Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: The Manipulator Type

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Manipulator Type

    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.

  2. #2
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,630
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not sure that your interpretation makes sense. The fact that none of the man get laid is technically true; it is one of the many consequences of the rejection - up to the arbitrary decision of the writer which one to choose.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I am not sure that your interpretation makes sense. The fact that none of the man get laid is technically true; it is one of the many consequences of the rejection - up to the arbitrary decision of the writer which one to choose.
    It's called "Nash equilibrium", and was a scene from the movie. The idea is that the only reason for interacting with said person is the end of getting laid. Because of the rejection, getting laid cannot happen, so why bother if the object in question has the trait of rejection? The person isn't seen as a person, but as an object who "rejects". Objects have properties; people have choices. (when their minds don't make their choices for them). Yeah I know, how can a person have choice when they have a mind that is driven to optimization?

    Nash (or rather, the character of Nash) observed the woman's behavior as a delimmiter of her potential; he believed it represented an internal constant. (Ne) Nothing unusual about that, only very perceptive. The corruption lies in his motives for seeking a relationship in the first place, and his beliefs thereabout. People, he believed, were objects meant for pleasure. There was a passage in the book about this as well, regarding his wife. He once put his foot over her neck in view of other people, particularly men. The author asserted that he wanted to show he had control over her in front of his friends. He saw her thus as an object.

    The flip side of this is that he saw something subjective in objects -- he thought inanimate objects were the real people.

    I hope to god we don't all have this trait (socionics enthusiasts, I mean). I don't think we do, but I don't... no, there's no way I would ever show possession of another person. When I see a person's face, I don't think "there's a face" but rather "what are they feeling?" The situation is complicated by the fact that subject and object are two facets of the same thing. I think you'd have to look at a person who was looking right at you and think "boy there's a pretty face" without noticing their personal presence and emotions to think thus. Perhaps such a person would be completely closed up in their own minds... it's a completely different way of thinking. My god, it would be like looking at everyone as having behaviors and switches to evoke those behaviors, and then you'd be thinking about how to elicit the behaviors between people such as to create desired social effects.

    Let me look it up on the 'net to see what's already been learned about it.

  4. #4
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well... alot of what you are talking about is manipulation in a particular sense. It sounds like manipulation of Te/Ni in the name of Fi/Se. There are different senses of manipulation. Looking at the woman as an end, she must be a certain type of end. So if you can look at an object as many different types of ends, how are you sure you are never looking at it as some type of end.. what is it possible to look at an object as otherwise? simply an object without an implication? Is that even possible? .. or are you saying the difference is where the implication lies? If this is what you are saying, then why is that an important difference? It seems to me coincidental that a person would share desired implications with an object.. and that the particular type of implication desired is irrelevent. And if I see a person as an extention of my own person (matching subjective) then I am seeing them as an end to fulfill my subjective desires...; i.e., that my "desires" are now in a new hidden location, but they have not disappeared.. they are now in a form which looks, at first glance, innocent. I could think to myself "well you are particularly intelligent aren't you? You are alright then..." (I happen to value intelligence in myself, and hence in others). Another example is if I see a person who does not match my particular subjective impressions with theirs. Now they are thought of as inferior, and dismissed in a similar fashion to the way the men dismissed the woman after she turned them down for sex. So I see a "wigger" (white guy dressed like a rapper) and hear him talking like he's a gangster. Personally, I have a number of opinions on the stupidity of rap music and culture.. and so he is rejected as an subject on this front. You could say I am being manipulative in subjective reality here.. (in the way you are using the word manipulative), where I am desiring the objects subjective mind to allign with my subjective mind. Moreso, what happens when two manipulator types with complimenting desires encounter one another? Is this not the basis of most every long term relationship?
    I do think the type of manipulator you are describing is destructive to society, whereas the type I am describing is supportive to society. But society is inherently flawed, so I don't think this is necessarily universally relevant.
    All things I am too anal to leave unspecified
    Last edited by crazedrat; 07-12-2008 at 03:26 PM.
    INTp

  5. #5
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,630
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know the notion of Nash Equilibrium, tcaud, no problem about that part of your explanation.

    What I am questioning is the fact that you are attaching a negative meaning to the author emphasizing that the men will not get laid. From a purely objective standpoint (which I hope I can reach on this minor issue), it's simply trivially true that if the woman rejects them all, none of the will get laid in that particular instance.

    Debating the psychological reasons on why that particular example was choosen doesn't seem as easy as you make it sound. It could rightfully have been only to make an impact on the spectator.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  6. #6
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    well... it's just an example. what is trying to be expressed is the underlying tendency of the situation. if a better example is warranted, then im sure one could be found... although i don't think that's necessary
    INTp

  7. #7
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    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 +.
    Give a real example of how this works please cause I think you didn't really say anything there, just sounded like mental masturbation no offense.

    People manipulate others for a lot of different reasons. To be loved, attention, revenge, etc. As for what function each type does it with... I don't know. In order for it to be effective, the leading functions are probably out because that would be too obvious...

  8. #8
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    According to him, they would see all people as pure objects to be manipulated the same way you manipulate a keyboard or a ball, for example. They would see pure objects like the keyboard, by contrast, as subjects- with emotions and subjective qualities? .
    this actually describes my psychotic manipulative enfj-fe sister quite well
    INTp

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    I think he means chronic manipulators. Like unhealthy Enneagram 3s or something. According to him, they would see all people as pure objects to be manipulated the same way you manipulate a keyboard or a ball, for example. They would see pure objects like the keyboard, by contrast, as subjects- with emotions and subjective qualities?

    But I don't understand the rationale behind why the dual seeking functions would have their poles reversed.
    Do you think I may have screwed up on that one? I was trying to draw a distinction between corruption, which is moulding of an aspect of one sign into something that will be accepted by the other without regard to equity (putting on airs, "false self", giving in to pressure, "false consensus"... just to name a few) and the not necessarily dubious notion of seeing something as a means to an end. I see it may not be clear from how I've described the theoretical hypothesis what the distinction is between say, creating a theory which observes the subjective side of something objective (like musicians do all the time) and creating a theory for the control of something subjective as an object. I hadn't yet described it, but I had already hypothesized an antithesis to the manipulator type (the minstrel type of the person who was "born to sing" and describe how persons cope with others and how others cope with them) when I posted this.

    Maybe a clearer example would be former White House political advisor Karl Rove. He's a manipulator of the first order, who has been known to gay bait to sabotage Democratic campaigns. The difficulty with considering Rove is that he's very controversial, and so is difficult to objectively quantify. One time I did see him on TV though, at a conservative conference, where he said all kinds of extremely nasty, insulting things about liberals; you'd have thought he felt for liberals what Hitler felt for the Jews from what he said. But only two months ago, I saw him praising Obama in an interview. (his assessment was, in my opinion, remarkably fair) We also know he had a hand in the Valerie Plame affair, and he's currently facing suppoena for suspected involvement in the politically motivated prosecution of a Democratic congressman. Clearly this is a guy who gets around inside the Beltway, far more than most people would be inclined to such. For him to be as extremely manipulative as he is, he must possess a chronic feature of personality which allows him to conceive of manipulable situations.

    Let me make something clear though: by dual-seeking, I'm not referring to the functions at all (that was an error on my part), but the aspects upon which a given function selects relevant information to process: there is a +Fi for every +Te, a -Fi for every -Te, etc. The manipulative type mathces +Te to -Fi instead of +Fi. "my truth is justice" -- and there you have it: an example of the rationale that Rove played on to win elections. "My truth is the Bible and the Bible alone is justice", or just as well "the Bible says gays are against God and therefore, I know being gay is wrong". The manipulative part comes from the observation that people in general think in terms of duality as + seeks -, thus the appearance of manipulation appears from the standpoint of those who resist the correspondence. To Rove, it's "the bible says gays are against God. Therefore if I say I'm against gays, then Bible believers will believe I'm on God's side" -- hmm... so it seems I concluded thus a little to soon, because it seems apparent that it is a touch of corruption that enables the dual-seeking mismatch to take place.

    Eh, this is a mess and I'll think on it.

    EDIT: nevermind, I shouldn't have taken this on yet. I have barely any understanding of how the aspects themselves interact with each other between signs and next to no concrete examples to refer back on. I'll revisit this issue when I've got the subject-object aspect processing rules lined out.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-14-2008 at 03:19 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •