The Core Wound of "Not Enough"
Why I'm focused on creating a better environment for myself.
I have been in therapy since February 2025. Previously I spent 2 years in Schema Therapy, a CBT based therapy that was effective over a decade earlier. The recent 2 year run had not been as successful. The constant thinking about how to change my thoughts had me in a loop of reinforcing the effort to change my thinking with my thinking!
Chat GTP recommended Meta Cognitive Therapy, and to my surprise, it was enough to carry me past my stuck place. I’m a person who benefits from therapy, and I have gathered many techniques over the years that have helped me cope with anxiety and depression. See my post “Effective Anxiety and Depression Management Techniques” for details of what has worked for me:
I’ve been off work on a stress leave for 5 months due to a deep depression unlike anything I’ve experienced before. The first two months off were like a fever dream; a combination of anxiety and depression that saw me swing wildly between crushing lows and jittery highs. Because of the loving support of my wife, the patient efforts of my counselor and Occupational Therapist, I am starting to recovery. In this post I outline my understanding of my core wound, where it came from, and what I’m doing about it.
Is it just The Lack?
After several years of interest I finally understand the idea of “Object a.” See the link below for a deeper dive into that subject:
“The Lack” is something that most people feel. It is the sense that something is missing, and it is the source of motivation for much of what we do. It drives us to buy things we want, enter relationships we desire, and work hard on projects we think are important. But there is another side to “the lack.”
C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, "We all have a God-shaped hole in the center of our hearts that can only be filled by [God]". Jacques Lacan alluded to this hole when he described “Object a.”
“Object a” is a stand-in for whatever you currently think will solve your problem, bring you meaning or happiness, or make sense of life. We set our mind on obtaining “object a”, thinking that when we have it, life will be much better. The trouble is if we do get it, it quickly looses it magnetic quality and solidifies into a mere artifact of our striving. The sense of lack returns.
Lewis thought God was, in essence, the solution for the problem of “object a.” For many people, however, this does not turn out to be the case. They give their heart to Jesus, or sit in meditation for years, or take ayahuasca, or make a pilgrimage, or go on a 10 day silent retreat, or develop a sincere and long lasting devotional life, only to discover after some time passes, that they still feel a lack. In each case, the bloom fades from the rose, the ecstasy passes, or the sense of fulfillment ebbs away. Each in turn has been, "Object a” and “object a” always becomes a fossil after we obtain it. We are left singing along with Bono that we “still haven’t found what we’re looking for.”
“Ah, but those people didn’t really experience GOD!” some will say. Others, “they didn’t have enough faith!” and still others, “it was only satori. Enlightenment is still in the future.”
Perhaps this is true, some saints and gurus do seem to reach a state of union with the divine or with reality or the universe. Some stream-enterers do seem to find enlightenment. Other people do seem to transcend to a more or less perpetual state of peace and contentment. But, unfortunately, these are few and far between. I know many devout and faithful disciples of Jesus or Buddha, many sincere practitioners, and many who commit themselves to a lifetime of service to God or some higher purpose, but I have not yet to meet an enlightened or transformed soul, free from suffering, desire, and striving. Most person are marred by trauma, encumbered by sin, or feel some level of emptiness, no matter how rich and full their life is.
The hole remains.
For myself, I have had moments of bliss, periods of calm aliveness, and times when I felt that all was right with the world. I’ve had bursts of courage, experiences of oneness with the Universe, times of deep contentment, and stretches where I had an abiding feeling of being blessed and having a strong sense of purpose. Yet here I am, making my way out of a deep hole of depression feeling that something is lacking.
The hole is real.
So what do we do when we feel the lack creep back?
Lacan’s solution is perhaps unique in the world of psychology and religion. Instead of proposing a way to fill the hole, he suggested accepting it as a part of life and using it to channel our desires.
"The hole," he said, "is a desire to be whole."
Ah, but is wholeness ever really possible? Isn’t it just another object a? Like matter accelerated towards the speed of light, wholeness seems to require more and more energy the closer we get.
We can do the personal work on ourselves and become more whole over time, more integrated, more awake, but never find ourselves completely awake or whole. This is in part because life involves a series of wounds that ultimately lead to our death. We experience loss, grief, heart break, injury, and suffering. All these things deplete us, and rob us of energy and vitality. As we work with our inner life, we uncover aspects and parts of ourselves that are deeply rooted in our subconscious or unconscious mind. The effort to reveal, face, heal or repurpose these parts requires more and more determination and energy, something metaphorically similar to the energy of accelerating that particle of matter to speeds approaching that of light.
In somewhat of a paradox it seems that we may gain a greater degree of wholeness from discovering our inner divisions. While this does require work, we may learn some life changing things, heal old wounds, master challenges that have defeated us for years. We may deepen our empathy, broaden our perspective, and widen our pool of inner resources so that meaning increases several fold. We may become more mature, more integrated, and more kind, enhancing our relationships. We may stabilize our highs and lows and find greater balance and the ability to see and resolve our triggers and desires. We may even elongate our patience and forbearance, be better lovers and friends, and truly make a difference in the lives of others. All from doing “the work” of inner integration and individuation.
This is what I want for myself; so according to Jacques Lacan the quest for “object a” can become a channel realizing those higher desires. But depression, for me, was not primarily about a sense of lack of something outside of me, or a sense that I just needed more of something, it was all about Social Risk. I sensed that my value to the group did not outweigh my burden on the group. I interpreted this through my old defectiveness schema which caused a cascade of doubt and self judgement that resulted in a severe depression.
See my post Social Risk Hypothesis of Depressed Mood for more details on this theory of depression.
And if we believe writers like Parker Palmer, the wholeness we seek must be uncovered; and it extends beyond our personal boundaries to include a community. Toiling alone on our developmental or spiritual work is not enough to feel whole. Real development as a person means our wholeness spills over into our community of family, friends, and colleagues, and visa versa.
The Core Wound of “Not Enough”
If you are like me and find much of your trouble comes down to a sense of not being enough, of being an imposter, or a fraud, you know it is a gut punch of a feeling. But you likely also know that this does not necessarily mean you think you don’t have any good qualities. Only that for much of life, you are not thriving because of an inability, disability, character flaw, lack of skill or lack of knowledge, or intelligence, or some virtue like courage or grit.
You can do some things and you don’t worry about those because you have mastered them. Walking, talking, reading, and writing, are essentially effortless for me, at least in spontaneous day to day activity. I learned how to do these things long ago, and so when I need to walk or talk, or even walk and talk, I just do it. Sure I might stumble on a root or a word from time to time, but I don’t say to myself, I’m not enough of a walker or I’m not enough of a talker.
The “not enough” feeling tends to apply to more demanding challenges at which I don’t just make mistakes, I have outright failures. These are things I shy away from, not wanting to embarrass myself over and over again. My core wound is a belief and feeling that I am not “enough” in these situations. For me, these are situations that involve competition, conflict, intelligence, memory, or courage.
Where did this wound come from?
The “not enough” belief was shaped over a life of signals from my teachers, peers, and colleagues. Signals of rejection, judgement, and dislike. The younger version of me took these signals to heart, and eventually I concluded that I was not good at some things and was lacking certain qualities. The things I was good at didn’t seem to matter as much - things like kindness, empathy, and an interest in ideas and meaning. For instance in grade school I was not adept at math, spelling, and memory tasks, and still am not great at any of those. I knew I would not be an engineer, lawyer, or doctor because those professions rely on math or memory, in particular. Additionally I small for my age as a child, and then tall and gangly as a teenager, and throughout my life I have lacked coordination, with a tendency to fall in holes. Consequently I was picked last for sports and to help with strenuous physical tasks.
On the other hand I discovered I was good at managing people, having managed staff at a bookstore for 12 years. Other staff over the years praised me for my leadership. But my superiors have, on occasion, taken leadership away from me, seeing my anxiety as something that incapacitates me, or seeing my gentle style as weakness.
Never-the-less, and despite my self-depreciating tendency, I think I have been a good leader at all stages of life. I’m not competitive, however, and I’m not highly assertive. Both of these qualities have been highly criticized, and these are probably the biggest areas of self-doubt and self-criticism that keep open the wound of “not enough.” Teachers, colleagues, therapists, and romantic partners have all described me as a people-pleaser, a wallflower, timid, shy, passive, and weak. Ouch!
But even as they have told me these things, I have known that there is another side to the coin. The flip side of people pleasing is people-respecting. I consider people’s needs as valid and it can be a real pleasure to make someone’s life a little better. Being a wallflower, timid, shy, and passive are all terms that speak to my introverted and reactive nature. Introversion and reactivity are strongly related to genetic predisposition, not choices I made. While introversion has gained greater acceptance because of Susan Cain’s books, the reactive trait is not as well known or respected. See my post from a few years ago about this:
Turning it Around
Extroverts often show distaste or disdain for highly introverted people, as if introversion is a character flaw or weakness. In the same way the reactive tendencies are generally criticized by proactive people. “Timid,” “shy,” and “passive,” are terms used to criticize people and incentivize them to change.
Like liberalism to the MAGA crowd, the reactive personality trait is vilified by strongly extroverted and proactive people. Yet like attachment styles these traits are apparent in babies and toddlers, suggesting that we come out of the womb with certain predispositions. Some infants move towards novelty and stimulation while others move away or watch and listen to gather more information before approaching.1
The Environmental Sensitivity Framework developed by Pluess, Lionetti, & colleagues suggests that people differ in their responsiveness to environmental influences. Some individuals are more sensitive and show stronger reactions not just to stress and adversity, but also to support, enrichment, and positive experiences. This has lead to the analogy of “Orchid” and “Dandelion” children.
Orchid children wilt in environments not conducive to their growth but thrive spectacularly in environments right for them. Dandelion children grow steadily almost anywhere. Dandelion parents tend to favor the “grow anywhere” personality type, and may criticize orchid children who are struggling in the wrong environment. We orchids, tend to believe this criticism from dandelion people, causing us to think there is something fundamentally wrong with us and this is the “not enough” wound.
When I start to feel that I’m not enough because of my inherent traits, I remind myself that despite what others may choose to believe, my personality is only moderately mailable to change and part of the normal distribution in humans. I understand that I can be more outgoing, assertive, competitive, and son on, but only to some degree and in some circumstances.
What to do?
Research suggests that if you are my kind of orchid (highly sensitive) then crafting a supportive, structured, and creative environment or seeking out such an environment could yield outsized positive growth. This is especially true if you are currently in a critical, hostile, or ambivalent environment.
To restructure your environment you need to do two things. Become convinced by the research, and put it into action.
The Research.
Here is a list of research that supports the idea that orchid people are different than dandelion people and can thrive in the right environments or conditions:
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885–908.
Found that “orchid” children (highly sensitive) thrive more than “dandelions” in supportive settings, but suffer more in adverse ones.Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(2), 271–301.
Proposes that heightened physiological stress reactivity increases adaptation to both nurturing and harsh environments.Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s Prophecy: Temperament in Human Nature. New York: Basic Books.
Landmark longitudinal work on high-reactive infants suggesting they have increased anxiety risk but also heightened social awareness.Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Marshall, P. J., Nichols, K. E., & Ghera, M. M. (2005). Behavioral inhibition: Linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 235–262.
Shows continuity of high-reactivity into social caution, but with evidence for modification in supportive settings.Lionetti, F., Aron, E. N., Aron, A., Burns, G. L., Jagiellowicz, J., & Pluess, M. (2018). Dandelions, tulips and orchids: Evidence for sensitivity groups in children. Developmental Psychology, 54(1), 51–70.
Empirical support for three sensitivity groups: high, medium, low. High-sensitivity group are most influenced by parenting quality.Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Differential susceptibility to parenting and quality child care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(4), 419–426.
Shows high-reactive children benefit disproportionately from warm, structured parenting and enriched care environments.Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A., Ellis, B. J., & Deković, M. (2018). Sensory Processing Sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Developmental Psychology, 54(3), 543–558.
Demonstrates that children high in SPS flourish under structured, supportive parenting.Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Pluess, M. (2018). The personality trait of environmental sensitivity predicts children’s positive response to school-based anti-bullying intervention. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(6), 848–859.
Sensitive children showed greater benefit from school interventions.Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 345–368.
Defines SPS and its implications for self-care and structured environments.Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2017). Meditation and personality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 112–117.
Shows that mindfulness and structured contemplative practice are especially effective for sensitive/reactive individuals.Pachucki, M. A., Ozer, E. J., Barrat, A., & Cattuto, C. (2015). Mental health and social networks in early adolescence: A dynamic study of objectively-measured social interaction behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 40–50.
Sensitive individuals thrive in supportive, cohesive networks; but social stressors have amplified negative impact.
A real turn around for me came when I realized that people’s criticism said as much about their lack of understanding about the diversity and development of humans as it did about me. As well, judgmental people sometimes make judgements in order to feel better about themselves. This means that they may not feel good about themselves, even if they think they are “better” than others.
Jesus said, “Judge not lest you be judged2,” and the meaning of that statement seems self evident, but there is a deeper truth beneath it — self-judgement. When we judge others without a full understanding of human diversity, we inadvertently hurt ourselves by creating a false view of the world, one that can also include projection or denial of our own nature. Some of the worst critics of reactive and sensitive people are themselves reactive and sensitive, but in denial about it.
Conclusion
The core wound of “not enough” is, for me, a result of a being a sensitive person with other traits deemed equally undesirable (reactive, withdrawal, introversion, non-assertive, etc.). I had the misfortune to take seriously, or perhaps too seriously, the criticisms and judgements of the social environment I grew up in, without at the same time owning and celebrating the strengths that go along with my unique genetic and experiential makeup.
Reactive personalities are good at detecting risk and deeply examining environments to find or uncover connections, larger patterns, and relationships of meaning. This provides these individuals with a survival advantage for long-term planning and acquisition of resources within known territory. See my post on Reactive and Proactive personalities for a more academic treatment of the topic.
Introversion is a trait that gives a natural advantage in the development of empathy, listening skills, and thoughtful decision-making.
In order for reactive and sensitive people to heal a wound of “not enough” we need to name the power centers that have unfairly judged us, be they extroverts or proactives. We also have to own any legitimate mistakes, failures or wrong-doings we have done, and re-direct our efforts at developing the tendencies and abilities we find come naturally, rather than justifying our unique perspectives and skills to others.
Given that the culture of the West tends to emphasize the values and advantages of the extroverts and proactives, it makes sense that we should develop some of these skills in order to be well rounded, but most of our effort should go in to becoming better at being our unique selves. Changing our immediate environment can often be the best thing we can do if it is not supportive of our needs and personalities.
My list of actions for restructuring my environment is below:
Create Healthy Structure: build and craft routines that provide predictability to balance the unpredictable nature of life. Create scaffolds and protective strategies to buffer stress and reduce overwhelm. (Slagt et al., 2018).
Sincere Warmth and Support: Seek out and create warm, validating environments. (Pluess & Belsky, 2010).
Creativity as regulation: Aesthetic expression (arts, writing, photography) engages meaning-making and lowers stress arousal. It should be a focus of my attention for balance and restoration. (Aron & Aron, 1997).
Attend therapy and training: High-sensitivity individuals show larger therapeutic gains from interventions, so therapy and training work for me. (Nocentini et al., 2018; Hommel & Colzato, 2017).
Bottom Line
For someone like me with high withdrawal tendencies, high aesthetics and high compassion elements to my personality the research strongly supports creating a stable, structured, supportive, and creative ecosystem. It’s not just comforting—it statistically yields bigger benefits for people like me than it would for the average person.
Questions for Readers
Do extroverts and proactives also feel they are not enough? I think they probably do, especially in societies where reactive and introverted tendencies are emphasized. If you are one such person, I would appreciate hearing your experiences in the comments.
I’m familiar with at least one way in which the “not enough” schema can arise as outlined above, but curious to know if there are other ways it can come about. Please share your story in the comments.
See Behavioral Inhibition: Temperament or Prodrome? Koraly E Pérez-Edgar, Amanda E Guyer - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4119720/ and Behavioral Reactivity and Approach-Withdrawal Bias in Infancy Amie Ashley Hane, Nathan A Fox, Heather A Henderson, Peter J Marshall - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2575804/