For all my life, I’ve hidden anger in order to be ‘perfect’ to others

By David McElroy · May 11, 2019

When I was going through some serious therapy about 10 years ago, I noticed something that alarmed me. At random times — maybe driving down the road — I would suddenly feel flashes of extreme anger which left me shaking and confused.

When this happened, I never seemed to have anything specific to feel angry about. It just felt as though something had slightly opened a lid on something which was normally locked up tightly.

This anger scared me, because I had never felt anything like it. For my entire life, I have rarely allowed myself to feel anger of any kind. I’ve always had my feelings completely under control. Even when something was going on that would elicit rage from others, I was always under control and focused on a rational reaction. Under pressure, I was a lot like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock.

The feelings which were washing over me randomly at the time — and which I still feel every now and then — made me seem to be feeling just the tiniest bit of the anger I had been repressing for my entire life. I had never even known it was there.

Although I understand more about it now than I did when it started — and I even wrote about my hidden anger not long ago — I’m still discovering more about the patterns which led to that. This weekend has been another of those times of discovery for me — and it came from an unexpected direction.

About six months ago, I started a confusing re-examination of my personality and identity. I had thought I knew who I was, but I suddenly discovered a way to view what I thought I understood as a subset of something which I hadn’t noticed before.

It wasn’t that I was wrong about what I had seen in myself. It was simply that I suddenly started understanding that what I had thought was the real me was only a part of myself. Another part — something which had been dominant up until I was about 30 years old — was still there. I didn’t realize that I had a lot of work to do in order to integrate two entirely different parts of myself. (Here’s what I wrote at the time when I tried to explain a part of it.)

The process I started about six months ago led me to reinterpret my personality on the Enneagram typing system. I had been certain that I was a Type 4, but I came to understand that my natural personality is a Type 1.

It turns out that a Type 1 can appear to be a Type 4 at certain unhealthy times and the Type 1 can also develop some of the Type 4’s positive traits as he grows in positive ways. I had experienced both sides of that, but I had concluded I was a Type 4. I didn’t realize it, but there was something deeper waiting for me to learn.

On Saturday, I listened to a chapter in an audiobook about the Enneagram that opened my eyes to a lot of how anger — repressed anger, not experienced anger — has affected my life. What’s interesting is that I’m not sure I could have allowed myself to see some of the truth I needed to see if my father had still been alive. So maybe it was finally the right time to learn what has been in front of me for years.

(If you have any interest in the subject, here’s an audio copy of the chapter which has taken me on this journey today.)

Beatrice Chestnut is considered one of the most influential Enneagram teachers today. I have her book, “The Complete Enneagram,” and I also have the audio version. I had read part of it, but I’d never finished it. I happened to hear her being interviewed on a podcast Friday, so that prompted me to pull out the book Saturday to listen to what she wrote about the Type 1.

She says that a Type 1 has always repressed anger because these people were terrified of making errors as children. They were afraid of their own environment and their parent figures, so they compensated by becoming “perfect” — and striving for perfection at all times. They repressed anger and repressed all negative emotions.

She says that these sorts of children were obsessed with self-control and with being flawless in behavior in order to escape the punishment which they were afraid of. As the result of this fear they learned as children, they devoted their minds to always doing the right thing in all circumstances.

When I was younger, I assumed that everyone had a harsh inner voice telling them what was wrong with them and directing them about how to become perfect. Even today — when I intellectually know this isn’t the case — I still want to assume that others are driven at their core by the ultimate desire to do whatever is the right thing.

It’s impossible for me to imagine not feeling that way. Chestnut’s explanations about the Type 1 made that all finally make sense. (There are three sub-types of each basic type, and I am the “self-preservation” variant of Type 1 that she discusses in the book.)

It’s hard for me to imagine that I could have come this far in life and still be learning such basic things about myself. Maybe you’re the same way.

As I learn more about myself, I feel a desperate need to share this with everybody I know. I especially have a strong desire to share it with whoever might eventually love me and want to marry me, whenever I find her. I need someone to understand what made me the ways I am — for both good and bad — and this is another building block of that understanding I want to offer.

I’m not sure anyone can successfully be my partner — in romance or business or deep friendship — without understanding these sorts of things. So there’s a part of me which feels evangelical about sharing. I want to take copies of all I’ve learned — some of which applies to me and some of which will apply to others in my life — and beg those people to learn, too.

For instance, I’m going to have my real estate broker’s license by November. (I currently have a salesperson license and you can’t get a broker’s license until you’ve had the salesperson license for two years.) The plan at the company where I work is for me to be promoted to become the “broker of record” for our company at that time. That’s a big deal and it will put me in the position of managing the salespeople.

I’ve known the owner of our company for something like 30 years, so he knows me pretty well. He knows he can trust me. But I need him to understand more about what I do — and what I think and feel — in order to understand why I will manage in some of the ways that I will. So I feel like taking this chapter to him and saying, “Sit down; we’re going to listen to this together.”

Those who quit learning and growing are doomed to keep making the same mistakes in their lives. I believe pretty passionately that the only way people can along with each other — and even live with themselves in a healthy way — is to keep growing.

I understand now that I was an efficient and rational machine in the early parts of my career. That’s why I did so well with some of the things I did. I was driven and I didn’t let my feelings get in the way, mostly because I didn’t always feel them.

But then when I was about 30, I discovered this hidden side of myself. I started exploring my emotions — in fits and starts, bits and pieces — and I became convinced that’s who I really was. The truth is more complicated. I was — and am — both of those people.

I’m just striving to integrate parts of myself which seem radically different from one another.

I understand now that I was terrified to feel anger as a child. If I had ever allowed myself to express the anger (or fear) which I felt about my father, he would have crushed me. My only defense mechanism was to repress my negative emotions and focus exclusively on always being correct and perfect.

That defense mechanism let me survive my father, but it left me very emotionally unbalanced. I’m still feeling the effects of that today.

Now I just have to finish integrating these two seemingly opposite parts of myself. That will lead to a more healthy place, but I have no idea what might lie beyond that.

There’s always something else to learn about ourselves. We always have more growing to do.

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