Ni-creative: Manipulative by nature? (ENTj & ENFj)

[Azeroffs]

I was thinking about this, and I don't mean in purposefully harmful or sinister way. It just seems that Ni-creatives usually act with a particular result in mind and so naturally act in a way to get people to do what they want or to get a certain response. It's similar to the way an Se-ego might act, but in a lot more subtle and round-a-bout way. I think this also ties in with Se-HA.

The difference with Ni-base is that they would likely focus on the way things are playing out and act only to alter the direction. Ni-creative focuses on the results of their actions instead of seeing how chains of events flow independent of particular actions. Ni-base may be manipulative as well; however, they are more likely to be apathetic because they perceive things to be working out fine the way they are going.

It has been said before that EIE has purposeful emotions, and I think this in itself implies a degree of manipulative tendencies. LIE, by contrast, would be more explicit in their actions, but their motives may be just as hidden.

[tcaudilllg]

Well they like to coerce people to make choices, don't they? (the EIEs, anyway)

I suppose LIEs would be interested in... controlling outcomes.

[Azeroffs]

I just thought it was interesting that I was accused of being manipulative. I can see how it might come off that way.

[Azeroffs]

I think this might be most obvious in intimate relationships because of the mind games that are often involved, like it or not.

[xixi]

i think so. although, 'manipulative' has rather negative connotations of being self-serving, and i don't think that most ENTj's and ENFj's are selfish like that...

[matilda]

i think so. although, 'manipulative' has rather negative connotations of being self-serving, and i don't think that most ENTj's and ENFj's are selfish like that...

i think they are. and 'self-serving' is not entirely negative. are we not all selfish?

[Gilly]

I definitely can "guide" people in directions, both concretely and emotionally, to serve my purposes. Sometimes I set traps/choices for people without even knowing it. But then I'm something of a pathological liar.

[tcaudilllg]

Actually I don't think LIIs are very manipulative at all. For one thing how do you "control" another person's imagination? You can't. The only thing you can do is try to make a "semblance" of the imaginary scenario you've conceived, the process of which invariably relying on methods not of your own design, but of people who are not LII.

You can control a person's self-expression, however, using those same methods.

It seems to me though that the odd-dimensional functions in general are manipulative.

[tcaudilllg]

Did anyone say that LIIs are manipulative?

It was implied by the notion that the creative function is manipulative.

[FDG]

Mbah. I can't see how I could do that with people. I might try to do that when writing a paper, if I don't know exactly how to justify a certain result, and/or I don't know exactly how to answer a question. So probably I can do it in thinking-realms but can't do it in ethical-realms.
I'd find it pretty hard to be manipulative in relationships; not because I'm a particularly ethical person, simply because I don't know where to start and I generally don't "think" about that dimension of life, it's not something I can handle with confidence. If I think something is good/bad for somebody, I'll just tell them, no roundabouts.
If you mean that I try to tailor my actions in such a way as to find myself in the right place at the right time - absolutely yes. That doesn't involve other people tho, usually.

[redbaron]

I was thinking about this, and I don't mean in purposefully harmful or sinister way. It just seems that Ni-creatives usually act with a particular result in mind and so naturally act in a way to get people to do what they want or to get a certain response. It's similar to the way an Se-ego might act, but in a lot more subtle and round-a-bout way. I think this also ties in with Se-HA.

The difference with Ni-base is that they would likely focus on the way things are playing out and act only to alter the direction. Ni-creative focuses on the results of their actions instead of seeing how chains of events flow independent of particular actions. Ni-base may be manipulative as well; however, they are more likely to be apathetic because they perceive things to be working out fine the way they are going.

It has been said before that EIE has purposeful emotions, and I think this in itself implies a degree of manipulative tendencies. LIE, by contrast, would be more explicit in their actions, but their motives may be just as hidden.

This seems totally right to me and in line with my experience.

[Azeroffs]

But then I'm something of a pathological liar.

I find myself saying what is convenient when the truth isn't so clear cut.

Do you see Se-egos as more manipulative than other types?

Just most likely to exert their will. I would say it's usually too blatant to call it manipulative.

[redbaron]

Just most likely to exert their will. I would say it's usually too blatant to call it manipulative.

yeah exactly! lol

[Creepy-male]

It seems to me though that the odd-dimensional functions in general are manipulative.

This makes sense to me. Thinking of how, you live through your Base, and your Demonstrative is a passive observer (as in, even dimensions being not manipulative, in general). Not sure about the others.

Obviously the Creative function is something you use with thought and deftness.

Anyway, on-topic, I think EJs in general are types that want to control and direct things, by nature of how they view the world. I wonder if the "things" for ENjs are far more telescopic and over a broader range of time, and if that leads to the perception that they're "manipulative", where ESjs would instead potentially come across as "bossy" or "pushy".

[tcaudilllg]

This makes sense to me. Thinking of how, you live through your Base, and your Demonstrative is a passive observer (as in, even dimensions being not manipulative, in general). Not sure about the others.

Obviously the Creative function is something you use with thought and deftness.

Anyway, on-topic, I think EJs in general are types that want to control and direct things, by nature of how they view the world. I wonder if the "things" for ENjs are far more telescopic and over a broader range of time, and if that leads to the perception that they're "manipulative", where ESjs would instead potentially come across as "bossy" or "pushy".

They act under the assumption that the outcome will have definite bearing on their emotions or finances.

[redbaron]

where ESjs would instead potentially come across as "bossy" or "pushy".

*nods*

[Gilly]

Yeah, like Joy.

[Azeroffs]

It seems to me though that the odd-dimensional functions in general are manipulative.

I'm not so sure about this. We have little awareness of the 4th and 5th functions, and the ignoring function is usually disregarded as well. I think I can agree that we usually manipulate our creative function, but I'm wondering if Ni-creative can actually be considered manipulative in the conventional sense.

[Azeroffs]

Another way of looking at is from the perspective of the HA. Ni-creatives would theoretically be unconsciously guided by the exertion of their will. Likely, in their attempts to reach their expected outcomes they tend to impose and force others to do as they wish subtly and unconsciously.

With ESj, they can seem pushy/bossy more as byproduct of their focus on getting things done right away. (Se-demonstrative)

[Azeroffs]

I really think all types can manipulate, but that it is done for different reasons. Se HA + Ni creative + Te or Fe base manipulates in one way. Other types manipulate in other ways. Some ways annoy people more, and are more visible, that I can agree on.

I definitely think there's truth to that.

Maybe it's something like this:

Ni: purposeful involvement
Se: willful imposition
Ne: rational persuasion
Si: altruistic give/take

just off the top of my head.

[Gilly]

Well, let's break it down: EJs are the most "controlling" of all types, generally speaking, because they tend to take an active dynamic approach: every piece of information that is taken in is weighed out with everything else; everything is relevant, or can be. EJ functions essentially engage in a kind of constant weighing, gauging, and readjusting of tactics based on perceived changes in need or emphasis. So EJs are the most likely to want to "see everything" when it comes to another person or situation; they need the most information to make a decision.

When you couple that with Ni, you get not only an impressionistic long-term orientation as their general mindset, but also the tendency to make assumptions based off of their mindset and treat people in their sphere and their environment as though they are in accord with their mindset or goald, or should be subordinated to them. Sometimes EJs can seem so driven and involved that other people sort of get "swept along" into action with them, while others are either subdued or ignored - this happens on a shorter term, more immediate level with Si-EJs (ie the foreman of a construction site, a person holding the tempo of a party, a platoon commander directing his troops); Ni-EJs, on the other hand, may not always appear to be in immediate control of whatever they are doing, but they tend to put the most emphasis on either overtly gaining a seat of power, or developing some other long-term rapport or influence (ie ******) in order to affect the outcome of whatever they choose to engage in.

[Beautiful sky]

I have a question...if for instance, and this is an example, an EII has two subtypes Fi and Ne?...then what is their PolaR?

[strrrng]

Maybe. I know LIEs at work that I find extremely manipulative at times. They seem to be more interested in pushing through their personal (power) agenda (and play office politics), than in solving problems, and they are GREAT at manipulating whatever others say so it sounds as if their own ideas are better than they are, totally disregarding that other solutions would be better. Many people fall for their manipulation. But again, it depends on the person. Some LIEs are awesome at working for common goals without manipulating for personal gain. I really think all types can manipulate, but that it is done for different reasons. Se HA + Ni creative + Te or Fe base manipulates in one way. Other types manipulate in other ways. Some ways annoy people more, and are more visible, that I can agree on.

So, how does Fe HA + Se base focused through Ti creative manipulate?

[Beautiful sky]

Se. If you think of a type and the strength of the leading function in comparison to the creative function while still having strength and proficiency and frequency over the creative (Ne in this case) and if you view this in terms of a spectrum like a light or color spectrum, it makes sense that some EIIs have a more obviously pronounced Fi and less visible Ne while others are a bit more balanced while still showing greater strength and frequency in Fi, making both rationals, intuitive, and Fi leading.

And FTR, all types manipulate in their own ways. LSEs manipulate just as much as people of my own type manipulate like crazy. Their means of doing so are just different but they still aim to control people whether it is through aggressive or passive-aggressive means. Source: dyslexia's real world and online observations through the long term and through spotting frequent trends.

How do you test for that?

[Beautiful sky]

Se. If you think of a type and the strength of the leading function in comparison to the creative function while still having strength and proficiency and frequency over the creative (Ne in this case) and if you view this in terms of a spectrum like a light or color spectrum, it makes sense that some EIIs have a more obviously pronounced Fi and less visible Ne while others are a bit more balanced while still showing greater strength and frequency in Fi, making both rationals, intuitive, and Fi leading.

And FTR, all types manipulate in their own ways. LSEs manipulate just as much as people of my own type manipulate like crazy. Their means of doing so are just different but they still aim to control people whether it is through aggressive or passive-aggressive means. Source: dyslexia's real world and online observations through the long term and through spotting frequent trends.

What is the behavioral difference between the two subtypes...but didn't you say there are many subtypes withing EII? How do you test them to see if they are EII then thest them for subtypes? But wouldn't an EII with another subtype have better or worse control of PolaR? And how does the variation on PolaR measured?

[Gilly]

I have a question...if for instance, and this is an example, an EII has two subtypes Fi and Ne?...then what is their PolaR?

Both have Se PoLR, but the Fi subtype is stronger in Se by comparison; both also still have Ti Role, but the Ne sub is stronger in Ti by comparison.

You do know that quadra progression is actually part of Augusta's theory, right?

[Beautiful sky]

Where can a good translation of her theory be found?

[strrrng]

Oh, they wouldn't! That's the great thing about SLEs. They are the exception that proves the rule.

No wonder they make such great duals.

[Azeroffs]

I have a question...if for instance, and this is an example, an EII has two subtypes Fi and Ne?...then what is their PolaR?

Off topic much?... take it to a different thread please.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well, let's break it down: EJs are the most "controlling" of all types, generally speaking, because they tend to take an active dynamic approach: every piece of information that is taken in is weighed out with everything else; everything is relevant, or can be. EJ functions essentially engage in a kind of constant weighing, gauging, and readjusting of tactics based on perceived changes in need or emphasis. So EJs are the most likely to want to "see everything" when it comes to another person or situation; they need the most information to make a decision.

Yeah my Ej mom is way too bossy. It's really annoying. I need to be around some real life eps or I'm going to go insane.

[tcaudilllg]

I can only test via observation and a trust in the knowledge I have accumulated and refined over the years. Descriptive testing, in short. So far, there are no other ways of testing, even if a more accurate testing method exists simply for pragmatic reasons of scientific and academic approval and dissaproval, obscurity of the theory, and a total non-existence of funds or professional teams or support. I realize socionics has been in the West since the last decade or two, but it only began to really gain followers who could share knowledge in the last six or so years.

My advice is to type down to the club and quadra, giving you the mirror pair. Then compare against the four subtype/type combinations.

Usually yields good results.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not so sure about this. We have little awareness of the 4th and 5th functions, and the ignoring function is usually disregarded as well. I think I can agree that we usually manipulate our creative function, but I'm wondering if Ni-creative can actually be considered manipulative in the conventional sense.

Well of course at this point we're talking of a distinct socionics definition for manipulation, calling it such only because we lack for a more descriptive term which could encapsulate manipulation itself.

Where can a good translation of her theory be found?

www.socionics.us

[nilv]

I agree that Ni creatives can come across as manipulative and controlling.

IME, Fe/Ni sees people as processes. Unlike FiNe, which cuts to the unchanging essence of who people are, FeNi implies an awareness of where people are coming from and where they're going (emotionally/psychologically). I'm guessing TeNi is similar, but deals with (and "manipulates") more external elements of processes (not emotions) -- this could be why EIEs are more likely to be called manipulative and LIEs are more likely to be called controlling, although of course EIEs can be called controlling and LIEs can be called manipulative.

This differs from Ni leading in that EIEs and LIEs, with Je as the leading function are primarily focused on the "object" (or, in this case, people), even if they perceive that object as existing in a state of permanent transience (related to Ni). So Ni creatives are more likely to act on their their awareness of people as processes, leading to the alleged manipulation.

Ni creative "manipulation" would also be very different from Se ego "manipulation." Se + Fi/Ti is static and will tend towards a more discrete outlook, so their "manipulation" would be directed towards a very specific, even mechanical outcome, like in a game of chess. By contrast, EIE (or, presumably, LIE) manipulation would be a little vaguer, like pushing people in the desired direction without necessarily having a specific idea of what they want and how they're going to get it.

PS. I didn't mean to make Ni/Se types sound evil.

[strrrng]

IME, Fe/Ni sees people as processes. Unlike FiNe, which cuts to the unchanging essence of who people are, FeNi implies an awareness of where people are coming from and where they're going (emotionally/psychologically).

Agreed. Although, I don't think FiNe is as focused on an "unchanging essence of who people are" as FiSe is. The former comes to a gestalt understanding of someone by formatting the snapshot of their core qualities within a broader, abstract context; so, the result becomes a map of pure potentiality, with the judgment of who someone is as something intangible that consistently manifests. In the latter, it's based more on what the person directly conveys; so, their "essence" is perceived in a narrower scope, but is felt as more ingrained.

[discojoe]

"Manipulative" is one of the most problematic words in English. When people hear it, they assume negative connotations. But manipulativeness in and of itself is not bad; merely dangerous. Guns are also dangerous, but they are tools. Same thing with automobiles.

Ni creative is manipulative in the sense that it "steers" people in particular directions, either cognitively or emotionally, and both can be good or bad.

[nilv]

Although, I don't think FiNe is as focused on an "unchanging essence of who people are" as FiSe is. The former comes to a gestalt understanding of someone by formatting the snapshot of their core qualities within a broader, abstract context; so, the result becomes a map of pure potentiality, with the judgment of who someone is as something intangible that consistently manifests. In the latter, it's based more on what the person directly conveys; so, their "essence" is perceived in a narrower scope, but is felt as more ingrained.

This makes a lot of sense. Still, I think FiNe is just as focused on the unchanging essence of people. The difference, like you pointed out, is that FiSe understands this essence in terms of how people act, what they do, and what they "directly convey" whereas FiNe extrapolates a model of what they are capable of, who they are 'on the inside,' etc. Both model people as constants. I agree that FiSe understands people based on a narrower set of attributes, but paradoxically, FiNe seems like a narrower way of understanding people to me because it forms a predetermined judgment of people's potential. Of course, Deltas probably see this as being open-minded and allowing people to realize their potential, not bring closed-minded and limiting it.

[shakealittle]

Well in my experience with Ni creatives, they are manipulative.

The way I see it as a Se creative....(please excuse the Ne polr)....
I will do something and the EIE/LIE will go "if you do that Se thing, I will do this"...which makes the Se read the consequence of their actions. For example, I invited an EIE out to a party, the next thing I know, he puts his status on facebook to single and creates an album of family/couple-orientated photos. Another time I gave him the silent treatment (if you want to really worry an EIE do this lol) for months and then all of a sudden his facebook evolves to him commenting on people's party photos with them living it up etc etc.
You can see how Se/Ni influence one another but Se is more direct and less hidden. What makes Ni "manipulative" is that it can draw a person into a "plan" without the individual knowing that they are contributing to something bigger than the immediate reality. I have seen EIEs draw people into conversations/situations/environments just for the sake of some bigger goal they have in mind (eg. they might be seen chatting to a girl....with the girl thinking they are romantically interested in them....when in actual fact they are trying to evoke an emotional response from someone else that they are actually interested in.....THAT ANGERS ME WHEN I SEE IT HAPPEN!!!)..

[strrrng]

This makes a lot of sense. Still, I think FiNe is just as focused on the unchanging essence of people. The difference, like you pointed out, is that FiSe understands this essence in terms of how people act, what they do, and what they "directly convey" whereas FiNe extrapolates a model of what they are capable of, who they are 'on the inside,' etc. Both model people as constants. I agree that FiSe understands people based on a narrower set of attributes, but paradoxically, FiNe seems like a narrower way of understanding people to me because it forms a predetermined judgment of people's potential. Of course, Deltas probably see this as being open-minded and allowing people to realize their potential, not bring closed-minded and limiting it.

Yes, this is how I view it. It's one of the things that annoys me the most about deltas (the STs do it as well, in a much more coarse manner). I actually remember my Fi-EII stepmother making some comment along the lines "I told you to watch who he was," in regard to someone whose actions apparently aligned with her "character map" of them. To me, gamma SFs seem much more ingenuous and patient, when it comes to sizing people up and forming judgments.

[nilv]

Yes, this is how I view it. It's one of the things that annoys me the most about deltas (the STs do it as well, in a much more coarse manner). I actually remember my Fi-EII stepmother making some comment along the lines "I told you to watch who he was," in regard to someone whose actions apparently aligned with her "character map" of them. To me, gamma SFs seem much more ingenuous and patient, when it comes to sizing people up and forming judgments.

Yeah. Another classic is "so-and-so is the kind of person who would/wouldn't ..." Of course, I think Beta NFs make extrapolations about people too. But while Delta NFs form a map of who people are, Beta NFs extrapolate why people are the way they are.

This is especially obvious when people act in completely unexpected ways: Delta NFs respond as if their FiNe ground has been pulled out from beneath their feet and ask "HOW could s/he do that??" Beta NFs can be just as shocked, but will ask "WHY did s/he do that?" Similarly, Delta NFs will emphasize how unexpected said person's behavior was while Beta NFs will focus on the events leading up to the situation as well as its effects.

Of course, in more stable situations, many types turn to Delta NFs, with their grasp of who people are at the core, for advice. I have a feeling that most Betas, on the other hand, find the idea of figuring out who someone is "at the core" / "on the inside" stifling and presumptuous.

[strrrng]

Yeah. Another classic is "so-and-so is the kind of person who would/wouldn't ..." Of course, I think Beta NFs make extrapolations about people too. But while Delta NFs form a map of who people are, Beta NFs extrapolate why people are the way they are.

This is especially obvious when people act in completely unexpected ways: Delta NFs respond as if their FiNe ground has been pulled out from beneath their feet and ask "HOW could s/he do that??" Beta NFs can be just as shocked, but will ask "WHY did s/he do that?" Similarly, Delta NFs will emphasize how unexpected said person's behavior was while Beta NFs will focus on the events leading up to the situation as well as its effects.

Of course, in more stable situations, many types turn to Delta NFs, with their grasp of who people are at the core, for advice. I have a feeling that most Betas, on the other hand, find the idea of figuring out who someone is "at the core" / "on the inside" stifling and presumptuous.

This is on point. +100