I watched the movie "whiplash" yesterday about a drummer student and a very abusive conductor.
It seemed beta to me, where the unspoken message is that the abuse leads the student to greatness.
To those who's seen it; beta duality?
"Whiplash" as Beta Duality?
I watched the movie "whiplash" yesterday about a drummer student and a very abusive conductor.
It seemed beta to me, where the unspoken message is that the abuse leads the student to greatness.
To those who's seen it; beta duality?
Woof and I had a discussion about this at one point. The teacher does seem SLE/LSI, the student is more difficult to pin down. Guess IEI by default? Although He seems more like a rational temperment. Like a self flaggelating EIE - the glory is what he aims for, and the willpower is what drives him.
I remember some other forumites discussing the teacher as a enneagram 8, LSE. Beyond the pursuit for perfection, to be perfect as some LSE have, this might be some-what of a hard sell. LSE to my knowledge do not use much violence as a tool for motivation. "Are you rushing or are you dragging" SLAP. Then again maybe this is where other factors beyond the scope of socionics factor in.
Philosophically the struggle for professional developmental perfection is a delta complex (see article on Delta and the "clipped wings"). Also a running theme in the movie is the struggle against subservience, which is a beta complex. The protagonist must learn to excell under the tutelage of a a cold hearted bastard for a teacher, while remaining utterly subservient to his drill sergent engineered direction. The teacher squeezes his pupil and evertime the student tries to escape he is brought back down under the grip of his teacher. This both crushes his ego at the same time infuriating himself even more to try and succeed. There is a destructive balance built, culminating into a crecendo of new found greatest, whereby all the will to suceed becomes the driving force that leads the boy to such a level of skill that he is no longer subservient to anyone but his own chosen rhythm. The boy resented the teachers control, yet without it would never have achieved greatness. Two running themes, both from aristrocratic quadra groups.
Last edited by wacey; 11-20-2015 at 12:12 PM.
Elloquently put, I did consider LSE for the teacher because of the focus on achieving greatness too, but his approach felt so painful to me so I abandoned that notion. In the end I realized that the movie portrayed their relationship kinda like a togetherness rather then an opposition which is why I started considering actually duality (in the end there's a love like mutual admiration in them both).Originally Posted by wacey
Older post on Fletcher and Andrew: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/38268-Emma-Watson?p=1095861&viewfull=1#post1095861
Fletcher: LSE 1w2 sx/so NPA+
Andrew: IxI 1w9 sp/sx NP/NPA-
NPA: Fletcher has it all. Narcissism, perfectionism, aggression and in this case you can take these terms quite literally. Narcissism - first note his general vibe of ,don‘t any of you second class pansy asses sabotage, what I want to build here, he has heavy investment into future glory, by being the one who finds/forms the next ‚Charlie Parker‘. Perfectionism – general vibe of, this shit is exactly going to go, how I want it – standards, exacting – ‚good enough‘ is not enough, it has to be exactly how he wants it. Aggression – very verbal abusive tone.
Markers: [1] Narcissm, exacting standards (P-Trait), competency testing (for Enneagram) and Aggression https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0yL-avlEsg (around 2:16)
[2] NPA super rage (the marker for the NPA type) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4IBGL_RphA (around 3:50) honestly his rages are like a trade mark of this film‚do you think you’re out of tune?‘
‚yes‘
‚then why the fuck didn’t you said so‘ (NPA super rage)
‚I won’t have you cost us the competition, because your mind’s on a Happy Meal instead of on pitch‘
(on pitch – perfectionism; you will not cost me the competition – narcissm,also relevant for Enneagram; general Happy Meal, Mars bar stuff – abusive tone, aggression)
‚for the record Metz wasn’t out of tune, you were Erickson, but he didn’t know and that’s bad enough‘ (hardcore competency tester)
[3] Abusive verbal tone (points to A+ trait) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzAsk9MsNKE
Andrew is a bit harder to pin down. You could make the case, for him to have the Aggressive trait (A-), due to his outburst, where he attacked Fletcher. But violent behaviour is not tied to any type.
Markers: [4] Narcisstic smile of recognition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkh5I9w4ySY(14:05)
So why am I writing this all down. Because I believe their relationship is maybe more understandable from the NPA theory angle. Both share the trait of Narcissism and Perfectionism. Really they are both locked in some sort of narcisstic perfectionistic bravado. It’s what they bond over. The difference now lies in the fact that Andrew might lack the Aggressive trait or has an A- trait. Fletcher has free hand in plowing through all his defences and pushing him to/over his limits. Andrew is trying to hold against. But he is more enduring the treatment. If he would have the A+ trait, he would be straight out dishing it out to Fletcher, fighting against him.
Enneagram/Stacking: Fletcher 1 vs. 8. Naranjo mentioned in one of his descriptions, that sexual 1s can look like 8s energetically. 1s aim for perfection. This is Fletcher’s distortion. People are not perfect. He locks onto Andrew, because he sees the potential in him. He doesn’t see Andrew as Andrew, an actual human being, because being human means, that you have flaws. Fletchers distortion is, that he sees the ideal in people. Not what they are (flaws and all), but what they could be (when they killed their flaws, worked on their imperfections, with his help). He wants to mold/push them into the ideal, perfect state. This is his Achilles heel. He is demanding perfection, with every breath, that he can muster. He wants to find his ‚Charlie Parker‘. This ideal/illusion are the goggles through which Fletcher looks at people. This guy, has he the potential to be the next Charlie Parker? This is his Achilles heel. I mean just look at the story of his former student. He drove/pushed him so hard, that he comitted suicide. This goes beyond anything. There is no border on his quest for his ideal/perfection.
w2, sx instinct. Look at the bar scene (‚I push people beyond what is expected of them ...). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6vTI5g198EThe whole quality of this dialogue is infused with pride. I pushed them, I made them to what they are now. The undertone is ‚They owe me...‘. He sees the potential and locks onto someone and he locks the heaviest, where he sees the potential for the next Charlie Parker, syn. for his ideal. This is his distortion. It’s obsessive, compulsive. It went so far with him that he has driven John Casey (his former student) to suicide. His perfectionism bleeds out in the sexual arena, he is locking on somebody and forms this mentor-student unit. Mentor and student are essentially one to him. He is not really sad that his former student comitted suicide, he is sad that he lost his potential ideal. It‘s like he lost a part of himself or sth. because he was infusing the other, with energy, giving, bleeding it out.
Andrew is in my eyes equally distorted, on his quest for being the best, for perfection, he is willing to sacrifice everything . He cuts off his relationship with his girlfriend (hence my typing of sp first, when push came to shove the sp was winning over the sx instinct). Another reason for the sp typing is, that he is flipping to a unhealthy side of the instinct. From self building to self destroying. He starts tearing at himself. There is much energy directed against the self, in order to fulfill an idealised version Andrew has in his head of what he should reach. Fletchers opinion is starting to take too much of his head space. He is not listening to people close to him anymore, who might really care about his well being (like his Dad), because his eyes are so set on succeeding (on his glory, on being the best). That's his illusion/distortion and this is the soil, where Fletchers 'I push people beyond what is expected from them' schtick can grow.
Socionics: In my opinion - maybe conflict relationship. Just watch this great analysis of the film https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugCUhKj0jNgAndrew tries to overcome Fletcher and people might think in the end he does. In my opinion he doesn’t. In the last scene, he is still under the control of him, wanting to impress him. His head space is still filled with Fletcher and his deep compulsion to prove himself to him. I mean where will he be going to from this last scene. After the challenge, is before the challenge. Andrew has upped the ante now. The next challenge will come, and the cycle will start anew. But in the end there is no real understanding between them. Andrew is for Fletcher just his ideal. Fletcher doesn’t really see him as a person. He doesn’t understand or values him for him, weaknesses included. So now what is Fletcher to Andrew? I see no real development for Andrew in following Fletcher. What is he outside of playing Jazz? He is not really developing, becoming stronger. He is slipping into a very dangerous state. Fletcher will keep his control over him, to form him and now he can even self righteously say ‚look what I made out of you, without my pushing, would you have even come this far?‘. Andrew knows there is some truth to it and he was coming back to prove himself, which shows that he is not truly free. If he would be he could just walk away and let it be. He is not marching to the beat of his own drum. He can’t get away and they will be locked onto one another in this unhealthy cycle.
Note: So now I put it into nice neat categories, eh? I mean they are fictional characters, they are very extreme (hence easier to put into nice little boxes?). I wanted to add, when people look at this, don't take it too seriously, like basing their understanding of the types solely on this example. Look at more examples. Real life people are more nuanced and shaded. This is also just a big ramble. It's just my opinion and my thought process (that I just wanted to write down). Doesn't mean it's accurate tho (I'm a bit unsure ab. some things reg. NPA). They are in the end fictional characters, but sometimes that doesn't mean it's not worth to look at (and yeah they are distorted, but they were nevertheless interesting to me. maybe that's fucked up... idk)
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 11-21-2015 at 06:01 PM. Reason: grammar, added sth to the note part, changed link
I'm not so certain about applying psychiatric disorders to Fletcher. Generally speaking I think these are thrown around much to much in today's poor me culture. Within the movies plot it was revealed why he pushes Andrew so hard (his last student was a failure and if Im remembering correctly, killed himself).
If you have ever worked or trained in an environment where the stakes are very high, and there is a very strict level of expected performance, then you might meet teachers like Fletcher. I know I have.
As refi said, there was much animosity between the two, but I think the climax of the film revealed an epiphany on the part of both characters. For Andrew it was the level of sublime skill he reached and the triumph of defeating both Fletcher, and his own perceived weaknesses. Even in a pivotal scene when he broke up with his girlfriend he is validating for himself that he would be willing to do whatever, absolutely whatever it took to be the best. At that point his destiny was always inevitable.
Fletcher's epiphany came after his disappointment in Andrew, where he saw that Andrew was capable of being the greatest drummer alive in the Whiplash number. In fact he had grown to respect and admire Andrew. This was why he backed off the rest of the orchestra to allow Andrew his solo. In the final bars of the song you could see in Fletchers eyes sheer pride and also wonder at the young man. It was a meeting of equals.
Ultimately the path, the seemingly cruel methods used by Fletcher justified the end. That was what the movies theme was asking its audience to question: what does it take to get to the top? As well, Andrew may have seemed vicimized by Fletcher, and on one level he was, yet dig a little deeper to understand that Andrew wanted to be pushed into greatness.
I was applying the terms in the understanding of the NPA Theory, tinged a bit with the literal meaning of the words in everyday use not psychiatric diagnostic. Sorry should have made that more clear.I'm not so certain about applying psychiatric disorders to Fletcher. Generally speaking I think these are thrown around much to much in today's poor me culture.
[1] There is a difference between 'I expect a lot, because you people will be working in an strict and demanding environment and I'll try to prepare you as best as I can' and pushing somebody beyond the breaking point, One is streghthening the person, to prepare them for what is yet to come, the other is destroying the person for own distorted reasons. He is not streghthening Andrew (or any of his students for that matter), he is just caught up in his own delusion about greatness. Andrew will come out of this empoverished, alone. There is nothing truly great in it.[1] If you have ever worked or trained in an environment where the stakes are very high, and there is a very strict level of expected performance, then you might meet teachers like Fletcher. I know I have.
[2] As refi said, there was much animosity between the two, but I think the climax of the film revealed an epiphany on the part of both characters. For Andrew it was the level of sublime skill he reached and the triumph of defeating both Fletcher, and his own perceived weaknesses. Even in a pivotal scene when he broke up with his girlfriend he is validating for himself that he would be willing to do whatever, absolutely whatever it took to be the best. At that point his destiny was always inevitable.
[3] Fletcher's epiphany came after his disappointment in Andrew, where he saw that Andrew was capable of being the greatest drummer alive in the Whiplash number. In fact he had grown to respect and admire Andrew. This was why he backed off the rest of the orchestra to allow Andrew his solo. In the final bars of the song you could see in Fletchers eyes sheer pride and also wonder at the young man. It was a meeting of equals.
[4] Ultimately the path, the seemingly cruel methods used by Fletcher justified the end. That was what the movies theme was asking its audience to question: what does it take to get to the top? As well, Andrew may have seemed vicimized by Fletcher, and on one level he was, yet dig a little deeper to understand that Andrew wanted to be pushed into greatness.
[2] Personal opinion: saying to sacrifice everything for reaching your goal and actually really live it, are to different things and I agree with you therefore. Andrew did it. He showed what he is willing to sacrifice, but he is young. Who knows what he will think of his decisions down the road. What will he come to regret?
[3] He admires and respects him only so much as Andrew is able to live up to his standards. He was not respecting him, when he was dissapointed in him, that was more sth. along the lines of 'well, I guess you're just another failure, that I put so much hope into'. Equals respect the other, even when the other has a different opinion/is making a different decision, from what you wanted. The other person is seen as his own person, not just as your puppet. I mean srsly. Fletcher sees Andrew as some sort of extension of his own ego. When Andrew lives up to his standard, it means that his method works. That validates him. He is not truly proud of Andrew, like that he values him. The pride is solely centered around himself. Look what I have formed. What do you think Fletcher would have done, if Andrew would have showed him the finger and left. He would have categorized him under 'yet another failure' another let down where I put my hopes into. That is hardly my understanding of being on equal footing with someone.
[4] That's exactly Fletchers mindset and how he brainwashed people into following him (srsly wacey seemingly cruel?). He locks onto someone who want to test themselves and want to prove what they are capable of, so much, that they overlook, that Fletcher is not really one of the most balanced, mature person running around. In the end you need the soil, where you can plant something. He brainwashed them into believing in his methods. Now I think somebody truly confident in his abilities, someone really mature, would be like 'fuck it dude' I know I'm good enough, I'm not gonna be sucked into this shit storm that is your teaching method. Fletcher makes everything about himself. It's the 'if you get through, what I dish out, everything else will be childs play' angle. If you really want to claim to be the best, than you have to prove it here and now to me. It's all about him and he goes beyond everything. I mean the suicide of somebody, he has driven to the breaking point is not enough, he fucking continues.
Re. Andrew and wanting to be pushed to greatness. I have acknowledged that. That was Andrews distortion and the reason/the soil on which Fletcher's schtick could grow. But in the end, wacey, I think we have different interpretations for the film. Don't get me wrong I read and understand what you say and yes the film is interesting with the theme of 'true greatness comes from true hardship'. I can also understand where the characters are coming from (idk... if that makes me fucked up). It's just, that I have a different interpretation of their relationship, that aligns more with this analysis of the film:
I personally don't see it through the feel good lens. That's too usual Hollywood for me. 'Oh look at him' 'Oh look he made it' 'True greatness comes from true suffering'. Yeah suffer your own ass through something and then we talk (not directed at you wacey, just general musing from me). I mean it's like this line of interpretation even validates Fletchers distortion and validates Andrews self destruction. I mean what will become of Andrew, you really think he is happy, rooted inside of himself, truly confident in his abilities, calm and strong after this? I personally don't think so. Like I said. After the challenge, is before the challenge. Andrew has upped the ante. Fletcher will demand more from now on. The cycle continues, until Andrew cannot take it anymore/breaks.
Edit: I think maybe you could see how Andrew might integrate (to E7) to really develop (if you want to talk Enneagram), like if he lets go of this compulsion to be the best, to be perfect and finds a way back to this boy, who just genuinely enjoyed playing the drums. Like if he could a way back to be like this again, having real joy and fun in playing and being confident in his abilities, not trying to prove anything to anyone. Just having joy and fun and being spontaneous, being in the moment.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 11-21-2015 at 05:42 PM.
I feel that the extreme constant pressure Fletcher puts upon andrew points more towards Se valuer then Si valuer. Also I don't see so much expressed Te in Fletcher, he's not ACTUALLY telling andrew how to get better, just creating the environment.
The fact that they seem to have an understanding that is wierd to both us as audience and andrews family signals to me that it's a kinda meeting of the minds, or at least made to look that way in the movie (not saying this is a good think irl).
The fact that it was super alien to me makes me think not my quadra.
So I have to disagree on the LSE typing.
I have family members who play on conservatory level and some teachers actually are similar to this. It's part of the high achievement culture and is often accepted as part of the road.
That's his A+ trait. Like I said their relationship is maybe a bit more understandable coming from the NPA Theory angle. LSE and putting pressure on someone is not mutually exclusive for me (Se Demonstrative). Also LSE - SLE - Quasi Identicals.I feel that the extreme constant pressure Fletcher puts upon andrew points more towards Se valuer then Si valuer. Also I don't see so much expressed Te in Fletcher, he's not ACTUALLY telling andrew how to get better, just creating the environment.
Again look what I wrote about both sharing the N and the P trait. That's what they bond over.The fact that they seem to have an understanding that is wierd to both us as audience and andrews family signals to me that it's a kinda meeting of the minds, or at least made to look that way in the movie (not saying this is a good think irl).
Typing by 'not my quadra' 'not my dual' is rather subjective.The fact that it was super alien to me makes me think not my quadra.
You type him as Beta ST, right? I mean what do you think is his Enneagram. 8? He's so clearly E1 (like I have explained). SLE is therefore out of question. Leaves LSI. Well I personally would need more explanation behind this typing.So I have to disagree on the LSE typing.
By your own words, wacey. Fletcher is the Delta. Andrew the Beta.Philosophically the struggle for professional developmental perfection is a delta complex (see article on Delta and the "clipped wings"). Also a running theme in the movie is the struggle against subservience, which is a beta complex. The protagonist must learn to excell under the tutelage of a a cold hearted bastard for a teacher, while remaining utterly subservient to his drill sergent engineered direction. The teacher squeezes his pupil and evertime the student tries to escape he is brought back down under the grip of his teacher. This both crushes his ego at the same time infuriating himself even more to try and succeed. There is a destructive balance built, culminating into a crecendo of new found greatest, whereby all the will to suceed becomes the driving force that leads the boy to such a level of skill that he is no longer subservient to anyone but his own chosen rhythm. The boy resented the teachers control, yet without it would never have achieved greatness. Two running themes, both from aristrocratic quadra groups.
i don't see the value of NPA theory so much, nor enneagram and I don't find the story that you describe appealing or convincing.
Then we have to agree to disagree.i don't see the value of NPA theory so much, nor enneagram and I don't find the story that you describe appealing or convincing.
One last thing, before I let it rest [SPOILERS follow]:
Damien Chazelle (the director) on the ending
Article that discusses the filmUltimately, we’re left to wonder if all the abuse he suffered at the hands of Fletcher (J.K. Simmons) was worth it. And while all viewers will have to determine that for themselves, writer-director Damien Chazelle, for one, has a pretty clear idea of what happened next. Hit the jump to read Chazelle’s comments on the Whiplash ending. (Spoilers follow, obviously.)
If you saw Whiplash, you’ll recall the final scene in which Fletcher deliberately sabotages Andrew’s fledgling career by giving him the wrong music for a concert. Instead of taking that affront lying down, however, Andrew turns it into an opportunity, taking the lead and showing off his talents. Eventually, Fletcher comes around and starts helping him. It’s a thrilling moment, and a big victory for our protagonist.However, Chazelle says he doesn’t necessarily see a happy end for Andrew after that. Here’s a snippet from his conversation with Screen Crush:
Where do you think these two go after this movie ends? They had a moment at the end of the film, but I feel these two will always hate each other.
I think so. I think it’s definitely a fleeting thing. I think there’s a certain amount of damage that will always have been done. Fletcher will always think he won and Andrew will be a sad, empty shell of a person and will die in his 30s of a drug overdose. I have a very dark view of where it goes.
That should have been a postscript at the end of the movie, “And at 30, he dies of a drug overdose.”
That would be great, right before the credits, “Oh, by the way.” It’s a post credit thing, like the Marvel movies. It’s his funeral.
And Fletcher is there. He gives the eulogy.
“That ungrateful fucking brat.”
Chazelle is clearly joking about the postscript and the post-credits funeral scene, but he seems to be serious about the dark ending. It’s a bit startling since his movie goes out on a high note, and since we’re more or less conditioned to expect happy endings from films like this. On the other hand, though, such an unhappy development would fit with Chazelle’s clear-eyed approach. Unlike a lot of other underdog-makes-good stories, Whiplash is unflinching about the sacrifices Andrew makes to get to the top, and not at all comfortable with the tradeoff. It absolutely seems plausible that he’d crash and burn at a young age.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...iplash/381636/[...] The ending of Whiplash offers one of the most electrifying movie moments this year. Centered on a rousing musical performance given by the film’s protagonist Andrew (Miles Teller), the scene is filmed and presented as a triumph, if a costly one. That's a daring choice from young director and writer Damien Chazelle, because Andrew, a student drummer, has been subjected to elite jazz-training hell by tyrannical instructor Fletcher (J.K. Simmons) over the previous 100 minutes.
At the end of the film, Fletcher clearly thinks Andrew's success is due to his approach of teaching-as-psychological warfare. He would undoubtedly exit the film and congratulate himself on a job well done. And the troubling thing, for viewers, is that he might be right to.
In Whiplash, jazz drummer Andrew endures a brutal, sustained campaign of bullying and abuse, both psychological and physical, at the hands of Fletcher, the conductor of his conservatory's prestigious studio band. He eventually washes out under the extreme pressure and, at the urging of his concerned father, anonymously gets Fletcher fired for abuse. In the final scene, Andrew ends up at Carnegie Hall subbing in for Fletcher's concert band. It's a final cruel ruse orchestrated by Fletcher, who wants to humiliate Andrew publicly by cueing him up to play the wrong music.
But then Andrew turns the tables. He leads Fletcher's band into an incredible rendition of the song he was prepared to play. It's a powerful moment, despite the wringer the audience (and Andrew) has endured the whole movie. But there's also no question, as the audience watches its hero furiously bang out Fletcher's perfect tempo, that Andrew’s spirit is broken. Great art, or at least a great rendition, has been achieved, but at the total cost of the teen’s humanity. At the beginning of the film, he's obsessively driven and introverted, but relatably so; he works up the courage to talk to a girl he has a crush on, and kindles a brief if awkward relationship with her. He struggles with dinner party conversation. But as Fletcher begins to grind away at his confidence and sanity, Andrew withdraws further, breaking up with his girlfriend in robotic fashion and behaving more erratically until suffering a mini-nervous breakdown.
Director Chazelle often shoots Andrew as an isolated figure surrounded by negative space, emphasizing his enforced solitude, but Fletcher is far more dynamic. [...] and while he explicitly states that he himself doesn't share Fletcher’s mentality, he concedes, "I do believe in pushing yourself." Practicing music, he says, shouldn’t be fun, since you're supposed to be hammering away at your flaws. "If every single thing is enjoyable, then you’re not pushing yourself hard enough, is probably how I feel," he explains. "But this movie takes it to a extreme that I do not condone."
In the same interview, Chazelle says he thought Whiplash, especially its finale, followed the arc of a sports film. The comparison is apt: The hero is brought low and then surges back in the grand finale, winning a great victory at an undeniable physical cost. That's perhaps where the problem lies for the movie’s critics. "We're supposed to leave our seats feeling just a little admiration for Fletcher and his alleged standards, because perversely, they really do tease out some greatness in Andrew," Stephanie Zacharek wrote in The Village Voice. "But Fletcher's tactics have nothing to do with talent, or greatness, or even just the complicated dynamics of playing music. He's just a cartoon bad guy masquerading as a complex one."
Despite Fletcher’s claims that his abuse is in the name of making Andrew a great jazz artist like Charlie Parker, his hypocrisy is apparent. In the final concert scene, Fletcher is not trying to get Andrew to rise to his challenge—he just wants to humiliate him. When Andrew shakes off the nightmare of being given the wrong music and playing out of sync with the band, it surprises Fletcher as much as anyone.
But that bravura ending—a hyper-masculine celebration of punishing dedication and success in a great battle of wills—is impossible to shake. As much as we've regarded Fletcher with horror throughout the movie, Andrew's ultimate achievement is that he finally impresses him, without caveat. Andrew is tragically wasting his effort on this sociopathic void of a man, but you can't help but be stirred by his superhuman effort all the same. Whiplash treads that uncomfortable line as tightly as possible and leaves the audience feeling a little queasy for admiring Andrew's victory, no matter how Pyrrhic it might be.
This will sound harsh, however it has to be said of these character's future: then so be it. Andrew walks his path and can either awake from it or not. Either way, broken, healthy, its all the same really. We are all going to die in the end. Andrew can let his past ruin him eventually. He could let his past inform his present if he has developed awareness to escape the bondage of his created neurosis. Even if Fletcher was responsible to begin with. As an audience member I have little sympathy either way; only recognition of what its like for Andrew to carry the weight of the mistreatment of a petty tyrant.
Literary fiction, as well as great cinema, leaves the audience feeling slightly uncomfortable. The ending might be happy, sad, or indeterminate. This more closely matches the events that happen in real life- where the dragon does not get slayed, the illness overcomes the patient, the boy does not win the heart of the girl, and the rising drumming star becomes artistically and technically skilled, but at the expense of his severelly damaged sense of self.
Those in Andrew's life could see, inagine what will happen to him after the movie. His Father saw, standing behind the curtain with a mixture of worry and fear etched across his face as he watched his son skirt the fine line between triumph and madness (are they not something of the same thing?) during the finalle. The director of the movie saw, as he perdicts Andrew's slow decline into possible self-defeating depression and unhealthy ways of escape, the possible future of an overly critical directed sense of self worth. This was explained in his intervew posted in this thread. And we audience members saw the inevitable ruination of a bright talent.
This is kind of the point here, for all people who suffer at the hand of others, it ultimately is at the soul descretion of their own minds (we all answer to our maker alone) to choose how we will act. Although some people, like teenagers, have less control over their impulses then others. (Some sociotypes as well)
Everyone has a choice. Andrew has shown he can make his own choices. Those choices of youth are often tinged with the flavour of desperation and confusion. An audience member can feel the immediacy of a young man who is late for a concert that means so much for him as he drives through a red light. These acts of desperation are relatable, we have all done them. At a certain point when can a man stop blaming other prople for his own actions and start taking responsibility for himself? In Andrew's case, he can be forgiven because of his impressionable age. Fletcher is the villian here. He is Andrew's antagonist. Every story must have one.
With a story like Whiplash, I choose to take the plot as it was portrayed to me. I choose to see it at face value. Without imagining elements of the plot and motivations of the characters that are not apparant with the universe of the story itself. If the director had wanted to create a foot note for the story by showing the audience what happens with Andrew then we would have been cheated of a just as apparant facet of reality: that our destinies are both determined AND subject to our free wills. That sort of analysis of this movie is superfluous, even unnessasary. As the director stated, Andrew's arc was enough for the audience to view for making an observation of a high performance individual's journey.
Last edited by wacey; 11-22-2015 at 05:02 PM.
I just wanted to come back to say that I find it cool that you view it that way, that Andrew is the maker of his own life path. That it doesn’t necessarily have to end that dark and bleak with him dying of an overdose, that he – how is this nice saying – doesn’t need to be ‚victim of his circumstances‘. That he can come out of this as a stronger personality. But to really believe that, you have to see that Fletcher cannot play any part in this. In order to reach that, he has to minimize Fletchers influence in him.This will sound harsh, however it has to be said of these character's future: then so be it. Andrew walks his path and can either awake from it or not. Either way, broken, healthy, its all the same really. We are all going to die in the end. Andrew can let his past ruin him eventually. He could let his past inform his present if he has developed awareness to escape the bondage of his created neurosis. Even if Fletcher was responsible to begin with. As an audience member I have little sympathy either way; only recognition of what its like for Andrew to carry the weight of the mistreatment of a petty tyrant.
Literary fiction, as well as great cinema, leaves the audience feeling slightly uncomfortable. The ending might be happy, sad, or indeterminate. This more closely matches the events that happen in real life- where the dragon does not get slayed, the illness overcomes the patient, the boy does not win the heart of the girl, and the rising drumming star becomes artistically and technically skilled, but at the expense of his severelly damaged sense of self.
Those in Andrew's life could see, inagine what will happen to him after the movie. His Father saw, standing behind the curtain with a mixture of worry and fear etched across his face as he watched his son skirt the fine line between triumph and madness (are they not something of the same thing?) during the finalle. The director of the movie saw, as he perdicts Andrew's slow decline into possible self-defeating depression and unhealthy ways of escape, the possible future of an overly critical directed sense of self worth. This was explained in his intervew posted in this thread. And we audience members saw the inevitable ruination of a bright talent.
This is kind of the point here, for all people who suffer at the hand of others, it ultimately is at the soul descretion of their own minds (we all answer to our maker alone) to choose how we will act. Although some people, like teenagers, have less control over their impulses then others. (Some sociotypes as well
Everyone has a choice. Andrew has shown he can make his own choices. Those choices of youth are often tinged with the flavour of desperation and confusion. An audience member can feel the immediacy of a young man who is late for a concert that means so much for him as he drives through a red light. These acts of desperation are relatable, we have all done them. At a certain point when can a man stop blaming other prople for his own actions and start taking responsibility for himself? In Andrew's case, he can be forgiven because of his impressionable age. Fletcher is the villian here. He is Andrew's antagonist. Every story must have one.
With a story like Whiplash, I choose to take the plot as it was portrayed to me. I choose to see it at face value. Without imagining elements of the plot and motivations of the characters that are not apparant with the universe of the story itself. If the director had wanted to create a foot note for the story by showing the audience what happens with Andrew then we would have been cheated of a just as apparant facet of reality: that our destinies are both determined AND subject to our free wills. That sort of analysis of this movie is superfluous, even unnessasary. As the director stated, Andrew's arc was enough for the audience to view for making an observation of a high performance individual's journey.
The problem I had from the beginning and why I hanged myself onto this thread so strongly is, that I cannot accept the interpretation of Fletcher as some sort of benevolent good tutor, that he is just strict so that Andrew can become better. Like his behaviour is just all in Andrews ‚best interest‘, that he supported him towards getting better. Fletcher is not the maker of Andrew.
This is not me just reading some sort of stuff into things, like some ‚he could be...‘ ‚he couldn’t be...‘ conjecture. The facts are: the suicide of his former student was mentioned in the film, his deliberately setting up, wanting to fuck it up for Andrew in the last part, was in the film. He walks up to him ‚do you think, I’m fucking stupid, I know it was you‘, giving him the wrong notes to play, to humiliate him, followed by ‚I guess maybe you don’t have it‘. During Andrews humiliation he has this self satisfied grin. He didn’t wanted Andrew to rise up, he wanted to humiliate him.
If his aim was to prod him so that Andrew rises up, he would react differently when Andrew enters the stage again. He would be like ‚yeah, show me what you’re made of‘ sth. more along the lines of ‚finally, rise up to your potential‘. But that is not the case, he looks like ‚what is this shit now‘ ‚don’t you ever give up‘. Being clearly pissed off by Andrew behaviour. Going to him and saying ‚I will gauge out your motherfucking eye‘. Only when Andrew is acting how he wants, he acts benevolent again.
The darker interpretation of Fletchers caracter and the ending is rooted in tangible facts/moments in the film. This is not stuff grabbed out of thin air. And like I said when Andrew stays, it will go down the more darker road, This self destructive cycle will continue. Only if Andrew is so self aware to get himself free, he can take this episode as a ‚life lesson‘ and learn something from it and become stronger.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 11-22-2015 at 07:32 PM.
I agree with you that Fletcher is not a benevolent tutor. He's an abusive monster from all angles except one: Andrew sees him as the obstacle he needs to overcome to achieve greatness. There's a ruthlessness in andrew's determination to become great (you see it when he breaks up with his girlfriend) that NEEDS a monster to slay. I think both Fletcher and Andrew are aware of their roles in the story of monsters and men, both willing to gamble their soul just to create a shining moment of triumph.
Is Fletcher abusive? yes.
Is Andrew young and impressionable? maybe.
Is there a relationship that is very uncomfortable to the audience? yes
Is this beta duality? maybe.
Is this what makes the movie fantastically multifaceted? yes.
I can't just see it as just Fletcher abusing Andrew, there's a very strong dynamic going on that transcends purely the abuser/abused.
I, as audience, take the role of the father where i'm "wtf is he doing, why doesn't he just walk away?". It's alien to me since i'd never be able to stomach 1 second of that kind of abuse. But then, i'd never have a wish as strong as Andrew's to succeed. I see the theme of the movie as "succes despite and/or through monsterious opposition" (which i see as beta thematic) rather then "fullfillment of potential" which would be the delta theme. If it was the latter i'd say more attention would have been given to the nuances of potential, the growth of andrew as a character. In this movie the only growth is technical, and even that is not really shown, the only thing that's shown is determination to train technical skill literally up to bleeding.
and on the other end of the spectrum the will to break a few people just to create one genius.
I rarely see that kind of destructiveness in Delta oriented movies. Delta's can be cruel as any person from any quadra, but this is a portrayal of a relationship, i don't think a delta movie about abuse would end the movie in the culmination of succes of that abuse...
Think about this, the movie basically says "the will to succeed is the only thing that matters" as both characters, and they are portrayed as the only characters in the movie, the rest being just filler, are willing to sacrifice everything and everyone to succeed. It is more about the will then about the succes.
I think it's EIE(Fletcher), ILI(Andrew) supervision. I don't see it as duality, but it's still a powerful dynamic. Duality for Fletcher would be the population of very good and loyal musicians around Fletcher who support the environment he uses to create his pressure cooker. They might be invisible in the movie but surely they're around to help him.
The usurpation at the end of the film is typical of supervision but Fletcher would have probably figured out some way of getting back at Andrew for it too and punishing him. Fletcher punishes with group humiliation which imo is kind of a Fe way of doing it. Andrew responds with increase with working on his technique which might be a Te way of going towards it.
I think personality disorders are more important in the relationship then type tho.
Fletcher has the delusion, "I'm the one to make you or break you..." Which gives him control.
Fletcher know how to push his student's buttons and that's what he does. Andrew wants to succeed at any cost, and is more than willing to sabotage others for it.
Pretty much, refi.
Wacey, you brought up Quadra complexes yourself, means you saw them as applicable for this topic, so I read myself through the Delta description.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...StratiyevskayaPhilosophically the struggle for professional developmental perfection is a delta complex (see article on Delta and the "clipped wings"). Also a running theme in the movie is the struggle against subservience, which is a beta complex. The protagonist must learn to excell under the tutelage of a a cold hearted bastard for a teacher, while remaining utterly subservient to his drill sergent engineered direction. The teacher squeezes his pupil and evertime the student tries to escape he is brought back down under the grip of his teacher. This both crushes his ego at the same time infuriating himself even more to try and succeed. There is a destructive balance built, culminating into a crecendo of new found greatest, whereby all the will to suceed becomes the driving force that leads the boy to such a level of skill that he is no longer subservient to anyone but his own chosen rhythm. The boy resented the teachers control, yet without it would never have achieved greatness. Two running themes, both from aristrocratic quadra groups.
So I just read this article the first time (and not all to the end, because it became difficult to understand) and idk how applicable these complexes are for typing peeps, but you brought it up yourself and if you read this and didn't saw how the bolded applied to Fletcher then idk...Delta Quadra: The Complex of Clipped Wings
....
infinite perfection of one's skill, pursuit of the highest (beyond the bounds, even other-wordly), professionalism (+Te↑);
....
From the combination of the properties of all aspects that are predominant in the Delta Quadra, there arises a very high level of competition of ambitious plans for creation, prospective original ideas, and valuable innovative projects. To call oneself an author, an organizer, a sponsor, an implementer and promoter of such a project is in itself already venerable. The main thing is to not stand aside from important and promising developments, but be able to join them, in time exert one's influence, leaving on it the imprint of one's talent, to make one's contribution to such a significant and socially meaningful work.
...
In the fourth quadra, a person is not worthy of attention and not worthy of respect if he or she is not absorbed by a thirst for creativity and doesn't strive to realize their own potential, is in no hurry to develop own abilities, skills, and talents.
...
If in Alpha Quadra it is shameful to not have a response, in Beta Quadra - to be weak and helpless, in Gamma Quadra - to be lazy and inactive, then in Delta Quadra it is a shame to not strive for self-improvement, a shame to stop and cease working on yourself. If a Delta Quadra type tell others: "You still have something to work on," - he sincerely believes that he's doing good work by raising the bar of requirements (and thereby places himself in the position of a strict critic, a teacher, a creative mentor) and making others perfect and improve in their skill and abilities, and unravel his potential. On the other side, falling under the criticism and finding themselves in a forced position of a "student", Delta Quadra types take an offense at such a self-appointed teacher and try to escape from his "care", retorting with: "I'm satisfied with everything about my work. I'm content with what I'm doing and not in need of outside advice."
...
The mere observation of such a critical remark is already the cause for irritation: that someone all too initiative-taking has showed up, who took the opportunity, the situational advantage, and played the role of the critic: he was able to hurt/sting someone's pride and to impose his opinion. And who asked him? Who put him in a position of an arbitrator? By what right is he speaking out here?
...
The destruction of hopes related to realization of ambitious creative purposes, the fear of potential obstacles that arise along such path, the fear of limitations and restrictions placed on the potential and possibilities of a personal self-expression and creation, in this essay we will conventionally call the COMPLEX OF CLIPPED WINGS.
1. The high demands of Delta Quadra
...
Delta Quadra does not tolerate:
- When their right to spiritual, moral, professional and creative self-improvement and self-realization are chellenged;
- When their moral, spiritual, intellectual, and professional superiority is challenged.
...
The motto of Delta Quadra: maximum success, opportunities, and prospects - to maximize the implementation of all that is possible and desirable.
...
2. Spontaneous control and striving to dominate/lead as a way to develop protective measures on the quadral complex of "clipped wings"
...
Therefore, in the process of spontaneous interaction with others they establish relations of subordination, that would allow them to correct his actions, and establishing over him ethical (moral, spiritual, psychological) and business control.
On these facts of real domination and spontaneously established relationships of subordination, each person in Delta Quadra during in the process of interaction becomes either the dominant (self-appointed and self-willed) - controller, mentor - a man free and independent of someone else's will, enabled and entitled to correct and control the actions and expression of others - or the person becomes a dependent, the oppressed, the "controlled", forced to report before the "supervisor - mentor", to "confess" in front of him (as well as others, if his dominant commands it) at his first request.
...
- one who always controls others, but doesn't recognize any control over himself;
- one who calls others to reconciliation, submission, obedience, to making favors and other-wordly mutual concessions, and himself refuses to obey, to submit, to go to concessions: falls into panic and hurt, almost to tears, when any concessions are demanded from him;
- one who displaces and oppresses others, while remaining "at a hight" himself in all circumstances retaining the position of "moral and ethical superiority," remaining in the public opinion a person who is in all respects infallible - "the standard of morality", "the stronghold of ethics", "the focal point of all virtues."
3. Moral superiority as a developed protective measure against the complex of "clipped wings"
.... turn out to be that very same limiting measure that allow the "dominant" or the "controller" to act to the maximum of their forces and their capacity, to the full extent of his abilities and potential, while remaining free from any possibilistic restrictions. By controlling and subduing others, he obeys no one himself - nothing binds and hinders this own his initiatives and creative plans, the growth of his ambitions, the flight of his imagination does not interfere.
...
Themselves delta - kvadraly, in an effort to seize the initiative and go to a dominant position, also bypass the rights of the parties. Sometimes even the role they do not comply - aggressively react to the slightest resistance to them, they will, desire, action plans, initiatives. (This is understandable and acceptable: according to their natural (aristocratic) the desire to dominate, the need to aggressively impose their will ("heterogeneity of aggression") allows them to self-organize into a hierarchy and plumbing connections in the system.)
...
Excitement around success often leads to the fact that many undertakings in the delta - quadra take the form of "big races", "prestigious races" - "prestigious auction" to "Vanity Fair", in which each of its members, regardless of personal successes and achievements appears a sort of "valuable lot," evaluates the people around him from the standpoint of personal superiority, and sees them in the reflection of their own success and perfection.
...
27. The position of the "treasure hunt" or "talent for finding talent" as the operating time of protective measures on a range of "clip the wings"
...
It confuses their interest in hobbies, talents and abilities of every new acquaintance. But at the same time hurting and quick loss of interest in more recent object of their attention in the event that his hobbies are trivial, and talent - modest.
Etc.
I DID see how it applied to Fletcher. That is why I brought it up in the first place.
I think a careful distinction needs to be made here because although the article makes it seem as though deltas are all about high professionalism at all costs, this would be incorrect. All quadra groups are balanced out. For delta, this means there is a high level of personal fideltity to virtues like compassion, "doing the right thing", fairness, decency. I use these as just illustrative examples, other people of course have the same values.
If you are familiar with deltas then I would say overall, violent pushing is not in their repertoire. Its just not how things get done with those people. Maybe a somewhat bullish, pressing type of verbal logic, or expressed frustration, but that is balanced out with introverted ethics. Its hard for me to explain, unless you have seen it yourself.
With clipped wings, its like a slow, methodical march towards their idea of perfection, perhaps in a business enterprise. The clipped part comes from feeling as though at many turns, they are being stopped from accomplishments because of "fetters". Be they road blocks within interpersonal relationships, road blocks with the rule of law (such as with a regulatory agency controlling their business practise), family responsibilities, business acumen, physical ailments, physical disability. With the Ep/Ips, you get the clipped wings in living situation, or work/ lifestyle, where they never quite find the right FIT for themselves. Work place is either to uncomfortable on one sense, or inconvenient, or to much drama ect. They are searching for a sense of personal utopia, whose arrival is being stopped by outside forces.
Now, I'm not arguing that Fletcher is not an LSE. All I am saying is that if he is, then he is an unusual exception to the rule. I think that Fletcher, as a normalized individual, would be made to feel so guilty and ashamed for deeply hurting Andrew. (My suspicions are that he does at key moments in the movie display this kind of sympathy, but in the case of this argument might he outside the point). That he continually ignores common emotional sense and even flaunts his abject rudeness, shows he feels immune to personal responsibilty.
I think back to the "not my tempo" lines. I am very open to hearing some more of your thoughts.
I think Fletcher is EIE or LSI and Andrew is ILI or IEI. Not completely sure though. I like mu4's idea about it being supervision, but realistically I think it might be closer to LSI-ILI. At least my own relations of benefit most closely remind me of what happened in the movie.
Fletcher is most definitely not EIE, but ST of sorts.
Fletcher - Beta ST
Andrew - ILI
Last edited by suedehead; 11-29-2015 at 01:00 AM.
I think the movie had a point.
Most people who attain that level of excellence in a field, were either insane enough to push themselves to limits that very few people have the heart to endure or had someone pushing them. Michael Jordan, Serena Williams, Mike Tyson, etc... the amount of work they put in is on that level.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Fletcher could be compared with real world Chef Gordan Ramsay.
not familiar with him, but it was an interesting read.Fletcher could be compared with real world Chef Gordan Ramsay.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/541-Gordon-Ramsay
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/47211-Gordon-Ramsay-s-type-(old-discussions)
I DID see how it applied to Fletcher. That is why I brought it up in the first place. OK.Yeah I wasn't sure how applicable they were, that's why I wrote in my post [...] and idk how applicable these complexes are for typing peeps, [...]. It's probably like with everything, that you have to be careful to make quick conclusions and I agree you have to be aware, that there are of course more distinctions and shades and more complexities to everything. Now is probably the time to say, that I don't really like to type too much with quadras or 'quadra values'. I think it's probably the whole vagueness, how stereotypical they sound at times and how they open the door to ungrounded familiarity. Like my quadra, your quadra etc. Like descriptions always make it sound 'ohh people of the same quadra' 'ohh shared values'. Like you couldn't hate the shit out of people in 'your' quadra. This whole ungrounded preconceived familiarity is just sth. that I personally don't really like (like you are per theory in my 'quadra' 'my mirror/activator' etc. and the resulting assumptions and also restrictions), but that's probably another topic.I think a careful distinction needs to be made here because although the article makes it seem as though deltas are all about high professionalism at all costs, this would be incorrect. All quadra groups are balanced out. For delta, this means there is a high level of personal fideltity to virtues like compassion, "doing the right thing", fairness, decency. I use these as just illustrative examples, other people of course have the same values.
If you are familiar with deltas then I would say overall, violent pushing is not in their repertoire. Its just not how things get done with those people. Maybe a somewhat bullish, pressing type of verbal logic, or expressed frustration, but that is balanced out with introverted ethics. Its hard for me to explain, unless you have seen it yourself.
With clipped wings, its like a slow, methodical march towards their idea of perfection, perhaps in a business enterprise. The clipped part comes from feeling as though at many turns, they are being stopped from accomplishments because of "fetters". Be they road blocks within interpersonal relationships, road blocks with the rule of law (such as with a regulatory agency controlling their business practise), family responsibilities, business acumen, physical ailments, physical disability. With the Ep/Ips, you get the clipped wings in living situation, or work/ lifestyle, where they never quite find the right FIT for themselves. Work place is either to uncomfortable on one sense, or inconvenient, or to much drama ect. They are searching for a sense of personal utopia, whose arrival is being stopped by outside forces.Yeah he is extreme, so is Andrew. (added to my notes part) I mean they are fictional characters, they are very extreme [...] I wanted to add, when people look at this, don't take it too seriously, like basing their understanding of the types solely on this example. Look at more examples. [...]Now, I'm not arguing that Fletcher is not an LSE. All I am saying is that if he is, then he is an unusual exception to the rule. I think that Fletcher, as a normalized individual, would be made to feel so guilty and ashamed for deeply hurting Andrew. (My suspicions are that he does at key moments in the movie display this kind of sympathy, but in the case of this argument might he outside the point). That he continually ignores common emotional sense and even flaunts his abject rudeness, shows he feels immune to personal responsibilty.
(in my older post) *these were all rather extreme examples to make the distinctions and differences clearer
But the thing is I believe, just because someone doesn't fit into preconceived images of a type, doesn't mean they are not that type. People with the same type, can vary greatly. It's not so much how much does this person 'embody' this type, more can this person be this type.
Sorry not in ramble mood today :) I think I covered my thoughts in my older posts. I mean I know I'm discussing this with you the most, but I don't want you to get the feeling like I'm zeroing myself on to you, it's just that you are one of the few, who wrote down your thoughts and reasons for your typing and well you know how it is... the ones who put sth. on the table, get the reaction. The topic is finished for me now (really...).I think back to the "not my tempo" lines. I am very open to hearing some more of your thoughts.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 12-06-2015 at 04:41 PM.
Had a rewatch:
Fletcher: LSI
Andrew: EIE
If you watch anything with these two and believe that Andrew is the extroverted and Fletcher the introverted one out of the 2... then I fucking don't know... really.
http://members.boardhost.com/npatheory/msg/1457598668.html (NPA- vs. NPA) Real life report.
Last edited by Moonbeaux Rainfox; 04-08-2016 at 06:40 PM.
haha, I guess it warrants some explaining, I know. Classically,introversion, extroversion. Andrew desires attention, he desires a spot light, he is unaffected and in the beginning some-what timid, yet it changes as he shows his true personality. This had been molded by his upbringing and probably the loss of his Mother.
At the dinner with his family he is brave, irreverent, and openly mocking. And as he does it its as though he "comes into his own". Which is what the movie really in essence: "a coming of age story"
Fletcher pushes Andrew into his true form. Im not under the impression LSI cannot be "public". I envision beta as the "society" quadra anyway.
Whatever Im not convinced of my answer either. Maybe try convincing me because as it stands I see no reason why Andrew cant be a socionics extrovert and Fletcher the socionics introvert.
How is Fletcher any different from Gordon Ramsay?
well I will fucking give it to you, that you come back to explain yourself... re. the topic [1] in my opinion introverted behaviour in Andrew, like in the 'classic introversion' sense, shy when asking out that girl, more open with people he knows (excurse: seeking the spotlight N trait, social inhibition could be A- trait) [2] Fletcher draws Andrew out, not the other way round. I mean 'basic Ti Base, Fe Dual Seeking interaction' - wouldn't that be Andrew drawing Fletcher out? non? If we move away from 'classic introvert/extrovert' understanding, like 'I like to sit in the dark with myself - introvert' and say the orientation of the base function determines if you're an extrovert or introvert, I would see a problem with Fletcher as introverted thinker. I mean yeah sure you can say he is LSI-Se, so he is more active whatever, but what I mean is, I don't see introverted thinking as base in him at all. In my understanding the introverted functions are slower, in the sense that they build up sth. internal. In case of Fi,Ti (the rational introverted functions) their rationale. Fi what is right in the ethical sense? Like Fi has to draw in various experiences, weighting things and then sth. froms along the lines this is wrong because etc. Ti what is right in the logical sense, drawing things in, building up a system. Tying it back with the classic understanding, he would need 'me time' to work out this rationale. Fletcher doesn't have this for me at all. That guy has a big in time, immediately chimed in to his surrounding extroverted energy. Srsly the only other type I could entertain for him is ENTj. That might explain why some people type him ENFj (look a likes). So you see Andrew as ENFj. Means you think he has Fe right? Well let's tie it together, propose ENTj for Fletcher and IEI for Andrew and you'll get Supervision, which is not too far off the mark imo and you'll have Fe for Andrew and introversion.
Pls. you can write why Gordon Ramsey is what type why in his typing thread. From what I saw/read on internet articles (yes the ultimate source to gain any understanding about someone...), he can't stand people botching things up and might have more sides than what you see on the TV show (but I admit I didn't read much, so I have no real opinion on him). You know people in real life being complex and contradictory and all... this nerd out thread here is just about fictional characters...
Well of course. Still, parallels could be drawn.
I really have nothing I want to add here, bravo.
Maybe what I am seeing is the Actor playing Andrew is something of an Extroverted type and this shines in. In a classic sense Andrew is clearly shy, inhibited, ext.
Briefly in the beginning I saw Fletcher as LIE and Andrew, ESI. I mean could that be out of the realm of possibility?
i cant believe Im about to make this personal...Andrew and myself share many similar qualities. The friends I was watching it with pointed that out. Guess thats where the interest for this thread comes from.
Yes. Sorry. I didn't meant it in any patronizing uh real life people are more complex... understand that - way and you are not allowed to see parallels. I just thought there is already enough on the plate in this thread, without discussing another personality here.
I personally will stay with Supervision for now, If you see a case/argumentation for Duality... well don't hold back, but then the whole argumentation basically has to start at point zero (quadra values, functions etc. you basically have to roll up everything again and I'm sorry but in this case I'm out). Of course I have no access/know to what you see, but if it's the theme of 'overcoming' 'striving' it can come up in many peoples lives. Maybe it's the shared decisive Ni/Se ? (like how this theme is favoured in the movie) If it's other traits... dunno. Your move.
yeah really its a dead end. I guess what could he agreed upon is that this film is not an Alpha based movie. Either characters showing concious and shadow projective/receptive Se/Ni.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote