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

[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.

[Park]

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.

I'm discovering things about you, Gilligan.

[Gilly]

I'm discovering things about you, Gilligan.

I'm destroying your life from the inside out

[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.

[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.

[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*

[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.

[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