The challenge of figuring out the manipulative type

[tcaudilllg]

...the kind of person who makes a point in figuring other people out.

First of all, I'm not sure what to make of a "good" manipulative type. I wouldn't know how to observe such a person even if I tried. (which I have been)

I've been thinking that just maybe, manipulative types employ a sort of cutoff between subject and object: they refuse to acknowledge that an object can be transformed into a subject, or that a subject can be transformed into an object. This only on the surface: in their id, they perform these transformations easily. The problem, then, would be coming to grips with their own sense of meaning: they deny the meaning of a sacrifice... or maybe....

I have no examples to draw from...--Wait... I think I have an idea. Maybe there is no corresponding effect to the perception of people as objects. Maybe the object is not interpreted as the subject. On the other hand...

"She does not want you to fight in vain... Lenneth Valkyrie resists with all her power...." For Lezard (VP) to make that quote must mean that he feels he can see something very impersonal in something personal. But he's also an LII... so how to distinguish between overt manipulation, and applying a theory of people.

How about this: they cannot perceive of a subject inside of an object, so they cannot make ideological distinctions between friends and enemies. Although, the foundational trait appears to be an apparent indifference for others -- friend or foe -- and a willingness to take advantage of them. I'm thinking maybe it's a compound trait... but there seems to be something SPECIFIC about it.

[crazedrat]

it seems pretty simple to suggest they think of subjects as objects, and objects as subjects.. The act of observation of an object is what gets confusing; different types will define the meaning of observed objects in different senses.. an object to an ILI has an entirely different relevance than an object to an EIE ...
Functionally, how this subjective/object reversal reads out is what I am interested in.
It could happen there are certain senses inwhich a type is manipulative, and other senses in which the same type is not manipulative... that whether they observe a subject or an object in a particular situation will be dependent on the nature of the subjects/objects observed, and their relevences to the manipulators agenda... whether they conflict or align with this agenda; and to some extent the complexity of this agenda (which is a matter of dual type)

[tcaudilllg]

You may be right. If you do a subject-object cross in terms of both the functions and their duality, what does that give you?

Let's say that you see an object that is also a subject. The manipulator might say that this subject is not a subject at all, but an object. In reciprocation, the subject-object would see the manipulator as a subject only, even if they are also an object.

It's a mix of the internal and the external: the manipulator attacks the self, the person within: the manipulator appears directly as an archetype, as a problem within one's self. But they are in reality an external threat. One keeps looking within oneself for a problem that is in fact external to oneself, and thus never observes the manipulation.

If the manipulator accepts the subject-object, they have accustomed themselves to thinking of that person as having certain traits and to navigating around them. Let's put it in the context of socionics: with knowledge of Model A, a manipulator could deliberately steer around mentioning the PoLR in any way that might injure the person; the person they are dealing with has been completely abstracted and exists only as a concept.

Consider these classic lines
Manipulator: "You cannot be blamed for what happened back there... you did all that you could."
Manipulant: (I should have been stronger.... If I were stronger, I could have done something....)

I don't believe that all manipulators are pathological; I believe the shadows are, and maybe the corrupt types, too.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm pretty sure that's the solution to the problem.

@crazedrat: when you mentioned that you wanted to explore the ramifications of a subject-object switch, I realized that I wanted to do that, too. I had been pretty much enamoured in the sheer scale of possibility which would be allowed by a concrete theory of manipulation, that I lost sight of what I wanted to do and thus, couldn't think straight. Thanks for the self-awareness.

Actually the solution turned out not to be a direct subject/object misattribution, but a limit of perception in terms of the ways subjects and objects can manifest. I think that what this may mean, is that the Jungian object that is the focus of one's thoughts, is also a literal object: we use the same mechanism to process people as we do objects. For most people (non-manipulators) we see first the subject-object as an object, followed by realization that it is a person. This must mean that the object and subject processors are the same for all functions, and are the "I" and "it" processors in the brain.

[crazedrat]

yes, and I think I was right in what I said on the other thread about this- that there are different senses of manipulation, and everyone will be a manipulator in some particular sense.. whether this manipulation is socially creative or destructive is what is really being discussed here

[tcaudilllg]

yes, and I think I was right in what I said on the other thread about this- that there are different senses of manipulation, and everyone will be a manipulator in some particular sense.. whether this manipulation is socially creative or destructive is what is really being discussed here

Indeed. It does seem that we are all manipulative in given contexts. Perhaps this means that there is a "social relations" type, and that manipulators are rare because the trait of manipulation is native to the background in most people?

My id is extremely manipulative, but I use it as a reference point by which to identify manipulation in others. I repress my manipulative capacity by observing that if I completely gave myself over to manipulation, I would be the only "real" functioning intention and thus, would be completely alone. (let us not forget that the YHWH of the Old Testament was the ultimate manipulator, foretelling deaths by lions and such).

If I were to accept others' thinking wholeheartedly, without reservation, it would give me way too much power over them. I could see myself becoming a very dangerous person if that were the case, manipulating people on basis of their beliefs, while staying true to my own.... I don't want to become that myself, and if that means passing judgment on their refusal to accept the practicality of my thinking, then so be it.

Still, for people who would think that way I have no right to pass judgment against them unless they act impractically. Perhaps manipulators believe that if others do not behave in such manner as they believe pertinent, then they lose their right to self-destination? It's when they begin manipulating on basis of advancing their own ideology that I have right of correction to them. Taken from that vantagepoint, non-ideological manipulation is just a different point of view from my own. They are functionally similar however, in that both my way and the manipulator's way imply the removal of the transgressor's independency of action.