Ne vs Se Trickery

Yes, they have overlap with each other. Ne and Se are branches of Pe, so most of their traits have a parallel version in one another.

I've definitely known Ne jokesters, but they're of a different sort. It's as if their jokes are more pun-ish, witty/corny and relatively benign. And although smaller in range, they can have a much higher frequency rate than Se jokes. I had an Ne-heavy Ne-lead friend for years who could be very overwhelming. He'd focus a lot on things like wordplay, and messes around with (mental) puzzles and confusing people sometimes with unexpected interpretations or tangential correlations.

Se constellates the trickster archetype far more completely because of it's immediate immersion into the physical space, and so its jokes are often directly connected to the physical space. And if they're verbal, they still relate to the physical in some way. This makes them more edgy, daring and of a much more acute impact usually.

edit: yea! cheesumpuffs essentially captured it there.

Auburn Do you have any examples of people (other than the ones in the database), specifically Se-doms, who are Se jesters?

I've been thinking that comedian Eric André is an Ne jester (either way, Pe-dom).



(Some "jester" parts from the vid above: 11:40-12:19, 13:40-14:08, 15:43-16:16, 16:48-17:08, 17:27-17:56)



puffs Would you say that you can relate to his way of joking around?

Man, it's actually kind of a bummer to see how Larry and Eric have kind of shut down on each other by the end. I think they could have a pretty cool discourse. Like, I really relate to him at 18:45 when he finally goes "what do you want from me man?" (also, bonus goof there in responding "what is catch a tiger by the tail" to "what is a high horse")

But yeah, I do really like Eric Andre's style/show. Every now and then when he starts improvising I think he has a tendency to draw from the same well (Justin Roiland does a similar thing) and after awhile his "wackiness" does begin to feel a tad predictable and derivative. But on the whole yeah, I really love his style

The bits that stood out to me as what I would do are:
14:18-14:27 - "it's like you're filling out a medical form"
A bit snippier and more seemingly aggressive than I would've played it (Te/Fi likely playing a part), but the comparison/game of it is the same. It's a moment he takes to pretend that Larry's some medical bureaucrat in a way to humorously examine the kind of unfeeling disconnect he thinks Larry's sticking to the cards is creating. (I think that's a big part of Ne. I see Ne as something that a lot of the time is seeking to find a convenient metaphor for any given situation with which it can use to gain perspective/insight/understanding, and I think those "Ne parodies" that happen are essentially the Ne user trying to recreate that metaphor physically as best as possible in order to bring that perspective to others who may not have quite made the connection in the same way.)
15:05 - "i knew gene autry personally, he was my godfather"
Oh man, my dad gets mad at me for doing this kind of thing all the time. The immediate reaction to say something outlandish and obviously untrue, but still mundane enough that the listener goes "is that true?" is kind of the same moment as the one I described where a part of the universe (larry) has to take a moment to seriously reconsider another aspect of the universe that he'd either never considered before, or hadn't considered from that particular angle/with that particular context. My dad puts up a big stink when I do that because "it's lying" and "lying is rude" and "you're rude, derek" but it's only a lie and rude if i make you make decisions based off of the falsehood. If we spend a few seconds with you thinking gene autry is my godfather no one's actually affected by it. It's a game. A small play we're acting out, if only for a moment. We're going to pretend that *this* is the way the world is!
15:28 "who did 311? "i dont know what youre talking about, man"
For anyone who hasn't seen his show, 311 is a joke from there ("Reinvestigate 311" as a play on 9/11), so if *anyone* is going to know what that means, it's Eric. Eric can tell at this point though that Larry hasn't seen the show. Larry knows the highlights, from his research, but he won't know this joke. Eric also knows that Larry's sick of his shit and Eric, at this point, is clearly making very little effort to maintain a non-obfuscated conversation. What an opportunity! He can make Larry feel like his time is being wasted *even more* and also entertain himself by pretending he doesn't get his own joke.

And then towards the end he says this stuff:
"I've always wanted to kill myself on stage. . . wouldn't it be cool to see someone's head explode? like not in a depressing way, in an exciting way."
"bed of nails would be like the god damn cirque du soleil"
I've definitely said stuff like this and it, again, shows that mindset I mentioned in my earlier post where it takes something considered "bad" and presents it absurdly in such a way that it attempts to bring joy and excitement into the world. It's a (conceptual) effort to make someone value life through the absurdity of death.


I love the way he and Hannibal play off each other, too:

When I think of "trickster" my first association is characters from folklore and mythology: Jackrabbit, Raven, Coyote (which of course Wile E. Coyote was based on), Br'er Rabbit, Dionysus, Loki, etc. It seems like a lot of these sort of figures are involved in gags that are quite physical, unsophisticated, destructive and at times mean spirited--i.e. they are actually rather like Jackass in some ways. Mythological tricksters are described as almost universally solitary, socially marginal and as blurring the boundary between good and evil, life and death, human and animal. The point of the tricks is partly for humor...but their physical and taboo-breaking nature is partly because these tricksters commonly play roles like creator, destroyer and culture-hero. In other words, they're commonly the catalysts in stories about how the world came to be the way it is.

I don't find Jackass particularly funny, but I think I can maybe relate to where the humor is coming from. For instance, I often make jokes about dark or traumatic events happening, I think as a way of acknowledging that they might happen, and trying to come to terms with the possibility. I wonder if those aspects of trickster humor (and maybe slapstick in general) plays sort of a similar role: present traumatic or chaotic events in an absurd, decontextualized way so that they are more palatable.

I've always related at least a little bit to this idea of trickster as well, despite having a pretty serious/slow disposition in some ways. A big part of my sense of humor involves relating made-up stories or facts in a deadpan voice and seeing if I can get people I know to believe them. Or sometimes getting people to do absurd things. Like I once talked a girl I was dating into ordering a brandy with mustard (but then I ruined it because I couldn't contain my laughter). Fortunately she thought it was hilarious. However, I've definitely noticed that some people enjoy having these sorts of jokes played on them more than others. I myself usually quite enjoy having gags of this sort played on me. When I worked at a slate quarry ten or twelve years ago, one of my coworkers once sent me running around frantically to find a "rock stretcher."

By the way, I feel like having moments of gullibility and falling victim to jokes, schemes, etc., is also a common attribute of tricksters. This is why I can see the Wile E. Coyote-trickster thing, although roadrunner seems tricksterish to me, too.


Ooh, sounds interesting! I'll check it out.

^^ This. Except I can be serious and stuffy. I feel like I bully Se into being more serious but also want to free overly serious people. I definitely appreciate the trickster archetype, though I'm a bit more of a devil's advocate myself. Dave Chappell is a good trickster, as he's trying to teach a lesson with his comedy. SeTi/TiSe does that a lot with social roles, and I think Fi tpes do that with ethical positions. 

Essentially: "Why do you believe what you believe? Why do you do what you do?" If you have a good basis for it, fine. If not, live and let live.