Fred Phelps' Enneatype
I'm not going to post any pictures or vids of his former vitriolic glory, there's enough out there already and I'm not going to distribute them futher.
So/Sp seems the most obvious. I guess he could be 1w9, repressive anger to da max. Tritype though?
I would say, 2-5-8 - The Dominator but it is a feeling I get more than anything. I found some stuff that kinda backs up my perception. I liked this site.
These types, more than anything, need to have the upper hand on people. They may be manipulative and/or domineering. Very often, power hungry.
http://www.9types.com/writeup/Theory20.htm
Type 2: the embracing power-seeker. +/-
The 2’s compulsion moves toward others on the surface, but against them underneath. This explains how average 2s can be warm, helpful, and even seductive on the outside, while harboring a hidden agenda and a strong will underneath. This willpower is masked by their embracing exterior; hence, they seek power through other people, rather than through direct force. The 2 may befriend powerful people, exerting influence as the "power behind the throne". All power-seekers have a strong sense of ownership, which often comes across as a possessive tendency. The 2’s possessiveness applies to people, analogous to the 5’s possession of information (hoarding), or the 8’s possession of physical resources (territorialism). The 2 often gets particular credit for the universal human need to be loved. This may be because 2’s use their inner will and exterior charm to make people love them, thus making their desire for love more noticeable than in other types.Type 5: the withdrawn power-seeker. 0/-
The 5 moves away from others on the surface, but against others underneath. Hence, average 5s may seem apathetic and laconic on the surface, but underneath they are not as detached as they act. The power-seeking drive seeks control, and is fearful of being overwhelmed and losing control. The withdrawn types by definition conserve physical energy, and so 5s prefer intellectual or strategic endeavors over active labor. Like all power-seekers, the 5 often acquires a "sphere" of influence and a strong sense of owning this sphere. The 5’s sphere is usually mental, as opposed to the 2’s social sphere and the 8’s worldly sphere.
Edit: I just read he was an Eagle scout in the Boys Scouts of America.Type 8: the confronting power-seeker. -/-
The 8 moves against others in both their surface and deep compulsions, hence is the most aggressive type overall. The power-seeking compulsion is hence most obvious in the 8, with their willpower, self-reliance, and possessive tendencies quite evident to others. Also, all the power-seeking types tend to acquire a "sphere of influence", and in the 8’s case, this sphere tends to be physical and worldly, unlike the 5’s intellectual sphere and the 2’s social sphere. The terms "aggressive" and "moving against" often carry hostile connotations which really only apply to unhealthy or average 8s. In healthier states, the 8’s doubly-aggressive compulsion makes them particularly able to rise above incredible obstacles, giving them an unusual ability to acquire a heroic stature.
and a lawyer.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Hmm, triple Power-Seeking seems off to me. His impetus never seemed to be gaining power over other people as much as fighting for justice and upholding what's right. Not that I really know what triple power-seeking even looks like; maybe someone like Danny Trejo is a better exemplar of 258.
Hah yeah, apparently he was a pretty well-renowned civil right lawyer back in his time. People change though, I suppose.Originally Posted by Aylen
Edit: I just read he was an Eagle scout in the Boys Scouts of America.
Actually Eagle Scout + Lawyer seems like a very E3 combo. Maybe 136?
Last edited by Galen; 03-23-2014 at 07:45 PM.
Honestly I didn't really know who the guy was until recently. When he was dying I heard something and I think I may research a little because he is the type of person I want to understand. It is so much easier to understand people with similar E type to mine. It is often an unspoken agreement on many things but I find it hard to put the logic behind it into words without expending some effort. This topic interests me in a weird way so I have nothing to do today but look into things that interest me...I will see what I come up with when I see more of his personality. Do you suggest any good video...I know you don't really want to but a link would do. I looked up 136 quickly and found this.. The whole tritype theory really adds some dimension to people.
"1-3-6 : this One is usually very hard-working and well-organized. Dutiful and diligent, they also keep an eye on their own interests and like to receive prizes and praise and boost their reputation among their peers. They prefer a leading role and can be excellent managers and leaders: they can get things done as they’re efficient, more pragmatic and also more cautious and calculated. They can sometimes suffer from a bit of paranoia, and worry about their status, finances or health.
usual subtypes: social, 1w9
similar tritypes: 3-1-6, 1-6-3
flavours: hard-working, pragmatic, efficient and cautious"
Edit: I just strongly feel an 8 in his type.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
The WBC should still have all of his videos on Youtube, just look up any of his monologues and you'll get the picture.
My issue with him having 8 in Gut center is that he directed his anger in a very self-righteous way. The whole mission behind the church's protests was to proselytize to wrong-doers that all bad things on earth happen when you don't follow the clear-cut rules of morality, and that every egregious act of terrorism or natural disaster is a clear logical result of going against the word. As a vehement biblical literalist (where it counted), his mindset was to follow along the One True Way as described in the bible without exception (where it counted), end of discussion, period. Compared to this depiction of the Social One, that analysis syncs up pretty well.
His impetus never seemed to be gaining power over other people as much as fighting for justice and upholding what's right.
Well, it's one thing to think homosexuality is a sin - it's another to insult and bother people. (He picketed at my cousin's funeral, THANK GOD for dead soldiers etc.)
I doubt he had strong moral convictions about much of anything really, I think he was a snake that was just trolling people for cash. Wanted you to get pissed at what he was saying, assault him, and then he could press charges. Although I sometimes wonder if his wife is more nasty than he is.
I've met plenty of people who were against the gay (I think that's retarded of course but hey we all have our preferences), and they didn't have to say I was going to burn in hell or insult/troll me to do it.
Anyways, I think it's pretty dumb to psychoanalyze hateful people personally, it just always feels like looking into a big black hole of suck. No excuse for what he did, no matter if he was abused himself or how much he thought he was 'in the right' (blergh) - I'm just glad it's one less hateful bigot on the earth. And it's not because he was so anti-gay - at least not just that. It's more that he went after my dead straight cousin and it had nothing to do with homosexuality. His icky clan personally attacked my family. You reap what you sow, and ding dong - the witch is dead.
Possible. They are lawyers after all, and they know exactly what they can do and get away with.
She seems pretty bitchy too yeah. Any member of the family who hasn't been estranged comes off like that.
I think it's interesting as a case study of what can go terribly wrong with a human personality and why. You gain a deeper understanding of the human condition through its extremes.
Eugh jesus, I'm sorry to hear that.
Most of my immediate family members are in same sex relationships and I have been as well. What you wrote @truck just turned my stomach. I am sorry you went through that.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I find it in rather bad taste to try and type him. Have you got no respect for deceased evil fucks?
I wouldn't want you lot foaming at the mouth with such carnalities over my corpse!
I am sure "history" will give this man every bit of respect he earned....mark these words for they are true.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Would you feel more comfortable if I phrased it as a "post-mortem analysis of his personality and character?"
sorry , now I'm torn between logic and being sensitive to people's feelings. Perhaps allowing a period of mourning/celebration is in order, for me.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Whose feelings? Fred Phelps is dead, he has no capacity to feel anything anymore, assuming he ever had it in the first place.
I was referring to truck. I don't care about Phelps or any of his supporters feelings.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I wonder if God really calls them fags.
only while he's smoking them in hell.
Edit: Must I say I'm joking here?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote