New information demands that I change some of what I think I am

By David McElroy · February 23, 2019

Have you done enough work on yourself that you know who you really are? If you think so, would you be willing to make a radical change to your narrative if you discovered something startling about yourself?

I’ve been changing some of my ideas about myself for the past two or three months. I don’t remember precisely when it started, but I know the words that made me uncomfortable enough to reconsider a lot of things:

“…[U]nder increased stress, unhealthy [Enneagram Type Ones] begin to behave like unhealthy [Type Fours]. When they are unable to maintain the intensity of their rigid intolerance and rage, Ones collapse into depression. Their depression can be severe and long term — and in this regard, Ones with strongly dysfunctional family backgrounds where stress was a constant factor may mistake themselves for Fours.”

I was listening to the audio version of “Personality Types: Using the Enneagram for Self-Discovery,” by Don Riso and Russ Hudson when I came across these words around the first of the year. That was the beginning of changing some of what I think I am — and it allowed me to finally integrate the person I am now with the person I was before I turned 30.

I’ve been studying personality psychology for many years — and studying the Enneagram for at least five or six years — but I had made a serious mistake in typing myself. I had been certain that I am an Enneagram Type 4, but I’ve been forced to see that I’m actually a Type 1.

I realize that much of this won’t make sense if you don’t know anything about Enneagram typing. But even if you don’t get the details, you might understand having to make a radical shift in what you think you are.

I’ve talked here — several times, actually — about realizing that I was somebody different when I was young. I had different attitudes and different habits. I knew that everything changed in the year after my newspaper company failed when I was about 30. All this time, I have interpreted that change as me finding who I really was.

I’ve come to believe that what happened was a descent into an unhealthy emotional place. After my company failed, I went into a serious depression and did nothing for almost a year. It was my most serious failure in life and I didn’t know how to deal with it. In the depths of that depression, I was forced to confront feelings which I had always repressed until that time.

Dealing with my feelings — and letting them out — was the start of a long-term process of taking my emotions more seriously. It was the start of a long and painful period of emotional growth. But I started out in that place because I was at a very depressed and dysfunctional place, even though I learned a lot about myself over the years.

I have been quite happy thinking of myself as an Enneagram Type 4. It fit a lot of things about my feelings and it explained so much of what I’ve gone through — and what I’ve become. But I’ve had a nagging question all this time about how I could have been this type of person when I didn’t exhibit any of those characteristics as a child or in my early adult years.

Riso and Hudson called the Type 1 the Reformer, which they describe as, “The Rational, Idealistic Type: Principled, Purposeful, Self-Controlled, and Perfectionistic.” Those sound a lot like who I was early in life. (Other Enneagram teachers call the Type 1 the “Perfectionist” or something similar.)

Up until that depressed year when I underwent such a change, I had always been a driven workaholic. I had been driven by a strong internal voice telling me what’s right and what’s wrong in the world — and how I had to do my part to fix things.

A healthy Type 1 can be an amazing reformer, but an unhealthy Type 1 can be dogmatic and hypercritical of others. I was very guilty of things such as that at times when I was younger. There were plenty of times when I used my “reformer energy” for good things, but I also bullied people. I’ve understood that for years, but I had never found an explanation for it that fit in the personality framework. Now it all makes sense.

I fell into an emotional black hole of depression during that year after my company failed. The things I learned about myself — my previous unwillingness to be in touch with my emotions, for instance — were valuable to me and laid the foundation for emotional growth. But they didn’t change who I fundamentally am.

I thought I had mellowed into an emotional and creative type of person, but I’ve come to understand it differently. I was an average to unhealthy Type 1 when I was younger. I didn’t have much in the way of healthy emotional development in my family. I was a driven Type 1 who wanted to change the world and make sure everything around me was correct in every way.

I’ve still been that person, but I’ve spent years confused about my identity. What I’ve been realizing is that I’m still the driven reformer who wants to change everything. It’s just that I came to understand the importance of emotional understanding — for myself and others — and I added that layer on top as a way of integrating parts of myself which would have been in conflict otherwise.

Riso and Hudson say these are the key motivations of a Type 1: “Want to be right, to strive higher and improve everything, to be consistent with their ideals, to justify themselves, to be beyond criticism so as not to be condemned by anyone.”

All of those things seem so natural to me that I always assumed everyone was motivated by those things, but I’ve realized that was a mistaken assumption.

I have a strong need to be right. When I was younger and more immature, I was eager to make sure others knew I was right. I want everything I touch and everything in the world around me to be the absolute best it can be. For most of my life, it’s been baffling to me that most people don’t seem to care about having higher standards.

I’ve always had a strong inner sense of what’s right — my morals or ideals — and it’s been very important to me that I live those values, even when there was a cost. I have a strong need to justify myself to others. I need you to understand why I do the things I do — so you will think I’m acceptable. And I desperately want to live my life in a way that keeps me beyond the criticism of others — because being criticized makes me feel like a child who has failed to be good.

This change has been so complicated that I’m forced to leave out a lot of the story. It’s already too convoluted and — let’s face it — not that interesting except to people strongly interested in personality or who happen to care about who I am. (And the first group is exponentially larger than the second.)

What has all this meant to me? It means that who I am and what my goals are will be slightly different from what I have perceived. Yes, I’m still interested in creating, but I now understand why I’m more interested in creating a new world — or reforming parts of the world — than creating what others consider art.

This is why I’ve never been able to get excited enough about just creating art in traditional terms. This is why I’ve wanted a long-term plan that could allow me to develop something in the commercial world which can create real and lasting change in the lives of real people.

The positive part of that is that it means I can give myself permission to see my goals in much bigger terms — as I did when I was younger. To oversimplify a bit, if I start a company that makes matches — to pick a mundane example — they’re going to be the most amazing matches anybody has ever seen and they’re going to revolutionize what people think of matches. (No, I’m not going to make matches. It’s just a metaphor. Honest.)

The negative part — and this is no different than the limitations I’ve already had on me — is that I can’t do anything which I don’t care passionately about.

I can’t run a company that makes widgets that are like everybody else’s widgets and we just shave 2 percent off costs to be more profitable. I can’t provide a service to others that doesn’t fundamentally change their lives.

I’m still digesting how my change in understanding is going to affect me going forward, but I can say without hesitation that it will eventually make me more successful in the conventional sense. There’s a lot more money to be made in developing new kinds of residential neighborhoods, for instance, than there is in making artsy films that few people will ever want to watch.

I didn’t realize how much my sense of self affects what I do and how much it affects my daily confidence in myself. I’ve written before about my desperate need to find the person I was when I was young. I’m delighted to say I’ve found him.

The real me has been here all along — just waiting for me to rediscover who I really am.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts