I AM A GREEN! Over the weekend, I attended a Kathleen Edelman presentation in the foster care world. This was my second time at one of her talks, and honestly, I didn’t realize until the drive down—listening to the pre-work—that this would be what we were learning about. My ADHD makes it really hard to focus sometimes and since I had already been to this presentation before I sat in my feelings with my brain overworking and the six-hour drive home gave my brain way too much time to process through all the reasons I don’t agree with what was being presented.
Years ago, when I first went to a similar conference, I didn’t think twice about the idea of “core personality traits” or labeling kids with colors. But now, as a very very new foster parent for the past year (currently in respite care), my perspective has completely changed. I’ve only had five kids in my home so far, but this experience, along with all the trauma training I’ve gone through, made me question everything the presenter said and I entered into research mode and became slightly obsessive
Here’s why I really struggle with the idea of fixed “core personality colors”:
1. Personality models that claim traits never change ignore trauma.
There are lots of personality tests out there, but very few, account for trauma or life experiences. Edelman’s system says each person has a core color that never changes, no matter what happens in life. But her training is in Christian counseling and communication, not neuroscience, child development, or trauma research. She’s an excellent coach and teacher, but her credibility comes from coaching and temperaments, not from peer-reviewed science and her videos are typical children examples appear without trauma.
2. Trauma changes who we are.
Modern science shows that personality is not fixed at birth. Temperament and personality is not the same. From my research science show that we are born with basic tendencies like our sensitivity level, how active we are or how strongly we react to things, but that they are shaped by our life experiences, can change with experience and education, therapy, trauma and medication. How we are raised and what we have experienced in life both good and bad can dictate how we change in life. Temperament isn’t destiny. The brain is highly adaptable, and life experiences, including trauma can change behavior, emotions, and even identity over time. Long-term adaptations to stress or abuse aren’t temporary “masks” they become part of who someone is. Here are more examples from my research. Trauma affects the amygdala, which controls threat detection, anxiety, and hypervigilance. The prefrontal cortex helps with impulse control and emotional regulation. The hippocampus, handles memory, sense of self, and identity. These brain areas directly influence the traits personality systems try to label, like emotional expression, trust, sociability, risk-taking, and withdrawal. Since trauma can change how these systems function how can personalities be fixed or unchanging? So in my mind that goes against Edelman’s claim that people have an unchanging core color. Her color based system is reflecting that a person born to a certain color decides everything about that person but from my understanding science does not support that. Trama can and does change behaviors in ways that becomes lasting traits If someone withdraws for years, avoids conflict automatically, loses trust, or organizes their life around safety, those aren’t temporary “masks”—they’re real traits that formed because of what they went through or are going through. Calling it masking misses how psychology defines traits, and it’s dangerous to assume everyone has a fixed core color that ignores lived experience.
• A child who starts out “yellow” with traits optimistic and outgoing and then has an abusive relationship or home environment. Trauma could make them withdrawn, guarded, or avoidant, which would be labeled “blue” in her system. That’s not masking; it’s survival.
• A naturally “red” child who is confident and assertive and then experience repeated neglect. They could become quiet, second guess themselves, or avoid conflict, and now they reflect “green” These are survival strategies, not temporary masks.
• A “green” child who is calm, thoughtful, cautious and then grows up in a chaotic household may become hypervigilant, emotionally reactive, or impulsive. By the time they reach school, their behavior may look very different from their early temperament. they adapted to survive.
• Even outgoing kids “yellow” facing long-term medical treatments or chronic illness might become anxious, reserved, or dependent on caregivers.
• A child with ADHD “yellow again” who is impulsive, energetic and extremely social without medication, but on medication they may become focused, tasked oriented, calmer, quieter, and more cautious. In a fixed color system, someone might say that they are now “blue” or “green”. This shows that outward behavior can change also due to mental health, trauma and even medication. Trapping them into a core unchanging color box being inaccurate. medication doesn’t fundamentally change personality but can alter behavioral expression of traits. Long term changes can’t be considered masks. It becomes who that person is.
• An adult “red” enters an emotionally controlling relationships. To stay safe, they might constantly seek approval, avoid expressing anger, or suppress opinions traits that could be labeled “blue” or “green.” Years of practice make these behaviors automatic
• A child or adult involved in a serious car accident may develop heightened anxiety, hypervigilance, or avoidance behaviors long after physical healing occurs. Someone who was previously confident, spontaneous, or risk-tolerant may become cautious, rigid, or preoccupied with safety. These changes are not temporary “masks” but adaptive traits formed through lived experience, shaped by a nervous system that learned the world can become dangerous without warning.
• The loss of a parent, sibling, or primary caregiver, especially in childhood can permanently alter how someone relates to others. A previously outgoing or emotionally expressive child may become reserved, guarded, or overly self-reliant. Traits like emotional restraint, people-pleasing, or fear of attachment can become core aspects of personality, not because of temperament, but because connection became associated with loss.
• Growing up with ongoing financial stress can shape traits such as hyper-responsibility, anxiety around spending, rigidity, or an intense need for control and predictability. A child may appear highly organized, cautious, or emotionally flat not because of an innate “Green” temperament, but because unpredictability trained them to prioritize safety and preparedness. These traits often persist into adulthood, even when financial stability improves.
• Children raised by a chronically ill or disabled parent often adopt caregiving roles early. This can result in traits like emotional suppression, heightened empathy, perfectionism, or avoidance of their own needs. Over time, these behaviors become ingrained aspects of identity. Labeling such a child with a fixed personality color risks missing how responsibility and vigilance were learned necessities, not innate traits.
• A child who witnesses a violent incident, accident, or medical emergency may develop increased reactivity, emotional numbing, or difficulty with trust. Even if they were not directly harmed, the brain encodes threat, reshaping emotional regulation and social engagement. These adaptations influence long-term personality traits such as withdrawal, irritability, or hyper-alertness.
• An adult who spends years caring for a child with medical needs or a dependent family member may shift from being expressive or spontaneous to emotionally restrained, task-oriented, or cautious. These changes are adaptive responses to sustained responsibility and stress. When practiced over years, they become stable traits, not temporary masks.
These examples show why trauma can reshape personality, making the idea of a fixed color both dangerous and inaccurate.
3. Ancient origins don’t make it scientifically valid.
Edelman’s color system is based on the ancient Four Temperaments, going back to Greek philosophy. The original model categorized humans into sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic temperaments, it is believed to be present at birth. Edelman translated them into the colors Yellow, Red, Blue, and Green to make it easy to understand and use in communication. But this system existed long before modern neuroscience or trauma science. It doesn’t account for how life experiences can and will reshape personality over time.
4. Trauma-informed approaches offer a safer framework.
Trauma-informed approaches, like Trust-Based Relational Intervention (TBRI), doesn’t try to restore a child to some “original personality” or take away survival adaptations. Instead, they focus on acknowledging that their experiences have shaped them in a way that necessitates an adjustment to caregiving to allow them to heal and thrive. That doesn’t mean they are going to return to who they were before. They grow beyond who they had to be to survive. Healing supports growth and integration, not restoring a fixed identity. trauma doesn’t just go away they are relearning how to live with it, growing beyond who they had to be to survive. Healing is about growth and integration, not restoring a fixed identity. Trauma changes how children respond to the world, and their behaviors are signals of unmet needs.
Edelman’s color system can be, in my opinion, helpful if you’re trying to understand a child in the moment. It’s unsafe to treat it as permanent, especially for children who’ve experienced trauma, mental illness or certain life experiences. Life experiences shape personality, and long-term trauma responses are not masks their rewired defaults. Treating children as if they have a fixed core color risks putting them in boxes, invalidating survival strategies, and ignoring what science shows about the brain and trauma.
Do you still think I am a green? I sat in a room this weekend with a ton of people with all this in my head and wondered why people weren’t thinking the same things or questioning the same things. What makes people blindly follow someone in parenting children without asking these questions, especially kids with trauma? I’ll end this with I am not an expert at all; this is just my strong opinion. I think adopting this at its basic level of meeting a kid at what color they are currently exhibiting is helpful as a parent and gives great tools for communication in the now but assuming they will always be that color is wrong.