After much thought and observation of persons both real and fictional, I've concluded that the manipulatory person is such because they misinterpret their dual aspects for their polar opposites: the + is processed as the - and the - is processed as the +. In effect, it constitutes a corruption of duality. Manipulation however, does not imply corruption per se; rather it is a misattribution of focus and that which one seeks to obtain for oneself and others. The nature of the phenomenon lies in the person's own relationship to duality and as such, an understanding of the difference between subjective and objective forms of creativity is necessary for a proper understanding of it.
We observe that the objective creationist, those people who conceive of ideas that respond to objective necessities (like myself) and try to conceive of that which matches - with - over + with + (a -Ti theory for every -Fe demand, in my case), will in the context of duality corruption confuse subjective aspects with objective ones and become unusually focused on creating the subjective aspects of human nature for someone so objectively oriented. Imagine, as a case in point, an LII who attempted to offer theory that applied to individuals. Such a person would be constantly trying to figure other people out on a strictly personal level, designing laws and notions that were relevant only to individuals or specific groups of people that have common traits. It would not matter if these rules did not meet objective demand; all that is the concern of this personality is the apprehension of the subjective nature of people. The larger dimension, however, is that the subject which is sought after is apprehended as an object to be obtained; and like objects, subjects (people) are observed as manipulatable. X person wants B, while Y person fears the attainment of B. If person X is an enemy of person W, person W should to put Y on their side appeal to Y's fear of B as reason for Y's alliance with X against B. This is a poor example because I don't really think in terms of manipulating people, but the short answer is that this type sees society as a sort of game to be won by manipulating non-participants into entry on their side. Such a person pays special attention to the fears and motivations of people and attempts to conceive of objects whereat they have common interest. (e.g., John Nash's theory of games) Recall the example from A Beautiful Mind of Nash's theory at work: a woman is pursued by four men. She rejects them all, and thus (here is the important pont) none of the men get laid. The assumption is made, by Nash, that being laid is the intention of man in relation to woman: the subjective aspect of the relationship expressed by others is to Nash's mind strictly a statement of sexual desire, and +Fi is only a mask for -Fi. Based on this assumption, the pretty woman (again, depreciating the subject) should be ignored in favor of courting another four available women, who WILL have sex with their suitors. The subjective hearts of the women are to be appealed to because their capture means sex. Nothing wrong is meant by this pursuit; it is merely driven by the perception of + as always meaning - in the context of that which is sought. The picture becomes clearer when seen from the egocentric perspective of the manipulative person: the women are also out for sex, and to them such subjective values as family/attatchment/etc. also mean sex. Of course this is not necessarily true, and indeed to most every woman who is not consciously signalling that they intend to put out casually it is flatly false from the standpoint of their conscious experience. (although clearly their subconscious is another story). But that is why it is a corruption.