# Typing Che Guevara



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Guys,don't walk away reading the title.There's a fun in typing those bullshitty personas :kitteh:
So I have considered for a long time that Guevara is 7w8/1w2.But after reading about him more,I feel compelled to think that he was CP 6w7 Sx/So.His over-aggressiveness,restless and addictive nature and reactive attitude remind me of CP 6 Sx.I'd guess he was ENFP CP 6w7/1w2/4w3 Sx/So.Very On Fire.
Inviting @Swordsman of Mana and @Entropic to take a look.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

newbie const said:


> Guys,don't walk away reading the title.There's a fun in typing those bullshitty personas :kitteh:
> So I have considered for a long time that Guevara is 7w8/1w2.But after reading about him more,I feel compelled to think that he was CP 6w7 Sx/So.His over-aggressiveness,restless and addictive nature and reactive attitude remind me of CP 6 Sx.I'd guess he was ENFP CP 6w7/1w2/4w3 Sx/So.Very On Fire.
> Inviting @Swordsman of Mana and @Entropic to take a look.


yup, cp6w7


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I don't care to type celebrities.


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I don't care to type celebrities.


Why?Because they wear a facade?I also dont..But Che didnt wear a facade..his actions revealed his true mentality..dont you agree?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

newbie const said:


> Why?Because they wear a facade?I also dont..But Che didnt wear a facade..his actions revealed his true mentality..dont you agree?


Because I don't see the point since it becomes a matter of speculation. I think enneagram is more personal and for your own self discovery. I keep seeing people claiming that a person doesn't seem like X type or is rather Y over the current person's self typing and at some level it just becomes pure arrogance. I don't do it anymore because it's pointless since you have no clue how accurate you even are or what exactly you are typing.


----------



## Remcy (Dec 19, 2011)

He seemed like a gut type first to me, and not a reactive core. 1w9 4w5 6w7 sx/so. ENFP

His buddy Fidel - 8w7 7w6 4w3 so/sp. ENFP as well.


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Remcy said:


> He seemed like a gut type first to me, and not a reactive core. 1w9 4w5 6w7 sx/so. ENFP
> 
> His buddy Fidel - 8w7 7w6 4w3 so/sp. ENFP as well.


Explanation please?I have some disagreements though.I can see more 3w4 in Castro than 4w3.And Guevara can be type 1 very easily,but 1w2.Why have you thought 1w9 over 1w2?And seems his image fix is last in the tritype,and yeah,it can be 4w5.But I lean towards 4w3 because it has stronger id-ish presence than more withdrawn 4w5.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

From what I've heard of him, ENFP makes sense.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yup, cp6w7


That enneatype makes a lot of sense for him, and for many revolutionary leaders like him as well


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

AverOblivious said:


> That enneatype makes a lot of sense for him, and for many revolutionary leaders like him as well


from what I've seen, most revolutionary leaders are 1s and 8s. cp6s are more of the "shooting star revolutionaries" who go out in a blaze of glory but seldom stick around for long.


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> from what I've seen, most revolutionary leaders are 1s and 8s. cp6s are more of the "shooting star revolutionaries" who go out in a blaze of glory but seldom stick around for long.


Like to mention some examples?From my observation:
Genghis Khan:8w7 837 Sx/So.
Mao Zedong:8w9 836 So/Sp.
Fidel Castro:8w9 873 So/Sp.
More input needed..but my stock is limited,so open yours!
Some more:
Jesus:1w9 152 So/Sx
Prophet Muhammad:1w2 125 Sx/So
Buddha:1w9 154 Sp/Sx.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

newbie const said:


> Like to mention some examples?From my observation:
> Genghis Khan:8w7 837 Sx/So.


Sp/Sx and 5 fixed



> Mao Zedong:8w9 836 So/Sp.


probably a 1



> Fidel Castro:8w9 873 So/Sp.


5 fixed, SpS/Sx



> Jesus:1w9 152 So/Sx


God-wing-God



> Prophet Muhammad:1w2 125 Sx/So


likely



> Buddha:1w9 154 Sp/Sx.


So/Sx


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> God-wing-God


Lol :laughing:
(I agree, just found it funny)


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Sp/Sx and 5 fixed
> Why 5 fix for Genghis?He was an impulsive barbarian in the purest sense of the words.His seemingly 5 fixed facade may be understood with the thing that he was ENTJ.I have always seen him as 7w8 fixed 8w7.
> And same notion for Castro,why is he 5 fixed?
> And Mao could easily be an 1,but I lean for more 8w9.
> Buddha could be So/Sx.My previous typing seems unlikely now.And oh,I typed Jesus considering him as a prominent prophet,he is an epitome of 1w9,152 trifix.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

newbie const said:


> Why 5 fix for Genghis?He was an impulsive barbarian in the purest sense of the words.His seemingly 5 fixed facade may be understood with the thing that he was ENTJ.I have always seen him as 7w8 fixed 8w7.


I think you have him confused with Attila the Hun, who was a more likely candidate for Sexual 8w7. Genghis was more strategic and deliberative 



> And same notion for Castro,why is he 5 fixed?


actually, nevermind, I don't know why I said that about Castro. he's id as hell and basically talks like a damn cult leader. I'd say 872 XD



> And Mao could easily be an 1,but I lean for more 8w9.


I don't know a ton about him, but he doesn't feel 8 to me.



> Buddha could be So/Sx.My previous typing seems unlikely now.And oh,I typed Jesus considering him as a prominent prophet,he is an epitome of 1w9,152 trifix.


I see the typical prophet as either a 1w2 or a head type. 1w9s are generally a bit more conservative


----------



## FakeLefty (Aug 19, 2013)

Vladimir Lenin is also a 1. Not sure about the wing, though.


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

FakeLefty said:


> Vladimir Lenin is also a 1. Not sure about the wing, though.


Possibly 1w9 So/Sp..152 tritype.


----------



## nburns (Dec 4, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Because I don't see the point since it becomes a matter of speculation. I think enneagram is more personal and for your own self discovery. I keep seeing people claiming that a person doesn't seem like X type or is rather Y over the current person's self typing and at some level it just becomes pure arrogance. I don't do it anymore because it's pointless since you have no clue how accurate you even are or what exactly you are typing.


It can be a good exercise, because generally their lives are very well documented. Anyone with a biography should be typeable unless it's a piece of crap. Arguing over celebrity types on the internet is an entirely different matter.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nburns said:


> It can be a good exercise, because generally their lives are very well documented. Anyone with a biography should be typeable unless it's a piece of crap. Arguing over celebrity types on the internet is an entirely different matter.


With so many different approaches to their lives (unless it's autobiographical I don't trust that it reflects their self image much), I think it depends more on the author and how they view the person. Take Hitler as a primary example who is depicted very differently depending on the author. Some emphasize his romantic persona during his youth, others his need for authority etc. Shrug. Pointless like I said.

The only way to truly know would be to ask them but since they aren't even alive that's not possible either. Just useless mental exercise and quite arrogant to think that you can figure out what deeply drives a person you don't even know yourself. They ARE celebrities just as much as these we see on the TV and our ideas of them are as much reflective of personas eg Che is often depicted as this freedom fighter kind of guy (based on that why isn't people suggesting 7? That's as stereotype as you'd get) than they necessarily are as real people. Even historical retellings despite meant to be objective are highly subjective. There's a reason USA tends to emphasize how they won the WWII at Pearl Harbor but Japan tries to even ignore that part in the history books. Since when did you see a Japanese movie showcasing the loss of Pearl Harbor? There is none, because it doesn't satisfy the Japanese sense of patriotism.

The way we view history including its peoples is definitely a highly subjective affair that cater to specific tropes and narratives befitting the style of reference we favor from the vantage point we ourselves operate on. Our worldviews are very much egocentric in the sense that we rarely consider that there is more than one way to view a thing. 

Ask South Americans what they think of Che that is the Western poster boy for communism and you'll get a very different image than this idealized notion of a freedom fighter that we have. This is exactly what I mean.

WHO are you actually ultimately typing? Are you typing the impression of a person or the actual person? And how certain can you ever be that even the most objective account isn't an impression as well? 

Not even major enneagram authors agree on famous people's typings and that should really ought to tell you something about the subjectivity to all of this and why it's a useless endeavor. Even fictive characters are better since you at least gain personal insight into their inner lives exactly as they experience it.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Entropic said:


> Because I don't see the point since it becomes a matter of speculation. I think enneagram is more personal and for your own self discovery. I keep seeing people claiming that a person doesn't seem like X type or is rather Y over the current person's self typing and at some level it just becomes pure arrogance. I don't do it anymore because it's pointless since you have no clue how accurate you even are or what exactly you are typing.


not to mention that plays off of why personality metrics gain popularity in the first place (not to "find yourself", discover aspects that allow you to grow, etc.): to feed ego. to identify with and allow characteristics that are implanted onto what might as well be an imaginary person--as far as determining their type within the enneagram is concerned, as you can once again, "implant" your observations and impressions onto the person, making them anything other than what they were before. 

if it was done as actual scholarly material as opposed to "yeah, this type is cool now", it would be helpful, but then again the enneagram wouldn't be as immediately attractive as it stands (and no one would probably get as far as reading it, because of that lack of luster). 

actually, a lot of how the enneagram is used, seems to be ego-inflation (vs ego-degradation, which it sometimes leads to). 


OP, i'm not accusing you of doing the above, just stating why typing popular figures tends to lead towards glorification, or dismounting the value of, types in general.


----------

