Che Guevara - an INTP? (No wait, hear me out!)

[Killsteel]

I've recently been reading a biography of Che Guevara, and it seems to me that he appears to be an INTP. It may sound a little unlikely, but I think it's a possibility. First of all, he was a doctor (or at least studied medicine). This means he must have been reaonably intelligent, and according to many sources he has an intelligent person. Secondly, he was always very frank and never pulled punches when asked his opinion on something.

Thirdly, I give you this quote from an INTP description: "INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to most anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible. They prefer to return, however, to a reserved albeit benign ambiance, not wishing to make spectacles of themselves." From what I have read, this seems like a good description of Che.

Che was also very adventurous, which I think, but am unable to find a quote for, is an INTP characteristic (it applies to me at least).

"The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion" - another quote from a personality portrait. This reminds me of Che also.

"The INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others." - There is a part in the biography that states that when Che was giving speeches, a lot of what he said wan't understood by the listeners, because he didn't dumb down.

Does anyone have any more evidence either way? Does anyone know of a more likely type?

[Warrior413]

I think it's possible. Just wait for Aven to get here... :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

Desire to inflict his views of how society should be arranged upon people all over the world... yep. He qualifies as an INTP.

[crule81]

I read Guevara's bio several years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy, so tell me if I'm off base:

Perhaps an indication of Guevara's INTP-ness is the disaster in Bolivia that led to his demise. Theoretically, Bolivia should have been the model country for his style of Marxist revolution. Oppressive fascistic government, a miserably poor underclass, and rugged mountain and jungle terrain well suited for guerilla warfare. On paper, Guevara's plan should have had some degree of success - infiltrate foreign insurgents and slowly win the "hearts and minds" of the local Indians by exposing the evil of the regime and indoctrinating them in Marxist theory. He quickly found that the natives were not very interested in his ideas (probably because they just wanted to be left alone and didn't understand Marxist doctrine). The native Bolivians who he did recruit were extremely careless, unrealiable, and whinny. Much of the Bolivian Diaries simply chronicle his trouble keeping order and discipline amongst his soldiers. Once he made his name in Cuba, Guevara probably should have stayed behind the scenes to orchestrate the Marxist revolutionary movements throught the Americas, rather than "lead from the front." Personally, I'm glad he made this mistake because he was a very dangerous man whose quest to destabilize the globe might have eventually resulted in a war between the superpowers. And, although I respect his intelligence and dedication, I detest his beliefs. His goal was simply to replace right-wing dictatorships with left-wing ones.

[Killsteel]

According to the one I read, he was actually against authoritarianism. That's why he never joined the Communist Party. That and he was skeptical of the idea that "one day these men will happily pick up their spades and willingly poison themselves to death (i.e. work in the factory/mine he was talking about)" or something...

[Chill]

Agreeing with what you said, crule, but...



Theoretically, Bolivia should have been the model country for his style of Marxist revolution. Oppressive fascistic government, a miserably poor underclass, and rugged mountain and jungle terrain well suited for guerilla warfare.

From what I read of Marx, the ideal underclass is from the urban centers. What made socialism possible was industrialization, from Marx point of view anyways, because although urban industrialization is more efficient means of production, everyone is more dependant on each other. Thus eventually a system would arise which would seek to make that dependance on each other as efficient as possible.

[crule81]

Agreeing with what you said, crule, but...



From what I read of Marx, the ideal underclass is from the urban centers. What made socialism possible was industrialization, from Marx point of view anyways, because although urban industrialization is more efficient means of production, everyone is more dependant on each other. Thus eventually a system would arise which would seek to make that dependance on each other as efficient as possible.

You're right, but what made Guevara so popular and dangerous was that, like Mao, he had altered some of the fundamental theories of Marx to better fit the pre-industrial third world and peasant societies. Perhaps I threw around the term "Marxist" too loosely. Guevara was probably closer to a Maoist. But my understanding of the various Communist sub-species is limited.

[Chill]

You're right, but what made Guevara so popular and dangerous was that, like Mao, he had altered some of the fundamental theories of Marx to better fit the pre-industrial third world and peasant societies. Perhaps I threw around the term "Marxist" too loosely. Guevara was probably closer to a Maoist. But my understanding of the various Communist sub-species is limited.

Yeah, Maoist sounds about right.

Well, my point stems from my belief that a communist movement in any primarily agricultural society will fail. Why Soviet Union took so long to fall even though it was a primarily agricultural society when Lenin and his friends took over is probably due other historical factors.

[booyalab]

Yeah, Maoist sounds about right.

Well, my point stems from my belief that a communist movement in any primarily agricultural society will fail. Why Soviet Union took so long to fall even though it was a primarily agricultural society when Lenin and his friends took over is probably due other historical factors.

The agricultural sector of the Soviet Union was mostly private and on way too much of a small scale to support the economy (are you familiar with the climate? that's one area that could greatly benefit from global warming) It was a "command" economy.

[EdwinJefferson]

Having read some of his Motorcycle Diaries before getting terribly confused and distracted by work (as well as reading a biography with pictures of him) I'd say he has some INTP features.

Plus he was a Maoist, not a Marxist.

Gosh I hate Ernesto Guevara.

Plus I don't he was particularly faithful.. how many wives did he have? 3? 4? And I think most INTPs are pretty loyal people, if this place is anything to go by.

[Claverhouse]

The agricultural sector of the Soviet Union was mostly private and on way too much of a small scale to support the economy (are you familiar with the climate? that's one area that could greatly benefit from global warming) It was a "command" economy.
I really hate to point out when people haven't been paying attention, but Chill stated the position when the armed vanguard of the people's movement took over; not how they left it.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ I don't think I've ever given a moment's thought to Che; and never intend to. ]

[booyalab]

I really hate to point out when people haven't been paying attention, but Chill stated the position when the armed vanguard of the people's movement took over; not how they left it.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ I don't think I've ever given a moment's thought to Che; and never intend to. ]

well, I don't hate to point out when people haven't been paying attention, so.. I was alluding to his open-ended reason for why the Soviet Union didn't fail. Agriculture was only localized and the basis of the economy was on military and industry.

[booyalab]

I think Che is overrated among the young, idealistic, commie sympathizing liberals......damn hippies *waves cane*

[Claverhouse]

well, I don't hate to point out when people haven't been paying attention, so.. I was alluding to his open-ended reason for why the Soviet Union didn't fail. Agriculture was only localized and the basis of the economy was on military and industry.
Well, my point stems from my belief that a communist movement in any primarily agricultural society will fail. Why Soviet Union took so long to fall even though it was a primarily agricultural society when Lenin and his friends took over is probably due other historical factors. No. His point was that the population of the Union was mainly agricultural at the inception, and that as Marx postulated, the transition to socialism, let alone the next step to communism, could only succeed in an economy that had mainly become industrial. Lenin, understandably since the only real candidate was logically Germany ( success there would have ensured success for world-communism eventually ) decided to take a chance on Russia.

Tsarist Russia had made immense steps towards industrialisation and it's accessories such as universal literacy, welfare, trades unions etc. in the two decades before WWI, mainly with French money and German expertise ( far outstripping the equivalent soviet efforts after the revolution ): but the people remained much the same after the revolution. ( Rural Idiots ? )

However if you are under the impression that 2 to 3 hundred million folk --- depending on whether the Germans had recently been fighting there & the activities of the Cheka/***/****/KGB --- can be fed on electricity and steel bars, you are akin to the bolsheviki. Even in it's later scelerotic phases, agriculture remained one of the biggest sectors of the economy; and watching the harvest-rate each year was the favourite pastime in the Kremlin.

Certainly since full collectivisation finished in 1934 farming was badly managed, as one would expect in any effort managed by joint co-operative efforts, but it was not so inefficient that it failed to feed the masses. Private farming was limited to about 3% ( that's from memory, not checked ), and despite the fact that it was rather more efficient ( but not to the extent 'believed' by that incredible old fool Reagan, who once claimed they supplied more produce than the state farms, having selected this 'fact' from the 'Readers' Digest' ), comparatively unimportant.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


I think Che is overrated among the young, idealistic, commie sympathizing liberals......damn hippies *waves cane* [ Amiably ]
I detest communism myself; which is why I loathe the new American Empire which has inherited the mantle of much of the most egregious aspects and left out the socialist economic basis and kept the nauseating idealistic ranting and the determination to rule and direct the world to it's own hideous image in governance ( marxism/democracy ) and economy ( state-capitalism/laissez-faire corporativism ).

[Edmond Zedo]

HUMOR ALERT! There was a guy at work this summer from "I dunno" Latin America, who was mostly black, was built like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, and wore a Che Guevara t-shirt about half the time. I nicknamed him "Cheese Burgara," and it stuck like glue.

[booyalab]

Claverhouse, maybe it's my Americanese or maybe you just want to argue, but I wasn't even contradicting anyone.

[Claverhouse]

[ Coldly ]
You implied I wasn't paying attention.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ And I've nothing against Americans. ]

[ And it's nearly 4am. Does this powerhouse of a mind never sleep ? you ask yourself. Or possibly not. ]

[songbird36]

No. His point was that the population of the Union was mainly agricultural at the inception, and that as Marx postulated, the transition to socialism, let alone the next step to communism, could only succeed in an economy that had mainly become industrial. Lenin, understandably since the only real candidate was logically Germany ( success there would have ensured success for world-communism eventually ) decided to take a chance on Russia.

Tsarist Russia had made immense steps towards industrialisation and it's accessories such as universal literacy, welfare, trades unions etc. in the two decades before WWI, mainly with French money and German expertise ( far outstripping the equivalent soviet efforts after the revolution ): but the people remained much the same after the revolution. ( Rural Idiots ? )

However if you are under the impression that 2 to 3 hundred million folk --- depending on whether the Germans had recently been fighting there & the activities of the Cheka/***/****/KGB --- can be fed on electricity and steel bars, you are akin to the bolsheviki. Even in it's later scelerotic phases, agriculture remained one of the biggest sectors of the economy; and watching the harvest-rate each year was the favourite pastime in the Kremlin.

Certainly since full collectivisation finished in 1934 farming was badly managed, as one would expect in any effort managed by joint co-operative efforts, but it was not so inefficient that it failed to feed the masses. Private farming was limited to about 3% ( that's from memory, not checked ), and despite the fact that it was rather more efficient ( but not to the extent 'believed' by that incredible old fool Reagan, who once claimed they supplied more produce than the state farms, having selected this 'fact' from the 'Readers' Digest' ), comparatively unimportant.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ Amiably ]
I detest communism myself; which is why I loathe the new American Empire which has inherited the mantle of much of the most egregious aspects and left out the socialist economic basis and kept the nauseating idealistic ranting and the determination to rule and direct the world to it's own hideous image in governance ( marxism/democracy ) and economy ( state-capitalism/laissez-faire corporativism ).

Do you get paid for these essays (or have you been paid already)?

[songbird36]

I'm sure I got "egrerious" on one of those online IQ tests. I think it translated to "wearing a V neck sweater 20 years too late and developing an unhealthy fetish for toe clippings"

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm sure I got "egrerious" on one of those online IQ tests. I think it translated to "wearing a V neck sweater 20 years too late and developing an unhealthy fetish for toe clippings"
Unhealthy?

[songbird36]

Yes Che Guevara was an INTP. A stuck up rich kid who lived fast and died young..and left nothing except some desperate film makers to turn him into a hero of our time.

I think Jim Morrison did it better

[hemanthraz]

I think he wasnt an INTP.he was into doing stuff not contemplating the best way to do them, remember? INTJ/INFJ seems more likely according to me.
And, i think booyalab is right. he is overrated.

On an aside, i fail to see how communist-like theories based on cooperation can be expected to work. Take a sample populace of a million who are really into the cause and ready to give their life for it also. It takes just one weasel to get to the top and milk their efforts dry.Im sure there will be a lot more weasels.

Each man for himself, without trodding toes!![gets off the soapbox and flings red cap to the ground]

[Avengardh]

Yes, he wasn't an example to follow when it comes to personal relationships, I don't really know enough about him (well, at least enough for me to feel comfortable) to say he was an INTP, he certainly has some traits as they have been discussed here...but you also have to take into account the environment back then.

Not just in South America, but in the world.

So, he might well have been an I, and if anyone wants to know, also a gemini (I can see the flames coming, mwahaha).
At any rate, to me, tying to guess his type would be difficult as just guessing anyone's type, there have been people who look like total T's to me but really, they are F's.

Also, Ché was idolized more than I would have liked, and which I am sure he would have liked. He was simply a man, a human; personally, it's not him per se that I admire, it's what he created and shaped in many places of the world, what he inspired.

And I am not talking about extremists but those who really did want to change the world.

Anyway, I gave a bit of a rant and didn't really explain my words, it really just boils down to passion, a different kind of passion.

~*Aven*~

[songbird36]

Can I quote myself or is that against the rules on this site?

[ApeTheDog]

Che was cool. He got angry at injustice. I get angry about that too. So I'm also cool.

[Robespierre]

Certainly since full collectivisation finished in 1934 farming was badly managed, as one would expect in any effort managed by joint co-operative efforts, but it was not so inefficient that it failed to feed the masses.

No, it was so horribly botched that MILLIONS starved to death in the Ukraine, one of the most fertile regions on earth. Troops were sent in to protect grain shipments, local dissenters disappeared, speaking Ukrainian was outlawed in some areas... The process of collectivization was one of the great genocides of modern history. It fits right in with the other major genocides, from the National Socialist genecides, to Mao's Great Leap Forward.

[Claverhouse]

No, it was so horribly botched that MILLIONS starved to death in the Ukraine, one of the most fertile regions on earth. Troops were sent in to protect grain shipments, local dissenters disappeared, speaking Ukrainian was outlawed in some areas... The process of collectivization was one of the great genocides of modern history. It fits right in with the other major genocides, from the National Socialist genecides, to Mao's Great Leap Forward.
You are confusing deliberate planned outcomes with the practice of co-operative farming ( which may be as horrible as your libertarian instincts inform you, and astounding boring in theory ) but were not chosen as a method of mass-killing ).

Robert Conquest is very good on the soviet experiment, including collectivisation and the destruction of the kulaks ( or neighbourly described 'kulaks': the rules of evidence demanded by the Cheka were never very high ). 'The Great Terror', dealing with the Purges a few years later is masterly. Solzhenitsyn is even better though.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


[ Communism being a collection of beliefs, despite the Father Son and Holy Ghost identification of Marx, Engels & Lenin, perhaps it may be a trifle unfair to Che to mentally identify him with these events which happened before he was born or was very small ]

[Robespierre]

You are confusing deliberate planned outcomes with the practice of co-operative farming ( which may be as horrible as your libertarian instincts inform you, and astounding boring in theory ) but were not chosen as a method of mass-killing ).

Robert Conquest is very good on the soviet experiment, including collectivisation and the destruction of the kulaks ( or neighbourly described 'kulaks': the rules of evidence demanded by the Cheka were never very high ). 'The Great Terror', dealing with the Purges a few years later is masterly. Solzhenitsyn is even better though.


Nice name-dropping. Have you ever read Solzhenitsyn?

[Claverhouse]

Do you get paid for these essays (or have you been paid already)?
Yes, By the Grand Council of the Royalist Renegades International.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

Nice name-dropping. Have you ever read Solzhenitsyn? :ph34r:
I've read more books on Soviet Communism than you are ever likely to see ( this is not meant to be snide ). I have read all of Solzhenitsyn's works in english, including 'Cancer Ward' & 'Prussian Nights', except his last which details the tragic relationship between Russians & God's Chosen Folk through the ages. Well, tragic for the Russians, anyway.

I did skip through '1914' and a few other fictions, cos' I don't go for historical fiction very frequently. Apart from Zoe Oldenbourg & Jane Lane.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Robespierre]

I've read more books on Soviet Communism than you are ever likely to see ( this is not meant to be snide ).

Right. Well, I'll take your word on that for now. Also important, how much time have you spent in country? (also not being snide, just curious)

[shadow1986]

I've recently been reading a biography of Che Guevara, and it seems to me that he appears to be an INTP. It may sound a little unlikely, but I think it's a possibility. First of all, he was a doctor (or at least studied medicine). This means he must have been reaonably intelligent, and according to many sources he has an intelligent person. Secondly, he was always very frank and never pulled punches when asked his opinion on something.

As the only INTP i've met in my dental school, I will make a note to personally punch you in the face if i ever see you in real life... I know what the people around me are like, the vast majority are SJ, and VERY VERY few Ps survive around here. I would certainly not call them INTELLIGENT. Organised/committed... maybe...

That said, I have met 2 INFJs, one which i'm very good friends with. He tested INFJ, and the INFJ description in typelogic.com fits both INFJ I've met down to a T.

I would say Che was INFJ. Believe it or not, a lot of people say that I'm "exactly" like my INFJ friends, but i'm not. It's just that I think that when both me and him argue, the Fe often comes into play, and appear very simliar. That said, I'm far more cold blooded and logical in my arguements, but still, there's that niggling Fe. We both also have this sort of "anti-authoritarianism" thing happening, but again, under deeper analysis we are actually quite different but can seem very similiar superficially.

Dont get the two confused. Until I found out his MBTI... I kept crossing between ENFJ and INTP when guessing his type, which was so bizzare at the time, but now makes complete sense. ITs can be actually quiete easy to get INTP and INFJ mixed when they're being passionate.

[ChristopherL]

ENTP

[shadow1986]

ENTP

You make some great points to back that up... How could anyone refute?

[ChristopherL]

You make some great points to back that up... How could anyone refute?

You're welcome.

[Helios]

I say no, if only because I only have room in my heart for one Latin American, INTP, commie, and well that spot has been filed, sorry Che. :sadbanana:

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Che is rather hard to type, mainly because you have "mass-murdering, foul-hearted sociopath" kinda standing in front of any processes..

[stopharian]

I say no, if only because I only have room in my heart for one Latin American, INTP, commie, and well that spot has been filed, sorry Che. :sadbanana:



lol :grin:

[Ace_]

All great people in history were INTPs.

[Madrigal]

I say no, if only because I only have room in my heart for one Latin American, INTP, commie, and well that spot has been filed, sorry Che. :sadbanana:
LOL :maddyx:


:)


Che is rather hard to type, mainly because you have "mass-murdering, foul-hearted sociopath" kinda standing in front of any processes..

He murdered masses? Which ones? Please enlighten me as to the masses he murdered. Ya brainwashed twat.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

All great people in history were INTPs.

Well, Che wasn't anything near a great person, so I guess he's not an INTP.

Utter failure as a military leader, and a failure as a revolutionary leader.

I've come to the conclusion he was an ENTJ. He handled everything in a business-like fashion. He rounded up opposition and executed them systematically and efficiently. He was an effective leader of men (E), even if not well-versed in war itself. He was very convicted and did not respond at all well to having his views challenged (J). He was also skilled at setting up organizations of schools, factories, and so on for maximizing efficient production of revolutionaries and their weapons. (The systems failed based on the principles by which he ran business, but he -was- efficient and skilled at organizing them). That to me implies Te, the dominant function of ENTJs. Indeed, most of his life as a revolutionary seems to be the application of external order (of a brand of his own preference) in a rational manner.

Being an ENTJ also implies an inferior Fi, which also makes sense. Internally convicted, and not sympathetic to the beliefs or values of others.. Fi contrasting his dominant Te certainly does well to explain his ruthlessness. Furthermore, his relief (tertiary) function would then be Se "Experiencing and acting in the immediate context." That, indeed, seemed to be how Che seemed comfortable in operating. That would also do well enough to explain his skill as an individual guerilla (combined with an auxiliary Ni guiding his decision-making).

An intelligent, ruthless,yet inspirational leader with little sympathy for others outside of compliance with his own internal convictions? Sounds like an ENTJ to me.

(Minor edit: He is, however (and quite ironically) a great marketing icon for misguided and/or uninformed idealists of all sorts, but usually the left-leaning and violent revolutionaries)

[nonperson]

Well, Che wasn't anything near a great person, so I guess he's not an INTP.

Utter failure as a military leader, and a failure as a revolutionary leader.



I would like it to be known that Unapplied Knowledge isn't a sock puppet of mine. Thank you.

[stopharian]

I smell a lynching on the horizon

[Madrigal]

Well, Che wasn't anything near a great person, so I guess he's not an INTP.
One, he was one of the most complete human beings of the 20th Century.

Two, probably not an INTP.

Three, INTPness doesn't give you a badge of awesomeness or intelligence. As you are clearly demonstrating here.


Utter failure as a military leader, and a failure as a revolutionary leader.
50 years later, I'm telling you there was in fact a Revolution in Cuba, that seized power and initiated a process of socialization and land reform. Looks like Che did in fact make a Revolution, and that you're talking right out of your ass.


I've come to the conclusion he was an ENTJ. He handled everything in a business-like fashion. He rounded up opposition and executed them systematically and efficiently.
Which opposition? Infiltrators in the guerrilla that were executed? The bourgeoisie's armies he fought against? Please tell me which "masses" he murdered, you are not answering my question.

As far as I know, his guerilla won the support of the peasants as they socialized the land of oligarchs on their way to seizing power. I didn't read anywhere that he murdered them. Guerillas fight against armies, not the masses.

For an illustration of mass murdering, please see your country's recent history in the Middle East.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

I would like it to be known that Unapplied Knowledge isn't a sock puppet of mine. Thank you.

I haven't quite processed how to take that yet, but I thought it was nevertheless worthy of a quote while I provide this for Madrigal.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2054

Can't say much about the site that it's on -- I haven't decided if it's anti-left or what, still reading. Regardless, the article's sources seem to check out. However, I'm hunting for articles with less of a chance of bias.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Three, INTPness doesn't give you a badge of awesomeness or intelligence. As you are clearly demonstrating here.


Sorry, being that this is INTPc, I should probably have clarified that statement as sarcastic humor in response to the statement of the individual which I quoted.



50 years later, I'm telling you there was in fact a Revolution in Cuba, that seized power and initiated a process of socialization and land reform. Looks like Che did in fact make a Revolution, and that you're talking right out of your ass.

Fidel (and Raul) Castro. The Castros, especially Fidel, were the real brains and the success behind the Cuban revolution. Take note that none of the other endeavors in which Che was involved were particularly successful. Fidel regarded Che as a tool, and, perhaps, not a very desirable one (see reading material which I'm still trying to fully verify as unbiased as possible).



Which opposition? Infiltrators in the guerrilla that were executed? The bourgeoisie's armies he fought against? Please tell me which "masses" he murdered, you are not answering my question.

As far as I know, his guerilla won the support of the peasants as they socialized the land of oligarchs on their way to seizing power. I didn't read anywhere that he murdered them. Guerillas fight against armies, not the masses.

In response to this, I would prefer to use sourced material for the purposes of a debate of factual accuracy. I have no expectations for you (or any intelligent person) to regard whatever I happen to conjure from my mind, no matter how I dress it, as fact.

Fidel's guerilla (and himself) won the support of peasants in the Cuban revolution. Che was ultimately far less successful at such in his own endeavors, though he did inspire those immediately around him effectively enough, and waged a VERY successful media war regarding his own persona (as witnessed by his popularity as an icon nowadays).

However, his true role was little more than that of Fidel's bully and executioner.


For an illustration of mass murdering, please see your country's recent history in the Middle East.

Oh, I'm quite aware and I find it very reprehensible. Please clarify the uses of this statement in relevance to our discussion. Are you implying that I am right-oriented? If that is the case, you are mistaken.


To nonperson below: Ah. Personally, I found the concept of an INTP keeping an INTP sockpuppet amusing. It would seem a contradiction of nature from both angles.

[nonperson]

I haven't quite processed how to take that yet, but I thought it was nevertheless worthy of a quote while I provide this for Madrigal.


Maddy knows that I am no fan of Che; it was a jokee, sort of.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Another article for you, Madrigal. As with anything on the internet, I do not promote it as inerrant truth; however, it is well-written.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/che/brand.htm