melancholic, self-loathing and depressive.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 1*
> 
> This interaction is generally centered around the parent's agenda, to which the child will subscribe in order to receive the desired approval. The Active parent will be demanding, dominating and will criticize any perceived "bad" behavior. The Responsive child, on the other hand, is unusually sensitive to criticism so he will try to adjust and adhere to the parent's values and perspectives, by being obedient, well-behaved and an altogether "good kid". This attitude will help him build the desired rapport with the fastidious main caretaker.
> 
> With time, the child will learn to put aside his real needs and wishes in order to do the right thing, to be correct and morally ethical. These types will prefer to have a clear set of standards and rules to adhere to and will only feel worthy and lovable when they live a righteous life, in accordance with their upstanding principles. Their parents taught them that acceptance comes only through obedience and discipline.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 6*
> 
> This child will usually establish a very close relationship with his caretaker and will tend to become dependent on the nurturing, affectionate figure that offers him support and understanding. A strong desire for harmonious relationships is created and the Responsive child will reject and feel threatened by conflicts and lack of stability. Such types will seek playmates and groups that share their values and interests and will take an 'us against the world' stance, typically towards unfamiliar people and circumstances.
> 
> These Responsive children will prefer to play by the rules in order to keep themselves safe from any disharmony that will endanger their comforting, supportive relationships. They will be playful, endearing and loyal to their chosen groups and intimates, while at the same time remaining alert and vigilant to avoid any conflicts and hidden threats. Suspicion of other people's motives can arise as a protection from abandonment and rejection - they are in fact very afraid of losing their safe, nurturing grounds.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 2*
> 
> In this case, the Responsive child will act in a pleasing, appealing matter but will most likely encounter an indifferent attitude on the part of the Neutral parent. Confronted with this apathy and lack of interest, the child can only resort to becoming even more pleasing and irresistible to the parent, until he manages to break through the shell of indifference and obtain the desired rapport. Such types will be helpful, empathetic, lovable and attractive and will have a knack for getting on the same wavelength with their parents - they know when and how to approach them in order to obtain their attention.
> 
> Growing up, the Responsive children will learn to intuitively sense and assess other people's moods and will know exactly how to fulfill their needs in order to be appreciated and loved by them. They have a wide repertoire of seductive behaviors and know exactly which approach to use in order to successfully engage others into a close relationship.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 9*
> 
> The Neutral child is often overwhelmed and frightened by the controlling, domineering Active parent. Lacking self-assertion skills, he prefers to withdraw and stay out of the way, minimizing his own needs and avoiding the parent as much as possible. On the few occasions the child reaches out to the caretaker, he ends up feeling rejected and bullied around for no apparent reason, which causes him to withdraw again. The loneliness, however, also feels like rejection and soon enough the youngster will be ambivalent towards both being alone and being with others.
> 
> Most of the time, a compromise will be made. This type will seek out company but will not invest themselves in it, preferring to keep in the background and go with the flow, partly removed from their actual situation. When alone, they will avoid introspection, which will bring about old feelings of depression and rejection, instead they'd rather numb themselves out with food, TV or other unimportant routines to avoid emotional pain.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 5*
> 
> In this relationship, the Responsive parent is inclined to give a lot of unrequested attention to the Neutral child, who perceives his parent's supportive and affectionate attitude as a form of smothering. The youngster will tend to withdraw from his environment, preferring solitary activities and contemplation, but as opposed to the previous scenario (of type 9), loneliness will not be accompanied by a feeling of rejection. At the contrary, being alone is a matter of choice and it gives a feeling of security and well-being, knowing that there is always someone to communicate with when they decide to seek out company.
> 
> Such children are genuine loners, who prefer and enjoy their solitude. They are introspective, insightful and love learning and discovering things on their own, usually rejecting any help or intervention from the outside. They are afraid of being intruded upon because their parents used to make a fuss over them and suffocate them with attention and demands for closeness.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 3*
> 
> This Neutral child's solitude is encouraged by his parent's own withdrawal and indifference, which doesn’t necessarily make the Neutral child feel openly rejected, but rather intrigues and challenges him. Serious, focused and rather unemotional, this youngster will most likely try to fulfill his occasional need for attention by impressing his parents with outstanding accomplishments and high aspirations, which make him feel worthy and valuable in their eyes.
> 
> Later in life, these children become motivated achievers who put great emphasis on results, performance, efficiency and a successful image that will make others appreciate and admire them. Deep inside they dislike being ignored because it makes them doubt their own value, therefore they tend to hide their weaknesses and flaws and project a desirable, attractive, "I-have-it-all" persona.


This is how I first learned about enneagram (neutral, active, responsive parenting). I don't think either perspective is complete on its own, I think different temperaments will more likely *interpret* certain other temperaments/parenting styles a certain way. If I read the descriptions in the first post, I can think of various kinds of environments someone might grow up in, but end up with the same sort of inner experience/insecurities as someone who grew up in a completely different way... 

I do still need to more fully read the descriptions on this parenting style post, which I hope to do soon.


----------



## my melody

mrhcmll said:


> *Type 4*
> These children felt abandoned by one or both caretakers. They felt alone, cut off from the source of love for reasons they couldn't understand. They were not "seen" or mirrored, and felt different from their parents. As a result, they turned inward to their feelings and imagination to cope in isolation


With regards to the OP I think this description fits me the best.



not enough said:


> *Active child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 4*
> 
> In this relationship, the child usually tries to grab the attention of an indifferent or absent parent, by expressing himself with increasing intensity, until a response is achieved. The Active child may act in a dramatic, exaggerated manner, attempting to get his message across to the unconcerned caretaker. The Neutral caretaker will typically ignore the child's emotional needs, making the youngster feel frustrated, misunderstood and possibly abandoned. Sometimes the child turns these negative feelings inwardly, believing that they are unlovable and not special enough to deserve attention.
> 
> This scenario teaches the Active children that they are different than other children that seem to be getting the support they lack. They want to make themselves heard so they amplify their feelings, resorting to dramatic expressions of their emotions. These children may later become overly sensitive, artistic and theatrical, but also melancholic, self-loathing and depressive.


This was actually a little hard to read because it is almost exactly what my childhood/adolescence was like.


----------



## Quernus

mrhcmll said:


> *Type 4*
> These children felt abandoned by one or both caretakers. They felt alone, cut off from the source of love for reasons they couldn't understand. They were not "seen" or mirrored, and felt different from their parents. As a result, they turned inward to their feelings and imagination to cope in isolation.
> 
> *Type 5*
> These children received no meaningful interaction, emotion, or affection from caretakers. OR, the child had intrusive, over-controlling parent(s) and felt exposed and defenseless in the face of this intrusion. As a result, they built walls around themselves and retreated to the mental realm.


I relate to both of these a lot, to the point I have trouble trying to fully comprehend how anyone could have had a different experience. Like I can conceive of it but I can't begin to feel it.

I relate somewhat to the 6 description as well because of how my parents are (my dad is a 6, my mom is either a 9 or a 6 but very unhealthy and 6ish regardless)

This is so frustrating.


----------



## Quernus

not enough said:


> Here is another interesting theory, with some confusing statements that contradict the previous theory (e.g. type 7!)...:dry: would be interesting to know which one applies more to you
> 
> *Chilhood Scenarios for Enneatypes based on three basic orientations*
> source
> 
> Here are the associated traits for each basic orientation:
> 
> *Active:* demanding, assertive, bossy, outspoken, intimidating, egocentric, expressive, willful.
> 
> *Responsive:* supportive, responsive, engaging, affectionate, friendly, sympathetic, cooperative.
> 
> *Neutral:* avoidant, withdrawn, indifferent, apathetic, absent, reserved, ignoring, neglectful.
> 
> Apparently, each child comes into the world with one of these predefined attitudes toward their environment and each parent will address their children with a certain parenting style, which can be, but isn't necessarily determined by their Enneagram type.
> 
> Any Enneagram type can use any of the three orientations to attend to their children. For example - an Enneatype 5 can be a Responsive parent, an Enneatype 8 might use a Neutral approach with their offspring, while an Enneatype 1 may lean towards an Active style. What determines the environmental component of a child's future type is not necessarily the main caretaker's type, but rather their particular approach to relating to the child.
> 
> *Nine Interaction Scenarios: Child vs. Parent*
> 
> Here are the 9 childhood scenarios that correspond to each of the 9 Enneagram types.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Active child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 8*.
> 
> The child and parent experience open conflicts on a regular basis. They both have different agendas and oppose each other, thus giving rise to power struggles and explosive arguments. The Active parent is impatient and intolerant of the child's rebellious nature and tries to impose his will in an authoritarian fashion. The Active child, on the other hand, becomes aggressive, argumentative and persistent in getting his own way. The relationship becomes a sort of battlefield, which is how the child will later perceive the world around him (type 8).
> 
> Such a childhood scenario encourages the child to develop a keen eye for spotting other people's weaknesses and a thirst for imposing their will in an overly aggressive fashion. They learn to be assertive, strong and deny their fears and feelings of intimidation. These are the traits they needed to have in order to stand up to their domineering parents and still keep their own Active inborn approach.
> 
> *Active child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 7*
> 
> The demands and concerns of the Active child are usually received with benevolence and a supportive, encouraging attitude. This creates a tolerant environment in which the child can express himself openly and receive attention without much effort from his part. The Active child becomes self-confident, carefree and expects his interactions to be positive and favorable to his needs. The Responsive parent is sympathetic and loving, thus stimulating the child's playful, self-expressive side and giving him a good deal of personal freedom.
> 
> This childhood scenario promotes a cheerful, optimistic type who knows how to charm and manipulate others into easily getting his way. Entertaining and expressive, such a child may later expect instant gratification for all his needs and desires and avoid investing time and effort into long-term goals.
> 
> *Active child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 4*
> 
> In this relationship, the child usually tries to grab the attention of an indifferent or absent parent, by expressing himself with increasing intensity, until a response is achieved. The Active child may act in a dramatic, exaggerated manner, attempting to get his message across to the unconcerned caretaker. The Neutral caretaker will typically ignore the child's emotional needs, making the youngster feel frustrated, misunderstood and possibly abandoned. Sometimes the child turns these negative feelings inwardly, believing that they are unlovable and not special enough to deserve attention.
> 
> This scenario teaches the Active children that they are different than other children that seem to be getting the support they lack. They want to make themselves heard so they amplify their feelings, resorting to dramatic expressions of their emotions. These children may later become overly sensitive, artistic and theatrical, but also melancholic, self-loathing and depressive.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 1*
> 
> This interaction is generally centered around the parent's agenda, to which the child will subscribe in order to receive the desired approval. The Active parent will be demanding, dominating and will criticize any perceived "bad" behavior. The Responsive child, on the other hand, is unusually sensitive to criticism so he will try to adjust and adhere to the parent's values and perspectives, by being obedient, well-behaved and an altogether "good kid". This attitude will help him build the desired rapport with the fastidious main caretaker.
> 
> With time, the child will learn to put aside his real needs and wishes in order to do the right thing, to be correct and morally ethical. These types will prefer to have a clear set of standards and rules to adhere to and will only feel worthy and lovable when they live a righteous life, in accordance with their upstanding principles. Their parents taught them that acceptance comes only through obedience and discipline.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 6*
> 
> This child will usually establish a very close relationship with his caretaker and will tend to become dependent on the nurturing, affectionate figure that offers him support and understanding. A strong desire for harmonious relationships is created and the Responsive child will reject and feel threatened by conflicts and lack of stability. Such types will seek playmates and groups that share their values and interests and will take an 'us against the world' stance, typically towards unfamiliar people and circumstances.
> 
> These Responsive children will prefer to play by the rules in order to keep themselves safe from any disharmony that will endanger their comforting, supportive relationships. They will be playful, endearing and loyal to their chosen groups and intimates, while at the same time remaining alert and vigilant to avoid any conflicts and hidden threats. Suspicion of other people's motives can arise as a protection from abandonment and rejection - they are in fact very afraid of losing their safe, nurturing grounds.
> 
> *Responsive child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 2*
> 
> In this case, the Responsive child will act in a pleasing, appealing matter but will most likely encounter an indifferent attitude on the part of the Neutral parent. Confronted with this apathy and lack of interest, the child can only resort to becoming even more pleasing and irresistible to the parent, until he manages to break through the shell of indifference and obtain the desired rapport. Such types will be helpful, empathetic, lovable and attractive and will have a knack for getting on the same wavelength with their parents - they know when and how to approach them in order to obtain their attention.
> 
> Growing up, the Responsive children will learn to intuitively sense and assess other people's moods and will know exactly how to fulfill their needs in order to be appreciated and loved by them. They have a wide repertoire of seductive behaviors and know exactly which approach to use in order to successfully engage others into a close relationship.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 9*
> 
> The Neutral child is often overwhelmed and frightened by the controlling, domineering Active parent. Lacking self-assertion skills, he prefers to withdraw and stay out of the way, minimizing his own needs and avoiding the parent as much as possible. On the few occasions the child reaches out to the caretaker, he ends up feeling rejected and bullied around for no apparent reason, which causes him to withdraw again. The loneliness, however, also feels like rejection and soon enough the youngster will be ambivalent towards both being alone and being with others.
> 
> Most of the time, a compromise will be made. This type will seek out company but will not invest themselves in it, preferring to keep in the background and go with the flow, partly removed from their actual situation. When alone, they will avoid introspection, which will bring about old feelings of depression and rejection, instead they'd rather numb themselves out with food, TV or other unimportant routines to avoid emotional pain.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 5*
> 
> In this relationship, the Responsive parent is inclined to give a lot of unrequested attention to the Neutral child, who perceives his parent's supportive and affectionate attitude as a form of smothering. The youngster will tend to withdraw from his environment, preferring solitary activities and contemplation, but as opposed to the previous scenario (of type 9), loneliness will not be accompanied by a feeling of rejection. At the contrary, being alone is a matter of choice and it gives a feeling of security and well-being, knowing that there is always someone to communicate with when they decide to seek out company.
> 
> Such children are genuine loners, who prefer and enjoy their solitude. They are introspective, insightful and love learning and discovering things on their own, usually rejecting any help or intervention from the outside. They are afraid of being intruded upon because their parents used to make a fuss over them and suffocate them with attention and demands for closeness.
> 
> *Neutral child vs. Neutral parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 3*
> 
> This Neutral child's solitude is encouraged by his parent's own withdrawal and indifference, which doesn’t necessarily make the Neutral child feel openly rejected, but rather intrigues and challenges him. Serious, focused and rather unemotional, this youngster will most likely try to fulfill his occasional need for attention by impressing his parents with outstanding accomplishments and high aspirations, which make him feel worthy and valuable in their eyes.
> 
> Later in life, these children become motivated achievers who put great emphasis on results, performance, efficiency and a successful image that will make others appreciate and admire them. Deep inside they dislike being ignored because it makes them doubt their own value, therefore they tend to hide their weaknesses and flaws and project a desirable, attractive, "I-have-it-all" persona.


As for this, I relate strongly to the "active child, neutral parenting" thing description - the one said to produce 4. To the point it hurts. 

However, I do not relate so well to the "neutral child, responsive parenting", the one said to produce a 5. So perhaps that is why I turned out a 4 rather than a 5, despite having some of the "5 childhood wounds". The "responsive child, responsive parent" is even more foreign, so no 6 for me...

I vaguely relate to the stuff about 9s in both cases.. but that's more complicated.


----------



## Dare

> Type 5
> These children received no meaningful interaction, emotion, or affection from caretakers. OR, the child had intrusive, over-controlling parent(s) and felt exposed and defenseless in the face of this intrusion. As a result, they built walls around themselves and retreated to the mental realm.


^This isn't true at all for me. My Mom was a stay at home who was, objectively speaking, neither emotionally absent/neglectful nor overbearing. She was caring and responsive yet easy going and let me be for the most part which is what this e5 wanted/needed. What little 'rub' there was between us was due to her imposing her (not unreasonable) motherly desires against my freedom: "eat your vegetables", "you can't go outside, it's raining". I never sought affection and receiving even a little of it felt smothering -- my desire was to be left alone to explore, learn for myself and 'be in my head' uninterrupted.

The other description given by not enough (thanks!), re active/responsive/neutral child/parent dynamics (see below), is right for me:



> *Neutral child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce Enneagram type 5
> 
> In this relationship, the Responsive parent is inclined to give a lot of unrequested attention to the Neutral child, who perceives his parent's supportive and affectionate attitude as a form of smothering. The youngster will tend to withdraw from his environment, preferring solitary activities and contemplation, but as opposed to the previous scenario (of type 9), loneliness will not be accompanied by a feeling of rejection. At the contrary, being alone is a matter of choice and it gives a feeling of security and well-being, knowing that there is always someone to communicate with when they decide to seek out company.
> 
> Such children are genuine loners, who prefer and enjoy their solitude. They are introspective, insightful and love learning and discovering things on their own, usually rejecting any help or intervention from the outside.


----------



## The Exception

I especially relate to type 5 above and somewhat to 1 and 9. My father although I know he loved me dearly often came across as unaffectionate and not emotionally available enough. He was good at providing practical assistance but emotional assistance was lacking. My mother was good at providing emotional assistance but was overly intrusive with her help and overprotective. I had to withdraw to protect my independence.


----------



## Paradigm

Quernus said:


> [...]
> I'm not a six or even a 6-fix but my mom is either a 6 or a 9 and is regardless VERY much like how I just described. It's wearisome to me and I've always grown up taking on a dynamic of trying to parent *her* because of it.


My mom's a 6w5 (692) and taught me the valuable lesson of trying before assuming something can't be done (even the "dangerous" stuff), and desensitized us from a lot of typical fears (especially about animals). She advocated for me a lot more than my 8w9 (862) dad ever has, as well as teaching me far more ways to be independent. She's not even super healthy, she's fairly average. 

I'm the same way but I'm not half as good a teacher... I am a little more open to new experiences nowadays but it was opposite in my childhood.

The ideas people have about 6s being super-coddling and irrationally paranoid is way off from my experiences; makes me think people mistype not-6s as 6 because of the buzzwords.


----------



## Dangerose

^yeah, my 6 dad always pushed my brother and I to do things that we were afraid of and things like that, remember a 6 teacher in elementary school who was all about similar kind of thing, wouldn't let us be wimps  Think 8s and 6s can be similar parents/leaders but it comes from a different place


----------



## Quernus

Paradigm said:


> My mom's a 6w5 (692) and taught me the valuable lesson of trying before assuming something can't be done (even the "dangerous" stuff), and desensitized us from a lot of typical fears (especially about animals). She advocated for me a lot more than my 8w9 (862) dad ever has, as well as teaching me far more ways to be independent. She's not even super healthy, she's fairly average.
> 
> I'm the same way but I'm not half as good a teacher... I am a little more open to new experiences nowadays but it was opposite in my childhood.
> 
> The ideas people have about 6s being super-coddling and irrationally paranoid is way off from my experiences; makes me think people mistype not-6s as 6 because of the buzzwords.


I am glad you had that experience! I think that 6's can definitely be some of the most practical, grounded, and autonomy-oriented/encouraging.

My mom is just like... not okay lol.


----------



## bundleofraindrops

I don't believe the 6's childhood wound since most people are 6s. If anything I believe that the 6s may have been too mollycoddled which made them want to always have that.


----------



## throughtheroses

Why does each description rely on the person having neglectful and/or emotionally abusive parents??? All of the types blur together because of that extremely specific similarity.


----------



## Kintsugi

Childhood wounds cannot be classified in such a neat way - and part of trying to do so, is a protection against feeling and processing them.


----------



## Coburn

I grew up in a safe environment. Childhood was pretty idyllic. Still an eight, it seems.


----------



## Fydis

I think there are also some situations which could be classified in more categories simultaneously, e.g. child placetd into a incubator (I can see theme of abandoning - 4, world is not a safe place - 6...) How would you say than which one was the primary one and therefore essential as a wound?


----------



## PlasticRenaissance

_could the tritype be explained with this/these principle(s)?_

_I mean I could understand how I get the primary enneatype vividly
,but the reasons behind the 2nd (,and the 3rd) ones seem a bit mysterious _


----------



## rosesandgold

This is interesting because most of all with Type 8 and fears it seems to make sense if the most 8s came from households with controlling parents, abusive parents where they did not feel like they had much control and there was a lot of conflict between parent and child. Which causes these feelings of anger that can be difficult to control, but some do learn to control their anger. And the world around them is scary, they cannot feel weak, they cannot allow anyone else to have any kind of control over them, they fear being manipulated and refuse to allow themselves to be vulnerable again. They have to be strong and assertive to show they are not to be messed with. 

Someone who has fears like these, it would make sense if they grew up in an dysfunctional environment. Perhaps this is the case more often than not. 8s who had a happy upbringing, where do these type of fears come from? 

But personality theory being pseudo-science and all, I wonder now if some types were created with specific childhood experiences in mind that creates the type? There probably already have been articles about this, but I have not read any.

Using Type 1 as another example, the fear of being corrupt and defective, the desires for perfectionism for themselves and others, all those high standards they have. It would make sense if a lot of 1s had parents who were either strict, or had many expectations for their children, parents who did not have a good communication with them. Sometimes emotionally abusive, maybe they were criticized a lot, perhaps their feelings were dismissed and they were undervalued. Maybe they were lonely and they strive for that perfection to get people to like them, fearing being defect because they did not have many close connections and as if none likes them, so they wonder if there is something wrong with them; being imperfect causes people to not like them.

My point is, childhood influences do impact your fear and the motivations behind those fears. So, if you try and apply Enneagram to real life or when typing fictional characters, perhaps take their childhood in consideration. Those fears come from somewhere, right?


----------



## bundleofraindrops

Hey Gem said:


> This is interesting because most of all with Type 8 and fears it seems to make sense if the most 8s came from households with controlling parents, abusive parents where they did not feel like they had much control and there was a lot of conflict between parent and child.


Most ExTJs are 8s by default, though. I could see how a 1, 3w4, 4 or a 5w4 had a tragic upbringing since they aren't common for any MBTI type. Most INFx's are 9w1s or 6w5s not 4s despite popular belief.




> perhaps their feelings were dismissed and they were undervalued.


The ones that feel like their feelings don't matter are 3s. 



> Maybe they were lonely and they strive for that perfection to get people to like them, fearing being defect because they did not have many close connections and as if none likes them, so they wonder if there is something wrong with them; being imperfect causes people to not like them.


This sounds purely 1w2 not 1.


----------



## Figure

So, a few personal notes first (then some additional thoughts on child development vis-a-vis type). My parents weren't "strict" or controlling. If anything, they were extremely hands-off in so many areas I see parents today being almost criminally helicopter-ish. They gave me an insane amount of latitude to experiment with different interests and ideas, and were always supportive, but without ever really trying to control any part of it. If anything, my parents trusted that I would make mature decisions from a very, very early age and had to remind me many times that I was being really tough on myself when things didn't work out. Because of that, it's pretty hard for me to trace anything in this article to my own experiences. 

Enneatype and child development goes into a rabbit hole that is way too nuanced for science or theories on either end to fully reconcile at this point. To say that childhood experiences shapes personality, and therefore enneagram type is very much true - but that is very different than saying childhood experiences _generate_ an enneagram type. 

It is my belief that enneagram types are probably a natural extension/progression of pre-set cognitive traits. I believe there are ingrained, maybe even genetic cognitive, somatic, psychosomatic characteristics that make it easier or harder for certain enneagram fixations to ever become a person's go-to habit. If I, for example, tend to just think in a scattered way, lack conscientiousness, and be rather extroverted by nature - ending up fixating on core type 1 things is possible, but just not that likely to happen. This is of course not to say childhood doesn't impact type - but I really believe type is probably decided, even if it isn't yet fully fleshed out, before childhood rather than during.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Figure said:


> So, a few personal notes first (then some additional thoughts on child development vis-a-vis type). My parents weren't "strict" or controlling. If anything, they were extremely hands-off in so many areas I see parents today being almost criminally helicopter-ish. They gave me an insane amount of latitude to experiment with different interests and ideas, and were always supportive, but without ever really trying to control any part of it. If anything, my parents trusted that I would make mature decisions from a very, very early age and had to remind me many times that I was being really tough on myself when things didn't work out. Because of that, it's pretty hard for me to trace anything in this article to my own experiences.
> 
> Enneatype and child development goes into a rabbit hole that is way too nuanced for science or theories on either end to fully reconcile at this point. To say that childhood experiences shapes personality, and therefore enneagram type is very much true - but that is very different than saying childhood experiences _generate_ an enneagram type.
> 
> It is my belief that enneagram types are probably a natural extension/progression of pre-set cognitive traits. I believe there are ingrained, maybe even genetic cognitive, somatic, psychosomatic characteristics that make it easier or harder for certain enneagram fixations to ever become a person's go-to habit. If I, for example, tend to just think in a scattered way, lack conscientiousness, and be rather extroverted by nature - ending up fixating on core type 1 things is possible, but just not that likely to happen. This is of course not to say childhood doesn't impact type - but I really believe type is probably decided, even if it isn't yet fully fleshed out, before childhood rather than during.


I completely agree. my tri-type is 5w4, 9w8, 3w4 (with a strong splashing of the 2 wing as well) . I was generally responsive at the start of life, moving towards neutral, (eventually forcing myself to be neutral) My mother was over protective and the environment of Detroit itself was extremely active. Normally this would create a 9 I think from the charts, and I do have many strong 9 tendencies, Eventually mom backed off and let me be completely autonomous, but the environment of Detroit stayed "active +". I think this resulted in my modeling my mom's now "neutrality" and becoming 5ish, but since I had to force it, it actually became an extremely damaged 5.

Edit: Also though Detroit was active +, since I was the white minority recluse their position to me was more like "neutral +" An obvious projection of my own behavior. and whenever I'd see "active +" I would ignore it or withdraw. Projection is so funny, afraid of my own early active and responsive days I became more and more withdrawn.


----------



## Full_fathom_4

I won't bore anybody with my childhood, except to characterize it as somewhat traumatic, even given the era (70's, 80's). It's very natural to form specific defense mechanisms around specific events. Based on my own experience, these can augment or be irrelevant to any particular E type (in-situ imo). 

We can be taught well or reinforced to do our habits. We can be persecuted for those that already exist. We can project upon people in the here and now, for some emotional trauma long ago. Doesn't make it 'right', but it is natural and within the realm of humanity.

Childhood is a very emotional time, with palpable memories, whether it's Grandma's mothballs or that kid who beat you up at the bus stop. My personal opinion it that any wound, childhood or otherwise, is unique to you and something that eventually must be reconciled. In some ways, it not terribly different than reconciling your own E type, except now you're an adult and whatever innocence you might have had, has given way to the stark reality of simply living. That part is pretty non-E type specific. Because we're human. Ideally, the weight of these things would be more than a person should feel like carrying, in a good way.


----------



## Kintsugi

<3


----------



## Wisteria

The 9 description sounds more like type 6 ("felt unimportant or "lost""). These descriptions all sound very similar too. I highlighted the ones that resembled my childhood the most - although the descriptions focus on the negative parts of it only - and found that the descriptions were all very similar. All are some form of neglect.

I type as a 6 but i've found type 1 very relatable, and the description of 1 here is most accurate i'd say. I was treated as a misbehaved child, sometimes even a liability, and this also gave me fear or suspicion of authority figures. It was like I either got not enough discipline or found authority too controlling and intimidating.

These descriptions are good but they need more elaboration, and need to be more specific to each enneatype.



> *Type 1
> These children felt heavily criticized, punished, or not good enough. Household rules may have felt inconsistent. As such, they became obsessed with being good/not making mistakes to avoid condemnation. The principle message was: "You must always be better than you are."*
> 
> Type 2
> These children felt loved only if they were helping or pleasing others, their personal needs felt selfish. As a result they closed off their own needs and feelings and tuned into those of others. Love became defined as giving to others - though the love often didn't feel received or reciprocated.
> 
> Type 3
> To the heart - These children felt rewarded only for what they did and how well they did it. Their feelings were discounted and ignored, only their performance and what was expected of them mattered. This harmed their ability to love themselves and others. Admiration replaced real love.
> 
> Type 4*
> These children felt abandoned by one or both caretakers. They felt alone, cut off from the source of love for reasons they couldn't understand. They were not "seen" or mirrored, and felt different from their parents. As a result, they turned inward to their feelings and imagination to cope in isolation.*
> 
> Type 5*
> These children received no meaningful interaction, emotion, or affection from caretakers. OR, the child had intrusive, over-controlling parent(s) and felt exposed and defenseless in the face of this intrusion. As a result, they built walls around themselves and retreated to the mental realm.*
> 
> Type 6*
> To the trusting nature. These children were raised in an unpredictable situation with no safe place to go. They lost faith they would ever be protected.* As such, they turned to their own inner defense of doubting - disbelieving reality and rejecting their own instincts/inner guidance.
> 
> Type 7*
> These children were deprived of nurturing, or it was too-soon removed. They handled this lack by searching for distractions to minimize/repress the fear and pain*. They decided to focus on positive options and rely on themselves to fulfill their desired and gain a sense of nurturance.
> 
> Type 8
> These children often grew up in an unsafe environment (emotionally and/or physically) and had to mature way too soon. They didn't feel safe to show any vulnerability, and may have felt controlled. Weakness was used against them, so they focused only on building their strength.
> 
> Type 9*
> To the gut, the core of being. These children were overlooked or neglected and felt unimportant or "lost." They were ignored/attacked for having needs or expressing themselves* (especially anger) *and decided to keep a low profile and instead focus on the needs/experience of others.*


----------



## bundleofraindrops

Wisteria said:


> The 9 description sounds more like type 6 ("felt unimportant or "lost"").


It seems like you're making things up. I have never come across a 6 that felt unimportant or lost in their childhood. The only bit about 9s that sounds remotely 6 is how communal they are made to sound.



> I type as a 6 but i've found type 1 very relatable, and the description of 1 here is most accurate i'd say.


Look into the basic fears, basic motives and harmonic triads. Tests and descriptions are useless.


----------



## Wisteria

bundleofraindrops said:


> It seems like you're making things up. I have never come across a 6 that felt unimportant or lost in their childhood. The only bit about 9s that sounds remotely 6 is how communal they are made to sound.


I was referring to the general idea of 6, not their childhood experience. 



Oceanmoonshine said:


> People of enneatype Six are essentially insecure…*as though life has never quite provided them with a proper footing, as though there existed nothing, either internally or externally, which could serve as a solid foundation. *The type Six fixation is therefore deeply and fundamentally existential, and there exists at the core of enneatype Six a tight knot of anxiety, an essential disquietude, and a deep seated desire to find something or someone stable enough in which to place some trust. Given this essential dynamic, it is not surprising therefore to find that Sixes have core issues centering around the contrast between faith and scepticism, trust and distrust, and the legitimate exercise of authority versus the abuse and misuse of power. All Sixes share these core issues, but they respond to them in quite a wide variety of ways, making type Six the most variegated of all the enneatypes and the most difficult by far to describe with specificity.





bundleofraindrops said:


> Look into the basic fears, basic motives and harmonic triads. Tests and descriptions are useless.


I have..

The fears, motives and triads are in the form of descriptions.


----------



## bundleofraindrops

Wisteria said:


> I was referring to the general idea of 6, not their childhood experience.


How is the general idea of the 6 linked to being lost or unimportant? They tend to have an average mindset at least not a lowly one. 



> I have..
> 
> The fears, motives and triads are in the form of descriptions.


They don't mention the harmonic triads in the descriptions. 1s are a competent type but 6s are a reactive type.


----------



## passionabovepower

mrhcmll said:


> *Type 9*
> To the gut, the core of being. These children were overlooked or neglected and felt unimportant or "lost." They were ignored/attacked for having needs or expressing themselves (especially anger) and decided to keep a low profile and instead focus on the needs/experience of others.


Spot on. My mom did not ever respond well to any negative feelings I had. And if I ever would apologize for doing anything I would occasionally write her a letter and set it by her bed. She never responded well to any of it even positive things. I tried comforting her one time when she was crying and she yelled at me.:bored:


----------



## Full_fathom_4

bundleofraindrops said:


> How is the general idea of the 6 linked to being lost or unimportant? They tend to have an average mindset at least not a lowly one.


Not to speak for anyone, but 6 is easily construed, whether by abstraction or reality, to being lost. Except in this instance it is the loss of personal guidance, a stasis acting out of a function of their own fear. The metaphor fits, swimmingly. It is wholly congruent with the "why" of 6 actively adopting a structure that surrogates as an extension of themselves. Its function being "larger" and promoting both security and codependence, that which is emotional, hard-thought (and fought) based. 

This loss... waaay bigger than "9 lost". Functionally.

Edit: Can I put an addendum to this? Because there really are some distinctions to draw. I don't mean to dismiss "9 lost", because sadly, it's a rather palpable reality in the modern world, at least within these United States. Like any person, 9's are randomly capable of experiencing poor childhoods. A point of fact that I want to press here revolves around some extremely clinical or neurotic level 9's acting (or even synthesizing) out of a 'lost' place, and I referring specifically to these mass shootings which have become commonplace over the last 20 years. Almost to a person, these shooters are 9's. Very lost 9's. I have this mantra that the universe will find its equilibrium; for all the un-spoken anger toiling away inside so many 9's, there is an outlier that exhibits such severity to both make up for it, and to demonstrate the malignancy itself. So yeah, there are a lot of lost nines, but the point wasn't being lost at some surface level, it was being lost at a preconceived, self-identified, angry level. And in the comings and goings of Merriam Webster, is that really lost? Or just angry for not being adored/placated? (which happens to be the real angle). I dare say, within a demented mind, THAT is a "guilty pleasure".


----------



## bundleofraindrops

Full_fathom_4 said:


> Not to speak for anyone, but 6 is easily construed, whether by abstraction or reality, to being lost. Except in this instance it is the loss of personal guidance, a stasis acting out of a function of their own fear. The metaphor fits, swimmingly. It is wholly congruent with the "why" of 6 actively adopting a structure that surrogates as an extension of themselves. Its function being "larger" and promoting both security and codependence, that which is emotional, hard-thought (and fought) based.
> 
> This loss... waaay bigger than "9 lost". Functionally.


No. The 9 was more lost than the 6 hence why they doubt their existence matters. The 6 was usually way too attached to their parents to the point that they always wanted some kind of authority figure to show them the ropes.


----------



## Choice

not enough said:


> *Chilhood Scenarios for Enneatypes based on three basic orientations*
> source
> 
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Active child vs. Active parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 8*.
> 
> The child and parent experience open conflicts on a regular basis. They both have different agendas and oppose each other, thus giving rise to power struggles and explosive arguments. The Active parent is impatient and intolerant of the child's rebellious nature and tries to impose his will in an authoritarian fashion. The Active child, on the other hand, becomes aggressive, argumentative and persistent in getting his own way. The relationship becomes a sort of battlefield, which is how the child will later perceive the world around him (type 8).
> 
> Such a childhood scenario encourages the child to develop a keen eye for spotting other people's weaknesses and a thirst for imposing their will in an overly aggressive fashion. They learn to be assertive, strong and deny their fears and feelings of intimidation. These are the traits they needed to have in order to stand up to their domineering parents and still keep their own Active inborn approach.
> 
> *Active child vs. Responsive parent*
> This scenario is thought to produce *Enneagram type 7*
> 
> The demands and concerns of the Active child are usually received with benevolence and a supportive, encouraging attitude. This creates a tolerant environment in which the child can express himself openly and receive attention without much effort from his part. The Active child becomes self-confident, carefree and expects his interactions to be positive and favorable to his needs. The Responsive parent is sympathetic and loving, thus stimulating the child's playful, self-expressive side and giving him a good deal of personal freedom.
> 
> This childhood scenario promotes a cheerful, optimistic type who knows how to charm and manipulate others into easily getting his way. Entertaining and expressive, such a child may later expect instant gratification for all his needs and desires and avoid investing time and effort into long-term goals.


E8 sounds a lot more like my childhood prior to the second paragraph. 

I don't spot people's weaknesses so much as I simply disregard them so I can carry on with my own freedom. Probably don't give that much of a shit about imposing my will; people who don't interest me are generally none of my business.
--

RE: @*mrhcmll* 

*Type 1*
*These children felt heavily criticized, punished, or not good enough. Household rules may have felt inconsistent.*  As such, they became obsessed with being good/not making mistakes to avoid condemnation. The principle message was: "You must always be better than you are."  _prone to simply going "NOPE" to expectations, since criticism would always persist for something else once I met demands for one thing or another. On top of that, I had a lot more time and energy available to utilize for out-stubborning grown-ups since I didn't have to go to work 9am to 7pm. So THERE. *blows raspberry_

Fixed to better denote own experiences 



Edit: I weren't not-nurtured. Mum paid me so much goddamned attention all the time in her attempts to get me to improve that I just needed her to piss off and leave me the hell alone. :skeleton:

-Sincerely, from an asshat E7 "ex"-child


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@*Wisteria*
I think the thing about feeling unimportant and lost for a 9 is about how the 9 struggles with a sense of insignificance. When less than unhealthy, they basically feel like they don't have a right to exist, which can lead to self-forgetting, burying of their own needs and priorities etc, and then feeling lost and confused about themselves.


----------

