Perfect illustration of Beta Fe, Ni, Se in action

[Expat]

After seeing this, nobody can claim not to understand Beta Fe

I wonder how I never thought of this before It has everything -- Fe, Ni, Se (ok the Ti is less obvious), lots of Aristocracy, Decisiveness, Merriness.

Even Beta's "sad side" - its danger - self-destruction, becomes very clear as to why precisely it is the case (if they happened to have lost).

It's probably the best example ever, and it was always there, before my eyes in my memory.

For those who know it - - I hope you'll never read/watch this with the same eyes again


http://youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM

[Blaze]

one could argue that all epics are inherently beta?

[Expat]

I don't think so. The Odyssey is Gamma. Even Henry V is not entirely Beta, although that bit is, 100%.

For instance, the bit where he goes into his "upon the king" monologue at night, that is pure -- so it makes no sense to type Henry V in the play. Shakespeare used and understood all functions masterfully in his plays.

And, again, to make it clear -- what I mean in this thread refers to that bit only, not to the whole of the play.

[redbaron]

what a great clip. How I adore Kenneth Brannaugh. The music adds so much too! Ahhhh, I'm in love.....

[Kristiina]

hehe... I couldn't finish watching the clip. I think it was pseudo-beta. You know... it's like when I would act all cutesy-cuddly with a baby, that would be pseudo ESFj of me, because I would actually be thinking, "well, it's just drooling now, but eventually he'll start talking and then it gets fun." The guy in the clip is ...well... just talking words. Maybe it would have any effect of me if I saw the entire movie, but I doubt I will.

This is a beta speech for you:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmDTmqXTeM[/youtube]

and this is what makes my entire body tingle because of the coolness factor.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0RqZTFCEFI[/youtube]

[Expat]

Kristiina

I suggest it's rather that Henry V is being ENFj, and Leonidas, ISTj, so Leonidas impresses you more

Sure, the acting and phrases in Henry V is theatrical, and in 300, realistic, so that's another reason.

[redbaron]

Kristiina

I suggest it's rather that Henry V is being ENFj, and Leonidas, ISTj, so Leonidas impresses you more

Sure, the acting and phrases in Henry V is theatrical, and in 300, realistic, so that's another reason.

I FAR prefer Henry. Probably also because of the music and theatricality. Also b/c I adore KB. He was also merry, as you pointed out before. It wasn't just the intensity and decisiveness. He was laughing in the face of danger, practically thrilled to be there.

[Blaze]

i agree with kristiina....leonides represents better IMO. perhaps because of realism or more Se not sure about this but overall it seems more beta to me than the other one.

btw kristiina, even before i viewed those 2 videos, i was thinking that they would be the ones you chose! weird, i guess great minds think alike, no? lol

[Kristiina]

i agree with kristiina....leonides represents better IMO. perhaps because of realism or more Se not sure about this but overall it seems more beta to me than the other one.

btw kristiina, even before i viewed those 2 videos, i was thinking that they would be the ones you chose! weird, i guess great minds think alike, no? lol

lol. indeed!

[guest32456]

Dear all,

I have been trying to understand more about Beta Quadra values in real life, with examples before my eyes, rather than theoretical descriptions or with Babelfish translations of Russian documents, which I tend to find more confusing than helpful. Since this clip is a “perfect illustration” of Beta values (and I respect Expat’s judgement on this), could somebody please explain where you can see the Beta-ness in this clip?

For example, where is the Aristocracy, Decisiveness and Merriness? The Fe, Ni, Se and Ti? Danger, sad side, self-destruction?

For these questions, I can make educated guesses. Guesses can be wrong or incomplete, but I’ll take the plunge and just write down what ‘intuitively’ comes to mind:

For instance, there is the idea of being special, more noble and honourable, than the gentleman at home who will think themselves “accurs’d” that they were not there. The idea of a “band of brothers” who will stand up and do the right thing. The idea of showing their scars with pride, or being going down in history as brave and courageous. The music and sense of grandeur and noble purpose (which, incidentally, reminded me of some scenes of Lord of the Rings which I really like). The idea of fighting, not going quietly, and the idea of being obedient to God and doing his will.

Am I am the right lines at all?

Kind regards,

[XoX]

I like videos They make a more visual description of types and quadras than just text. Of course this kind of small clips trivialize the matter. I can see how Kristiina's video is Beta. More in the side. Expat's video is perhaps more in the side of Beta. Neither of those made an especially strong impression on me. First one was too "light" and "naive" (somewhat same what Kristiina said) and second one was too plain "brutal" (it didn't seem heroic but evil to me). Although I liked the epic "mood" in both I didn't quite like the details.

It is hard to find good videos (especially videos with a speech). However after a short search here are five videos which I like and which touch a different part of me.

The touches the "realistic" part of me. I still get inspiration from these two speeches. Especially the first one. By inspiration I mean they energize me when I need energy to accomplish something.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0JsPXg-e1s[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ose_UfL2SGs[/youtube]

This touches the "mystical" part of me. The first 35 seconds are especially great with the speaker and usic but the rest is ok too.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr_i2w0W-ZM[/youtube]

Here are a couple trailers of movies where I like the general theme and the main characters (which are a bit similar).
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQHAAb7H7VQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE4YOiYLc2Q[/youtube]

Can you analyze these videos a bit and perhaps see what they have in common in socionics sense (if anything). What ideas or feelings do they raise in you? Who else gets inspiration from this kind of stuff? Who thinks they are lame and boring?

[Expat]

For example, where is the Aristocracy, Decisiveness and Merriness? The Fe, Ni, Se and Ti? Danger, sad side, self-destruction?

Aristocracy: pretty much what you said:

For instance, there is the idea of being special, more noble and honourable, than the gentleman at home who will think themselves “accurs’d” that they were not there. The idea of a “band of brothers” who will stand up and do the right thing.

Also, in the beginning of Henry V's speech, when he says that anyone who doesn't want to fight, may depart; he doesn't want to fight alongside anyone who fears to die with them.

Decisiveness: pretty much throughout, since the whole thing is about getting worked up for a fight, but especially in sentences like "all things are ready, if your minds be so" and the whole bit after that.

Merriness, or Fe: the whole bit about raising everyone's emotions and making them feel as a part of a special group, also when Henry calls out the name of his close ones as those who "will be remembered".

Ni: the whole idea that whatever they do there, it will be worth it because of the effect it will have on the future. The here-and-now is less important than the big-picture and future implications, also the point of Leonidas's speech in the first clip Kristiina posted.

Se: the whole point of winning, of they being later people before whom others will feel inferior, the references to showing scars, saying "that's how tough I am, and you're not".

Self-destruction: well, he's using Fe, Ni, Aristocracy, and all the rest -- for what? To mobilize his men for a battle that, under no realistic appraisal, they would have a chance of winning. Similar to Leonidas, only he and his men knew they would die. When the French herald appears, what Henry V gives him is a lot of bragging, in effect.

That is the characteristic of Beta, and of ENFj in particular -- great risks, based more on Ni and Fe than on realistic appraisal of the situation. Great victories and achievements, until one day the lack of realism leads to failure and self-destruction.

[Expat]

Can you analyze these videos a bit and perhaps see what they have in common in socionics sense (if anything). What ideas or feelings do they raise in you? Who else gets inspiration from this kind of stuff? Who thinks they are lame and boring?

They are all about Se, but Se with a "higher meaning" than just, say, beating someone up or just defeating the enemy right in front of you, which is the "brutality" of the 300 clip.

They are all Se with a Ni "perspective" and a lot of Aristocracy, with the exception of the Batman Begins clip. They're "Se with a vision". Churchill's speeches are the best example. For those who like the +/- notation, it's about - rather than + .

The LOTR's first 35 seconds speech is more about pure Ni.

[guest32456]

Dear XoX,

I agree with you that Leonidas was too brutal in his treatment of the messenger.

With reference to your videos, they didn't really spark off anything -- although I enjoyed The Last Samurai for the main character's personal journey, development and spiritual search, which resonated with me. Possibly, that is, as Expat puts it, my Se with a higher vision. Churchill's speech was not quite my cup of tea -- if I wanted a battle speech, I'd take Aragorn's in Return of the King (see below), possibly the Henry V clip, and the bit in one of your clips where the Last Alliances marches "against the armies of Mordor" to "fight for the freedom of Middle-Earth".


Dear Expat,

Many thanks for the very useful post. I can identify with some of this stuff -- the heroism behind it all.

One question that I did have, was that, when I was writing my 'intuitive' thoughts about the clip, did I 'naturally' identify Beta traits? If so, is that a symptom of being a Beta (or ISTj), to be able to identify your quadra like that?

One further point is, when I referred Lord of the Rings scenes, I was thinking of the following:

• Final battle in Fellowship of the Ring when Aragorn cries "Elendil!" and leaps down into the orcs
  Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli racing to save their friends in Two Towers even when it seems hopeless (possibly Ni?)
  Return of the King sequence where the sword is reforged and Gandalf reaches Minas Tirith, and later when the beacons are lit
  Aragorn leading the army out of Minas Tirith to the Black Gate, his speech, and his charge into the orcs, in Return of the King (again, Ni?)
  Legolas and Gimli speaking to each other about dying together (possibly)

Are these scenes Beta-ish? Come to think of it, as many of them involve Aragorn (the sword reforging sequence might be Se with a vision/Ni), is Aragorn (as depicted in the movies) Beta-ish?


Kindly,

[Expat]

Brief reply:

is Aragorn (as depicted in the movies) Beta-ish?

No, he's Gamma-ish.

[guest32456]

I'm watching the Branagh version of Henry V now, and I'm also reading the play.

Interestingly, my reaction to the play has changed from enjoying it to a new perspective:

He warns of the dangers of war to the Messenger in the second scene, but then does not hesitate to go to war himself.

Henry toys with the three traitors, and he shows them no mercy. In the Branagh version, when there are tears in his eyes in this scene, he seems even slightly mad.

His speech before Agincourt is interesting, because it seems that he is making a powerful speech with hypocrisy, without confronting the moral issues that he faces as king - namely, what right does he to send common men to die for a cause they might well not hold? Upon whose head does the sin fall? He seems to hold to the notion that men are responsible to themselves, but his justification for it seems hollow.

And, even if they did believe in a cause, Henry's claim to France is nothing; the Branagh version stages it to suggest that Henry knows that his claim to France is suspect but can be proved by roundabout argument.

And they are not a "band of brothers". Just take Nym, Bardolph, and Pistol - they do not occupy the moral high ground. They see the war as an opportunity to become richer.

Finally, when Henry talks to Katherine, he is being really un-genuine. He essentially says "I can't speak words to illustrate my love, but, if I could, this is what I would say ..."


Of course, there is some good stuff in it. But part of me finds it difficult to believe that Henry is intended to embody all the kingly virtues, such as honour, bravery, righteousness and justice.

Interesting stuff.

Kindly,

[sigma]

why do I like this one:



I don't identify with this approach but it kinda hits home.

[Ezra]

[ScarlettLux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhUZGX4T0s

*drools unabashedly*

[guest32456]

His speech before Agincourt is interesting, because it seems that he is making a powerful speech with hypocrisy, without confronting the moral issues that he faces as king - namely, what right does he to send common men to die for a cause they might well not hold?

Having thought this through a little more, I realise that, in my opinion, I would only go to war for a morally righteous cause. Even then, I might have problems with my conscience - what right, if I were a leader, do I have to send people to die? The only thing that I could think of would be if the cause demanded it.

The example that springs to mind is one that I have already mentioned, which is when the races of Middle-Earth put aside their difference to fight against a common evil, and march "against the armies of Mordor" to "fight for the freedom of Middle-Earth".

Trouble is, there are very rarely good vs. evil cases in the world. I remember once thinking that the only way I would have a clear conscience in war would be to be a medic of some kind; but, even then, if I save a man's life, he goes and kills 10 enemy soldiers and then gets killed himself, does that not mean that I have the lives of 11 men on my head?

[Expat]

He seems to hold to the notion that men are responsible to themselves, but his justification for it seems hollow.

No, that bit of the discussion was about the men's souls, not their lives. If a man dies in battle, in sin, without having confessed (or even prayed before dying) - that is not the king's responsibility. That was Henry's point.

[Expat]

Having thought this through a little more, I realise that, in my opinion, I would only go to war for a morally righteous cause. Even then, I might have problems with my conscience - what right, if I were a leader, do I have to send people to die? The only thing that I could think of would be if the cause demanded it.

The example that springs to mind is one that I have already mentioned, which is when the races of Middle-Earth put aside their difference to fight against a common evil, and march "against the armies of Mordor" to "fight for the freedom of Middle-Earth".

Trouble is, there are very rarely good vs. evil cases in the world. I remember once thinking that the only way I would have a clear conscience in war would be to be a medic of some kind; but, even then, if I save a man's life, he goes and kills 10 enemy soldiers and then gets killed himself, does that not mean that I have the lives of 11 men on my head?

The only answer I can give is to quote Sherman: War is hell.

[guest32456]

Having just watched the Alexander movie clip, it strikes me as being a big load of posturing. Whether that's because of Oliver Stone's directing or something else, I don't know.

No, that bit of the discussion was about the men's souls, not their lives. If a man dies in battle, in sin, without having confessed (or even prayed before dying) - that is not the king's responsibility. That was Henry's point.

Ah, I see. Thank you, Expat.

Cultural relativism, what can I say? I was seeing it from the point of view of my own beliefs. To change my argument slightly, then, Henry does not address the fact that he is putting them in the situation where they need to confess, and need to confront the "war is hell" reality. But, then again, maybe in Shakespeare's time this was not much considered.

[guest32456]

The only answer I can give is to quote Sherman: War is hell.

I can't comment, as I've never been in a war.

But, for me, the idea of having to forego my spiritual interests (because I would be using my time for other things), and being forced to take away the most precious possession that anybody possess - his or her life - that would certainly be hell to go through. Especially if it were not for a righteous or compassionate cause.

[Expat]

Well, since medieval kings were God's representatives on Earth - and I think a great many of them did believe that - to make sure that France was ruled by her rightful king, in that case Henry V - would have been a righteous cause, from his point of view.

[Expat]

Having just watched the Alexander movie clip, it strikes me as being a big load of posturing. Whether that's because of Oliver Stone's directing or something else, I don't know.

Yep. I think Oliver Stone is IEI, and the historical Alex was SLE -- but Ollie portrayed him as a sort of EIE-IEI hybrid, so the "posturing" you are seeing is the higher focus on Fe than on Se.

[guest32456]

Well, since medieval kings were God's representatives on Earth - and I think a great many of them did believe that - to make sure that France was ruled by her rightful king, in that case Henry V - would have been a righteous cause, from his point of view.

True, but:

1) Shakespeare seems to be deliberately taking advantage of this, especially if, like Branagh does, we take an anti-war slant - the Agincourt battle-scene seems to emphasise the horrors of war. I also wonder whether Shakespeare, by having the case for France proposed by the Archbishop, who has other motives for going to war, is subverting the idea of a 'righteous war'.

2) The Branagh version seems to imply that Henry is aware of the hollowness of his claim. When the Archbishop explains the problems concerning Salique, he finishes and declares that, this being clear (and all laugh), then Henry is the rightful king of France. The fact that the council is laughing at this joke implies some sort of knowledge of hollowness.

But, hey, I'm no Shakespeare expert

[guest32456]

PS - Good point about Oliver Stone

[Expat]

True, but:

1) Shakespeare seems to be deliberately taking advantage of this, especially if, like Branagh does, we take an anti-war slant - the Agincourt battle-scene seems to emphasise the horrors of war. I also wonder whether Shakespeare, by having the case for France proposed by the Archbishop, who has other motives for going to war, is subverting the idea of a 'righteous war'.

2) The Branagh version seems to imply that Henry is aware of the hollowness of his claim. When the Archbishop explains the problems concerning Salique, he finishes and declares that, this being clear (and all laugh), then Henry is the rightful king of France. The fact that the council is laughing at this joke implies some sort of knowledge of hollowness.

But, hey, I'm no Shakespeare expert

Henry V - the play - is (I guess deliberately) ambiguous. Yes, you have those references to the bishops pushing for the war, but later they are not mentioned again. And that bit where they list the legal arguments for Henry's claim to the French throne is made to be funny, but in fact, if you read it, the arguments are historical (basically that the Salic Law argument was bullshit). By the end of the play, I don't think anyone remembers those things (which may have been Shakespeare's intention).

And throughout Henry is clearly portrayed as a model of the warrior king, even if war, itself, is shown as something less than nice.

Likewise, the play ends with Henry's victory - but also with the Chorus commenting that it all came apart under Henry VI.

So, I think it's a mistake to read it only one way.

[guest32456]

Henry V - the play - is (I guess deliberately) ambiguous. Yes, you have those references to the bishops pushing for the war, but later they are not mentioned again. And that bit where they list the legal arguments for Henry's claim to the French throne is made to be funny, but in fact, if you read it, the arguments are historical (basically that the Salic Law argument was bullshit). By the end of the play, I don't think anyone remembers those things (which may have been Shakespeare's intention).

And throughout Henry is clearly portrayed as a model of the warrior king, even if war, itself, is shown as something less than nice.

Likewise, the play ends with Henry's victory - but also with the Chorus commenting that it all came apart under Henry VI.

So, I think it's a mistake to read it only one way.

Good points all round, Expat.

To be honest, though, I can't see why I find it difficult to see Henry as "a model of the warrior king". I think it's because I dislike the notion of a warrior-king itself, because of the lack of morality and spirituality I instinctively associate with it.

I also can't see why I find it difficult to see the war as possibly being righteous - maybe my response to the play is based on my instinctive emotional response and not any logical argument. For example, the play ends with a victory, true, but I find myself drawn to how the victory itself seems hollow even without the Chorus's words - the children are dead, Henry toys coldly and almost sadistically with the traitors, he hasn't fully dealt with the moral issues of war, and, despite his dignified and brave language, no substantial victory for the greater good has been won. The idea of a divine right of kings is, arguably, taking one Bible verse and using it to justify so much more than it was originally intended to do - and who cares if the Salic Law is rubbish and you gain the kingship of France if you cause so many to suffer and lose your soul in the process? (And now I'm running out of arguments)

I understand your arguments, Expat, and part of the staying power of Shakespeare is how he writes ambiguous plays ... but, nonetheless, Henry V provokes this reaction in me.

I guess maybe Shakespeare's plays are what you make of them - "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" (Hamlet II.ii)

[UDP]

Yep. I think Oliver Stone is IEI, and the historical Alex was SLE -- but Ollie portrayed him as a sort of EIE-IEI hybrid, so the "posturing" you are seeing is the higher focus on Fe than on Se.

Ugh. I see flashes of the speech of certain people that make me roll my eyes and wonder to myself "my goodness, these people can't be taken in by this (person's) way of speaking...".

[Wittmont]

Colin Farrell as Alexander was a casting mistake of epic proportions. No comment against him as an actor or anything but his personal vibe just isn't that of a leader in battle.

Interesting thread this. I agree with Henry V being very beta and that speech in the youtube clip before the battle of Agincourt is quite stirring to me (Branagh himself is a bit too wimpy perhaps but he does understand what Shakespeare was going for).

On the other hand I always thought Aragorn's speech to inspire his troops in the LoTR movie was very meh. If he was leading me into battle with such 'inspirational' battle rallies he might get a weak 'wooo' out of me I by far preferred King Theoden's words and approach. I loved the part where he rides along the line and rattles his sword against the lances of his men. And when he screamed 'Death' three times he had me ready to charge from my seat lol.

Maybe Rohan is beta, and Gondor Gamma?

[Ezra]

Alexander was an SLE, but he was an EIE-IEI hybrid in the film; that's a stupid idea. Maybe EIE, but certainly not IEI. Far too restless and rhinoesque (to use XoX's metaphor) to be anything like an IEI.

On the other hand I always thought Aragorn's speech to inspire his troops in the LoTR movie was very meh.

I agree.

Maybe Rohan is beta, and Gondor Gamma?

Perhaps. Rohan is the most favourable bunch in LoTR in my opinion; the people I'd most like to live as (Elves are far too floaty and ethereal for my liking. Plus, everyone loves them). Gondor is just shit. I'm not too keen on them. Their armour isn't cool enough.



This, however, is like a Spartan/Viking hybrid. Fucking awesome.



I still think Aragorn the Ranger was the best outfit out of everyone. He went shitter and shitter (and gayer) as the films progressed.


Yes mate. It's all about that look.


Fair enough, but...


Ooh. He's finally lost it. No more ruggedness for the ladies.

[guest32456]

Interesting thread this. I agree with Henry V being very beta and that speech in the youtube clip before the battle of Agincourt is quite stirring to me (Branagh himself is a bit too wimpy perhaps but he does understand what Shakespeare was going for).

I think I initially found Branagh’s speech somewhat stirring, but certainly not now that I am aware of the context. For example, I am now aware that he is not so 'clear-cut' a model of morality as I thought he was when I first saw it.

On the other hand I always thought Aragorn's speech to inspire his troops in the LoTR movie was very meh. If he was leading me into battle with such 'inspirational' battle rallies he might get a weak 'wooo' out of me I by far preferred King Theoden's words and approach. I loved the part where he rides along the line and rattles his sword against the lances of his men. And when he screamed 'Death' three times he had me ready to charge from my seat lol.

Maybe Rohan is beta, and Gondor Gamma?

I actually didn't particularly like Theoden's speech. His initial bit, about a "sword day", is good; but the whole thing about striking the spears and shouting "death" just doesn't quite work for me. (I can remember thinking about how the guy who just missed out on his spear being hit would feel like)

Aragorn's speech is OK, but its the context for me that gives it its power - they are not meant to win this battle. One of the most moving moments in Return of the King, for me, was when the army sets out from Gondor knowing that they are heading for death, but they will do so out of love for good and "for Frodo".

(In an earlier post, Expat said that he thinks that Aragorn is Gamma.)