On the three main types of political fanatics: the pitiable, the confused/intermediate, and the perverse/opportunistic.

 The "pitiable" figure—or the most alienated—is generally someone profoundly ignorant of what actually occurs both within and outside their own bubbles of ideological conformity. For personal reasons—though not necessarily out of genuine identification with the ideology itself—they defend its agents, whether those be social, cultural, or political groups. Within this category, we find both the "non-identitarian" and the "identitarian" (or idealist) type. The latter suffers the most psychologically; they are the most vulnerable to the kind of psychological terror inherent in indoctrination—a state of mind defined by a constant sense of being under siege, locked in a struggle, and trapped in a cycle of dependency. Surprisingly, the "identitarian" type is often more likely to notice the many contradictions within their own groups or ideologies and eventually shift their stance, whereas the "non-identitarian" type tends to remain entrenched for longer, shielded by their own ignorance.

The "perverse" figure—or the most "conscious" one—is someone who fully understands the harm their ideological "hives" can cause (or are already causing). They typically align themselves with these groups for pragmatic rather than idealistic reasons. This is the most cynical and hypocritical type: they may defend their beliefs in public while practicing the exact opposite in their private lives. Furthermore, they are often driven by a calculated desire to climb toward positions of power or privilege, using their sycophantic displays of political-ideological loyalty as a ladder.

Finally, there is the "confused" or "intermediate" type—an amorphous figure falling somewhere between the other two, and likely the most common. This individual possesses an insufficient understanding of the actual positive or negative outcomes generated by their ideological "hives." At the same time, they demonstrate a varying degree of cunning, attempting to reconcile their personal identification with—or ignorance regarding—an ideology, while simultaneously seeking to reap the benefits that come from explicitly supporting it.