manipulation

[cosmicflow]

which personality type that is easily manipulated (emotionally)? and why ?

 

[washti]

MYFATHER esfp

 

[k9a4b]

Feelers because they lack logic and sensors because they lack knowledge.

 

[Hadoblado]

Si doms lack knowledge?

You know emotion plays a strong role in memory encoding right?

 

[Black Rose]

Si doms lack knowledge?

You know emotion plays a strong role in memory encoding right?

Si, is related to emotion?

 

[k9a4b]

Intuition is knowledge. It's the conception of reality that you have built up in your mind.

 

[Reluctantly]

Si, is related to emotion?

http://www.memory-key.com/memory/emotion

...​

An investigation of autobiographical memories found that positive memories contained more sensorial and contextual details than neutral or negative memories (which didn't significantly differ from each other in this regard). This was true regardless of individual's personal coping styles.

• Emotionally charged events are remembered better
• Pleasant emotions are usually remembered better than unpleasant ones
• Positive memories contain more contextual details (which in turn, helps memory)
• Strong emotion can impair memory for less emotional events and information experienced at the same time
• It's the emotional arousal, not the importance of the information, that helps memory

...​

The effect of mood
Another aspect of emotion is mood - your emotional state at the time of encoding or retrieving. There has been quite a lot of research on the effect of mood on memory. It is clear that mood affects what is noticed and encoded. This is reflected in two (similar but subtly different) effects:

• mood congruence: whereby we remember events that match our current mood (thus, when we're depressed, we tend to remember negative events), and
• mood dependence: which refers to the fact that remembering is easier when your mood at retrieval matches your mood at encoding (thus, your chances of remembering an event or fact are greater if you evoke the emotional state you were in at the time of experiencing the event or learning the fact).

...​

• Remembering is easier when your mood matches the mood you were in when experiencing/learning the information
• The stronger the emotions aroused, the greater the effect on memory
• Emotions can be evoked, or minimized, by displaying or suppressing expressions of emotion
• Different emotional states may impair or help memory, for different memory tasks

Given how sentimental Si can be, yes, yes it is.

 

[Black Rose]

So Si knows stuff because emotions embed it.
Is not Judgment what would be used for manipulation since Judgment is Rational.
Feeling is rational since Feeling and Thinking are forms of Rationalizations.
Manipulation can be rational.

 

[Reluctantly]

I don't know. I just think of it as memory being related to emotional peaks/lows, something visceral, and is embedded with sensing as a result.

On the other hand, feeling as a rational function focuses on what those peaks/lows mean on a personal level (introverted), or what to do with them on an objective level (extroverted). I really think it's that simple. But eh, I don't know, whatever I guess.

 

[k9a4b]

I don't know. I just think of it as memory being related to emotional peaks/lows, something visceral, and is embedded with sensing as a result.

On the other hand, feeling as a rational function focuses on what those peaks/lows mean on a personal level (introverted), or what to do with them on an objective level (extroverted). I really think it's that simple. But eh, I don't know, whatever I guess.

I think of memory being related to emotion so related to feeling

Observing reality but feeling no emotion while doing so will not create memories

 

[Hadoblado]

Si, is related to emotion?

Sorry that was poor reading comprehension partnered with ambiguous communication on my part. The point about Si stands. The point about Feelers was in response to an argument unstated: that feelers lack knowledge. My bad.

 

[PmjPmj]

Anyone with high agreeableness, surely.

 

[Black Rose]

Anyone with high agreeableness, surely.

All tests tell me I am above average.

Sorry that was poor reading comprehension partnered with ambiguous communication on my part. The point about Si stands. The point about Feelers was in response to an argument unstated: that feelers lack knowledge. My bad.

Judgment is about decisions and Extraversion is about the object as the external.

So we begin with Fe and Te. (being the most externally manipulative)

Fi goals are more about the self and getting what you want (Jung calls F deciding what is agreeable and disagreeable), Ti simply forms theory, least affected by external than Fi. (Fi brute forces others, when in the mood, to do what they want, not very sophisticated manipulation)

Te is logical about the outside world so understand how to achieve personal goals via logic. Fe is more aware on the goals of others, it best understands people motivations through likes and dislikes. Understanding motivations is required for manipulation.

Perception only gives information but information is useful. Si information is about facts and common things about others like noticing the brand of shoes she wore to the party last Saturday. Ni in the abstract get ideas about others that are accurate but previously unknown (no one told them these accurate ideas, they simply appeared in their mind)

Se is simply a high-resolution view of reality and Ne is more about the possibility of actions not the internal psyche of a person like Ni.

Overall Fe understands other motivations (likes dislikes) and Ni has insights into what is happening in a person's head. Te treats people as objects but with Ni can manipulate just as well. So INTJ, INFJ, ENFJ, ENTJ are the best at manipulation.

 

[PmjPmj]

All tests tell me I am above average.

I tend to be in the negative.

Speaking from personal experience (observations), I agree with your conclusion that Ni types are the best at manipulation. It's just chess, and Ni tends to be - again, in my experience - several moves ahead.

 

[Reluctantly]

^ Nit-picky INTP stuff - But I'm more of the opinion that Ni does not manipulate. It simply observes and gains insight about the people and things around. Manipulation comes from Te or Fe and Fe types seem better at putting on a congenial face while secretly hating your guts and waiting to screw you in a way that leaves them looking innocent. Te types, at least in my experience from some ENTJs I've met, are usually pretty forthright about their intentions, even if they are thinking some steps ahead in what they are doing.

 

[Turnevies]

All personalities can be manipulated in one way or another. That's at least according to GEB.

I agree that NT's are generally the most safe from direct emotional manipulation as we put so much importance to thinking for ourselves. There will still be indirect ways, though. A weaker point for INT's can e.g. be that we generally don't have connection with a large personal network we hold tight and trust. At least speaking for myself, if someone would want to manipulate me, a good way to try would be isolating me from others (or at least make me believe that), causing me to retreat and become paranoid in people.
A possible weakness for ENT's may be their recklessness, so that they could be tricked into executing action they should not do.

As an INTP, I really don't like using manipulation myself either (or at least I should find very good rational reasons that justify it to myself). I think this has to do with the Ti-Si combo, making intellectual honesty one of the hightest possible moral standards.

 

[PmjPmj]

^ Nit-picky INTP stuff - But I'm more of the opinion that Ni does not manipulate. It simply observes and gains insight about the people and things around. Manipulation comes from Te or Fe and Fe types seem better at putting on a congenial face while secretly hating your guts and waiting to screw you in a way that leaves them looking innocent. Te types, at least in my experience from some ENTJs I've met, are usually pretty forthright about their intentions, even if they are thinking some steps ahead in what they are doing.

I don't disagree; I worded my post poorly.

 

[QuickTwist]

Anyone with high agreeableness, surely.

Bingo.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

All feelers, but if I had to say only one: INFPs - they're maybe the most naive ppl, they don't have logic to verify if anyone is lying and they have Ne, which brings ideas that everything can be true (ISFPs are much less naive, because they have common sense and they base more on experience)

I found ISTPs also easily manipulated - they can spot a lie, but they don't see people have evil intentions.

also ISFJ - my mother can believe in anything, even in god...
many many other types...
the least would be NTs (and probably only they are immune to manipulation, but not always I know ENTJ with very radical political views...)

 

[Niclmaki]

ESFPs if you just mean telling someone to do something, they’ll do it. Partly because they are just agreeable, and partly because they think taking orders frees them of any responsibility.

INFPs if you mean something more insidious. Making THEM think they’re responsible for what they do.

 

[BurnedOut]

If you carefully notice, people usually choose to get manipulated when you appeal to their beliefs.

Many of the stereotyped manipulators in the mbti world don't often realize that manipulation works two way quite often. It's hard to do hardcore manipulation ie brainwashing and as far as I know it requires a similar (or simulated) personality to the crowd you are manipulating.

Personally speaking, i find it easy to manipulate people who are good listeners ie exploiting their or start destroying their ideologies. Then they are left to choose with the apparently destroyed choice and my brainwashing. However I'm bad at conventional manipulation given my bad aptitude at interpersonal communication


It really depends on the situation, sometimes a hypochondriac personality helps and so does a cold one

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

 

[The Gopher]

I'm only manipulative when I'm on the wrong side.

Nobody is more or less prone to manipulation. Just more or less prone to different types.

 

[ruminator]

I don't think feelers are more prone to being manipulated, while thinkers are safer. I think it's the other way around. A lot of manipulation is emotional manipulation. Thinkers, who are not as capable of understanding and trusting emotions, are more prone to being emotionally manipulated as opposed to feelers.

 

[Lurker]

Bingo.

What type loves a family member? What type is likely to die from cancer?

..................................

Agreeableness is a sign of mental stability. Disagreeableness is not.

An indiscriminate eagerness to please people at the expense of one's identity and/or well-being isn't "agreeableness."

Funny thread I read recently: "How do XXXXs faint?" Well....

Anyway, people with weak boundaries, basically. "Pencil sketch" or "rough draft" individuals.

- "Can you fill in my blanks?"
-" You complete me."

yea, i fit just about every one of those. Im sure probablly most of my disorders are related to aspergers. My current pdoc recently told me I have whats called multiplex developmental disorder. Its not in the DSM though. Its an ASD that has symptoms of several various disorders. He says its a hodgepog disorder that will probablly be included in the next DSM.

^ Good example.

https://www.psychforums.com/personality-disorder/topic26647.html

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't think feelers are more prone to being manipulated, while thinkers are safer. I think it's the other way around. A lot of manipulation is emotional manipulation. Thinkers, who are not as capable of understanding and trusting emotions, are more prone to being emotionally manipulated as opposed to feelers.

This is what I think too.

Rational discourse is really limited, particularly for complex inter/intrapersonal issues. Reductive NTs seem really vulnerable to availability bias because it's difficult to quantify. A lot of the time, even dismissing a claim is giving it more credence than it deserves.

I tend to trust the opinions of smart feelers more than smart thinkers.

 

[Lurker]

which personality type that is easily manipulated (emotionally)? and why ?

My bad. I thought the question was asking which types manipulate. I didn't read OP.

Cruel/exploitive /salesperson types usually have a keen, instinctive ability to read the externals of a person or situation. An individual's vulnerabilities are easy to spot, honestly; People love to talk about their problems.

INTPs are vulnerable on two fronts:

1.) INTP self-worth hinges on his or her presumed high intelligence, expansive knowledge, and special snowflake status. They may have shaky social skills, true. But, from what I see, these skills are either truly devalued, or defensively dismissed.

2.) The average INTP is a walking target in nearly every other way. (Not including the cool ones). So are INTJs, but they are self-assured and even smug; An INTJ will summarily dismiss the other person as unworthy. An INTP experiences a crisis of confidence.

INFPs are........ Yeah.

 

[ruminator]

What about how to manipulate? I get the whole find peoples' weaknesses thing, but then what? What do these manipulators actually do with those weaknesses?

 

[kora]

I don't think feelers are more prone to being manipulated, while thinkers are safer. I think it's the other way around. A lot of manipulation is emotional manipulation. Thinkers, who are not as capable of understanding and trusting emotions, are more prone to being emotionally manipulated as opposed to feelers.

^ This one gets it. Exactly. Was gonna say exact same.

Also FeNi are most manipulative I think, though perhaps I find them sort of obviously phony now when I meet ones who do. Probably NiFe is very good at it and even better at not being discovered doing it, just won’t do it so much. Fi doms and or aux might be best at not being manipulated.

We are talking in vague terms of course. But I understand myself, speaking from observation and personal experience.

 

[The Gopher]

In vague terms whatever INFJ is seems pretty good. At least in this crowd. There was a time where half of what I did was help people who had been attacked by INFJ's.

 

[kora]

I’m actually quite shocked by the obtuness of some of the thinking types here , I had forgotten how MBTI spheres would essentially lead u to think N> T > F > S this is all wrong, you suck at some things these types are good at that are worthwhile. For examples, feelers use logic, it’s just their primary perception filter on the world is value based. Also S types are not “simple” they are watching the environment like hell and see a lot of info N types miss.

In big 5 very high agreeableness could be manipulated yeah. I think Fe types could both be manipulated and manipulate, depends on the sort.

For example, ESFP are not necessarily particularly high in agreeableness, a lot of the time I would say the ones I’ve met would be rather difficult to manipulate because they just do what the hell the want (I mean they were quite self centered and wouldn’t let their independence be messed around with.) I mean, there is also the fact that apparently the MBTI has no predictive value (apart from the introvert extrovert spectrum) which means you can’t correlate mbti with big 5. Of course the terrible predictive value might just be that people can’t read themselves well. Or it could be that the cognitive functions mean nothing. Anyway. Yep.

 

[Niclmaki]

For example, ESFP are not necessarily particularly high in agreeableness, a lot of the time I would say the ones I’ve met would be rather difficult to manipulate because they just do what the hell the want (I mean they were quite self centered and wouldn’t let their independence be messed around with.) I mean, there is also the fact that apparently the MBTI has no predictive value (apart from the introvert extrovert spectrum) which means you can’t correlate mbti with big 5. Of course the terrible predictive value might just be that people can’t read themselves well. Or it could be that the cognitive functions mean nothing. Anyway. Yep.

Coming back to this thread I realized I should have clarified something. I was answering the question if the targets of the manipulating were friends. Now if we’re talking about strangers that’s a whole different question.

I don’t think MBTI types would help much to answer that. MBTI is what people lean towards easily and comfortably. If a stranger/acquaintance is interacting with you, you normally aren’t totally comfortable, and won’t be so malleable. If that is the question, then it’s just a question of who can you fool easiest.

 

[kora]

The essence of manipulation in my opinion is playing off insecurities, and if Fe is what I think it is, it’s geared towards detecting insecurities and strengths in social contexts, and then accommodating it either for good, but an unhealthy Fe type could just use it. I guess Te applied to social contexts might be quite good too, albeit less smooth. An Fi type seems to me to be a type that deals best with its own insecurities somehow, like it would be aware of it’s own failings and deal with them itself, plus Fi types seem to care more about how they see themselves than how others see them. But any type, as long as they have insecurities (and every type does) can be manipulated.

 

[Hadoblado]

Isn't insecurity a little narrow?

What about knowing what people want and rearranging their priorities to align with those values (so long as they in turn align with yours)? What about gaining trust? What about just being the sort of person that people want to do stuff for?

Insecurities are a big deal, but I wouldn't say they're the whole picture.

 

[kora]

Well manipulation doesn’t mean just being the sort of person “people want to do stuff for” the way I see it (although would be interesting to see what kind of person you mean by that) or involve the other, more positive things you mentioned like “rearranging their priorities to align with their values” wouldn’t that just be helping them to have integrity ? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood. Manipulation means, to me, making someone do something that they don’t want to do in the first place. I mean, for me it doesn’t mean creating the desire to do the thing, it means making someone do the thing despite the desire not really being there I mean if manipulation is basically making ppl do what you want, it can’t be manipulation if they wanted to do the thing in the first place ? Do I make sense. Any instances I can think of with conscious manipulation is making someone feel bad about themselves in some way and subsequently feeling obligated to “redeem” themselves somehow, emotional manipulation at least always seems to be this in any case, you accuse someone of being an asshole and making u unhappy for instance for X reason. A dude manipulated me out of money once when I was younger, came up to me started telling me he was suicidal and kept repeating how kind I was and couldn’t I just lend him 300/100/50 euros, when I introspect I see that the fact that he kept telling me I was so kind created a picture of myself I didn’t feel I lived up to and so pushed me to actually act kind (else it would be my fault if he killed himself). I left when He started trying to get sex out of me as well, but in retrospect he taught me something valuable about myself.

 

[Hadoblado]

I see manipulation in the sense the OP talks of it as control.

If you are able to affect my behaviour to your own benefit, I would class that as manipulation. Taking advantage of one's insecurities is one way to do this. But you could just as easily tap into a base drive.

A woman fancies a handsome man. He has no intention of dating her, but is happy to take advantage of her infatuation. What he really wants is some time with her adorable puppy. She invites him in for ''coffee'', he accepts, but then spends the entire time ignoring her advances while playing with adorable pupper. There's no insecurity in this scenario, but the woman has clearly been used.

You can also rearrange someone's priorities towards your own benefit. See: all of advertising, a lot of religion, and most of politics. While some of this falls under capitalising on insecurities (such as fashion), there are others that don't.

 

[Lurker]

In vague terms whatever INFJ is seems pretty good. At least in this crowd. There was a time where half of what I did was help people who had been attacked by INFJ's.

Yes, but how do they faint? Hot thread elsewhere.

 

[kora]

I guess I’m reducing manipulation to making someone do something they don’t desire to do (without use of physical force), but it could encompass creating desire. Idk, what I’m saying is confusing me now hado, u might be right.

For me, advertising plays off insecurities essentially, it creates an ideal state of being or image whereby something must be bought to live up to the image desired.

Religion plays off fears of death and fears of Judgement (sin, hell, punishment etc)

Manipulation of public opinion in politics could work in similar ways, I.e worried about invaders, losing possessions and power.

Can’t tell if I’m being reductive or hitting on the essential nature of it.

I guess the dude is maybe manipulating the lady for the adorable puppy yeah...The manipulation would be that he knowingly hasn’t made his desires for the puppy explicit and led her to believe the interest is in her...in which case manipulation is simply using someone as a means to an end ? That is much broader as a definition. I took it to mean actively modifying someone’s behavior to suit your desires despite their own.

Confuzzled.

 

[Hadoblado]

How about stuff like manipulating the point of comparison?

This jacket is usually $200, but I just reduced it to $50! Wow such value! This is manipulating what you want without any benefit to you, but without tapping any insecurities.

 

[QuickTwist]

What type loves a family member? What type is likely to die from cancer?

..................................

Agreeableness is a sign of mental stability. Disagreeableness is not.

An indiscriminate eagerness to please people at the expense of one's identity and/or well-being isn't "agreeableness."

Funny thread I read recently: "How do XXXXs faint?" Well....

Anyway, people with weak boundaries, basically. "Pencil sketch" or "rough draft" individuals.

- "Can you fill in my blanks?"
-" You complete me."



^ Good example.

https://www.psychforums.com/personality-disorder/topic26647.html

IMO, people that have Agreeableness as their highest trait are typically doormats. Add a nice dose of Neuroticism and you have a potent mix for manipulation simply by force.

Also, as far as Fi doms go, I think all you need to do is threaten what their values are and they will cave.

Force is the easiest method to manipulate someone. The more direct the force can be, the easier it is to manipulate.

Take a person who is Fi dom. They have a cat. You want them to do X. You tell them do to X and they say no. Just say you will hurt their cat and they will prolly just end up doing X as long as their value for their cat is higher than their value not to do X.

 

[kora]

@quicktwist yeah because T types have no attachement to anything so if you have a cat or a family member you are fond of and I threaten to hurt it or them you definitely won’t do anything about it because you’re not Fi. Anyway Blackmail is the most obvious form of manipulation, i was not even counting it as such because in my mind manipulation ought to hide the manipulatively motive. Any type could fall for blackmail though.

 

[washti]

Take a person who is Fi dom. They have a cat. You want them to do X. You tell them do to X and they say no. Just say you will hurt their cat and they will prolly just end up doing X as long as their value for their cat is higher than their value not to do X.

other reaction option is:
[bimgx=800]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/29/e0/bb29e0cfe9ccf519955a66a6aba6f7e3--cordial-keep-trying.jpg[/bimgx]

and when you attempt to hurt that cat they will kick your ass

 

[QuickTwist]

@quicktwist yeah because T types have no attachement to anything so if you have a cat or a family member you are fond of and I threaten to hurt it or them you definitely won’t do anything about it because you’re not Fi. Anyway Blackmail is the most obvious form of manipulation, i was not even counting it as such because in my mind manipulation ought to hide the manipulatively motive. Any type could fall for blackmail though.

That wasn't my point I am pretty sure you are aware of this. I put it in simplest possible terms, glad you understand the specifics and not the principle tho. The point was about values, not attachments. Since Fi doms have values they are not as ready to give up as easily as someone who doesn't base their decisions on values that makes Fi a weakness in this regard. Trying to manipulate a thinking type is like playing poker with a tight aggressive player - they are harder to manipulate because when they make a decision they are basing that decision on some solid criteria. The fact that Fi doms are not rational means that they are more prone to having illogical beliefs. This is demonstrated by the fact that values are far more subjective than having a logical way to come to decisions by definition. When you start having subjective things control what you do this naturally makes you prone to be open to basing other things you do on related subjective premises. If you want to manipulate a Ti dom, you have to be smarter than them and force them to make a logical decision that benefits your agenda. That's if we are actually sticking to the premise of the question of what type is more prone to manipulation, which would require us to use the theory of MBTI and not base it off "well people are not so cut and dry" with would defeat the whole purpose of the question in the first place.

All manipulation is really the same thing - pushing one thing so they have to give up on something else.

People can say Fi doms are harder to manipulate to "prevent a bias that INTP's are better at something" but that doesn't make it true. FWIW, I think Ni doms are prolly the best at manipulating people.

 

[QuickTwist]

other reaction option is:
[bimgx=800]https://i.pinimg.com/736x/bb/29/e0/bb29e0cfe9ccf519955a66a6aba6f7e3--cordial-keep-trying.jpg[/bimgx]

and when you attempt to hurt that cat they will kick your ass

You don't have many friends, do you?

 

[washti]

ppl who are Fi dom will stand up and fight for their values not obediently follow aggressive demands. especially from someone who wanna oppress person/animal they love.
i dont have many friends.

 

[QuickTwist]

ppl who are Fi dom will stand up and fight for their values not obediently follow aggressive demands. especially from someone who wanna oppress person/animal they love.
i dont have many friends.

You are arguing about dominance when dominance has either nothing to do with MBTI or Thinking types would be more dominant.

 

[washti]

what? where exactly i'm talking about dominance?point me to it please - i cannot see.
i'm commenting your limited description for Fi dom reaction when faced with blatant blackmail.

 

[QuickTwist]

what? where exactly i'm talking about dominance?point me to it please - i cannot see.
i'm commenting your limited description for Fi dom reaction when faced with blatant blackmail.

You are assuming that an Fi dom would rather fight than cave. That is a dichotomy involving dominance. What I am considering is threat assessment. If there is a big enough threat the value based person will compromise on other things to save what they value more.

 

[washti]

defense of values has nothing to do with desire to dominate.
and no i didn't assume Fi dom 'would rather choose fight' i defenietly wrote 'other reaction option' - are you blind?
also hey strawman how are you? good luck with more shitposting. you already total shit with interpreting posts.

 

[QuickTwist]

defense of values has nothing to do with desire to dominate.
and no i didn't assume Fi dom 'would rather choose fight' i defenietly wrote 'other reaction option' - are you blind?
also hey strawman how are you? good luck with more shitposting. you already total shit with interpreting posts.

what? where exactly i'm talking about dominance?point me to it please - i cannot see.
i'm commenting your limited description for Fi dom reaction when faced with blatant blackmail.

ppl who are Fi dom will stand up and fight for their values not obediently follow aggressive demands. especially from someone who wanna oppress person/animal they love.
i dont have many friends.

You pretty clearly stated that an Fi dom is more likely to fight than be passive here.

I hope you are glad you manipulated me to have this disagreement, I know you have been waiting for it and I am happy to oblige.

 

[washti]

well after your elaborate, on topic remark:

You don't have many friends, do you?

i felt kinda need to clarify this option. you did't get it.
perhaps should explain it like to retarded person who is unable to read this from context. Will remember for future interactions, if any.
likewise .i.