|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 8:39:19 GMT -5
Another thing to note is that Lex has asked Ben questions with binarisms which Ben has answered "both, well, both AND..." It's very common with Ni third (and sometimes fourth) to try to 'prematurely collapse' to access Ni, which shows up as binarism--which can become cartoonish at times. Precisely such archetype templates as good v. evil. An N dom is going to instinctively push back on this. Not just Ne dom--though as Ne, Ben does so quite elegantly and succinctly, showing his own Ni unignoring. He goes right to the heart of it and dismantles the legitimacy of binarism post haste. But I think this is in part because he knows Lex is still very receptive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2021 9:06:42 GMT -5
How are you using 'interfacer' @ash ? What makes all those people double interfacers? ( vincent has his own use here in the kingdom). The way vincent uses it. I had some initial opposition to putting tertiary above dom, but it could be said that even though dom is stronger than both 3rd and 6th, it is not as broad. That is to say, a dom usually substitutes 8th in all necessary situations, leading to an under-development of 8th. This means that a dom's orientation(? | i.e. Ji, Je, Pe, Pi) is highly specialized(to one of the 8 functions). However, since tertiary and 6th are not the premise and cannot exclusively cover the whole spectrum individually, it could be argued that instead, both of them are used, continually compensating each other. The up-side to this would be the covering of the entire orientation spectrum, at the cost of a weaker use of each differentiated pole (e.g. whole Pe, but relatively weaker at exclusive Ne or Se). In situations such as running for office, there is a high need of both appealing and communicating with 'the crowd' and solving the state-wide issues an individual must resolve, such as homelessness or taxes. The most fitting for such a job of continuous communication and actual, real-world problem-solving seems to align with a double interfacer the most, which could be a reason as to why they could gravitate to such a position.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 9:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 5, 2021 9:28:18 GMT -5
Meh. That exchange has other stuff in it and ends with Lex laughing heartily. A feat in and of itself to illicit that from him, I'd guess. 'Ne' isn't just about ideas.
Oh yes, Lex does laugh heartily, and i agree it's quite a feat.
And he will laugh again, pretty much up to the end of the video iirc.
I said "not quite seamless" because i found Ben a bit dismissive of Lex's attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 9:37:15 GMT -5
From 55'56" to 56'30" seems like the first time Lex tries to assert himself and 'take the stage'. He wants Ben to talk about the history of his 'community'.
It's really easy to think Lex could be Se PolR at times like these. Like an FiNe. After all....if this is assertion....but let's remember Se itself can be squiggly and squirmy, moving snakelike all over the place, and 'community' is actually about Fe. Lex seems to me to be very, very Fe seeking (and finding).
(And I suspect this extreme Fe-seeking is going to somehow cause tension with 'seamless' receiving of Ben's Ne. A question of split focus. Ben v. the fanz.)
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 9:49:15 GMT -5
Meh. That exchange has other stuff in it and ends with Lex laughing heartily. A feat in and of itself to illicit that from him, I'd guess. 'Ne' isn't just about ideas.
Oh yes, Lex does laugh heartily, and i agree it's quite a feat.
And he will laugh again, pretty much up to the end of the video iirc.
I said "not quite seamless" because i found Ben a bit dismissive of Lex's attempt.
Oh, yes, I definitely agree with this. And it happens repeatedly. It's like every time Lex does start generating his own new ideas directly from what Ben proffers, Ben shoots him down a little too much too quickly. It's like there is an invisible carrot and stick Ben holds but the thing is Lex continues to chuckle throughout (at least up to where I am) like he doesn't mind the stick. So since we don't get to see Lex disappointed, feeling rebuffed, I thought maybe he's not? But I have noted elsewhere how parallels between benefit pairs (Lex should be my benefactor) are not talked about much. But they do exist and when I see this absolute value Ni, Ne PolR with Fe inferior and Fi role dealing with supervisor NeTi, I feel for Lex, I really do. Because Ben would also be 'too fast' for me to articulate my thoughts in such an exchange. But Lex just keeps laughing. Maybe feeling rebuffed is slowly building up anyway....
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 5, 2021 9:57:35 GMT -5
It seems to me that by around 37', Lex is really going deep into 'Fi' but he still appears to be earnestly asking Ben to explain why we are the way we are, and oc Ben's explanations are evolutionary. I don't see any reverse supervision yet. I agree it's not reverse supervision, in that sense that Lex keeps letting Ben slide and dodges the 'Fi'.
But at this point, it's not a successfull and balanced supervision dynamic anymore either.
Because Ben isn't quite rewarding Lex enough for his efforts, and because Ben isn't really receptive to Lex's Fi role "aura".
When supervision is at its best, the supervisee doesn't even have to try hard and assertively to have an impact on the supervisor's polr.
This keeps not happening here imo.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 10:00:27 GMT -5
This keep not happening here imo.
No, he doesn't reward him enough and it sears my soul. But then as I said just above, I think, well maybe Lex is okay with it since he keeps chuckling. But tbh it hurts me to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 10:09:54 GMT -5
Another thing to note is that Lex has asked Ben questions with binarisms which Ben has answered "both, well, both AND..." It's very common with Ni third (and sometimes fourth) to try to 'prematurely collapse' to access Ni, which shows up as binarism--which can become cartoonish at times. Precisely such archetype templates as good v. evil. An N dom is going to instinctively push back on this. Not just Ne dom--though as Ne, Ben does so quite elegantly and succinctly, showing his own Ni unignoring. He goes right to the heart of it and dismantles the legitimacy of binarism post haste. But I think this is in part because he knows Lex is still very receptive.tbc I don't think the dismantling of the binarisms was done in a dismissive way. Even saying 'good and evil' is 'stupid in a way' would be fine--since it shows Ben feels Lex can 'handle' it, because they are intellectual 'equals', in that sense it's almost like a reward...
except that the problem really is the lack of carrot more than the use of stick per se. Like " yes, it IS very interesting to consider Nietzsche intuiting AGI and I already looked for this in him but I don't think it's there" kind of thing...that would be carrot...
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 5, 2021 10:12:14 GMT -5
Oh, yes, I definitely agree with this. And it happens repeatedly. It's like every time Lex does start generating his own new ideas directly from what Ben proffers, Ben shoots him down a little too much too quickly.
Yes, that's exactly what i was getting at. Posts crossed.
Well, maybe he is not. But the thing is, Lex has a special relationship with pain and punishment, so to speak.
And iirc he will actually try to "confess" and speak about it toward the end... only to be interrupted by Ben.
Yes, i'm pretty sure Lex's is your benefactor and i absolutely agree that parallels between benefit pairs aren't talked about enough.
For me, as my activity partner, Lex kind of feels like a little brother. I feel for him too.
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 10:21:47 GMT -5
Another thing to note is that Lex has asked Ben questions with binarisms which Ben has answered "both, well, both AND..." It's very common with Ni third (and sometimes fourth) to try to 'prematurely collapse' to access Ni, which shows up as binarism--which can become cartoonish at times. Precisely such archetype templates as good v. evil. An N dom is going to instinctively push back on this. Not just Ne dom--though as Ne, Ben does so quite elegantly and succinctly, showing his own Ni unignoring. He goes right to the heart of it and dismantles the legitimacy of binarism post haste. But I think this is in part because he knows Lex is still very receptive.Now I am asking myself, how much of this is Ni unignoring and how much is Te demonstrative? After all, NeTi is the Debater. (Though the people who came up with that name probably never correctly typed an intellectual SeTi... )
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 10:23:28 GMT -5
I need to keep watching!
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 5, 2021 10:32:28 GMT -5
Another thing to note is that Lex has asked Ben questions with binarisms which Ben has answered "both, well, both AND..." It's very common with Ni third (and sometimes fourth) to try to 'prematurely collapse' to access Ni, which shows up as binarism--which can become cartoonish at times. Precisely such archetype templates as good v. evil. An N dom is going to instinctively push back on this. Not just Ne dom--though as Ne, Ben does so quite elegantly and succinctly, showing his own Ni unignoring. He goes right to the heart of it and dismantles the legitimacy of binarism post haste. But I think this is in part because he knows Lex is still very receptive.
I agree Ben's reaction to Lex's binarism is the one any N dom would probably have.
And i also agree he dismantles them elegantly and succintly because he knows Lex is very receptive.
But... i suspect he also does it because he knows Lex is still vulnerable. And as a way to protect his own Fi polr.
I mean, it's one thing to dismantle binarisms to make room to deeper understanding. It's another thing to dismantle binarisms to dissolve them into relativism and replace them with nothing.
With the Nature vs Nurture binarism, Ben starts with "both" but quickly moves from evolutionary framework to what sounds like moral relativism to me.
With the Good vs Evil binarism, it ultimately culminates with "humans are jerks".
In this case, the reward could be a simple, basic acknowledgement that the question remains and matters, even (and especially) after the dissolution of binaries.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Jun 5, 2021 10:38:48 GMT -5
Now I am asking myself, how much of this is Ni unignoring and how much is Te demonstrative? After all, NeTi is the Debater.
Yes exactly. (post crossed again)
Right...
|
|
|
Post by Roshan on Jun 5, 2021 10:47:51 GMT -5
With the Nature vs Nurture binarism, Ben starts with "both" but quickly moves from evolutionary framework to what sounds like moral relativism to me.
With the Good vs Evil binarism, it ultimately culminates with "humans are jerks".
In this case, the reward could be a simple, basic acknowledgement that the question remains and matters, even (and especially) after the dissolution of binaries.
Well, that's the thing...after I wrote that I realized that on the deepest substantive level the question of good and evil perennially remains. The first time I watched I really disliked Ben. This time I am probably being a bit too lenient with him, and this is because Lex keeps chuckling, I think. I'm giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to Ben. But tbc about what's really not happening here, a truly high Fi user would have questioned why Ben is talking about a pill to extend human life indefinitely in his hypothetical prioritization of resource allocation when he knows he steps over people in the gutter in Addis Ababa, whether he gives them money or not, asking: is it not possible our mortality is precisely what gives our lives meaning, AND who will decide who gets this pill and who doesn't? To be fair Ben prioritizes 'AGI' over this pill, because AGI will...well...it will solve everything...but still, while it's in the process of solving everything...who decides...?
|
|