# Do you think that most thinkers are more easily manipulated than most feelers?



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

From what I know so far, thinkers are typically less aware of others' emotions and intentions, and focus more on logic. Do you think that they would be more easily manipulated because of this lack of awareness?

Does that then put thinkers in general at a disadvantage?


----------



## de l'eau salée (Nov 10, 2008)

It seems like it would be easier to manipulate a feeler than a thinker...since feelers are typically more prone to going with their heart, one could manipulate their emotions and give them a change of heart in the favor of the manipulator. 

Just a guess, I could be wrong. I think it depends more on the person.


----------



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

Yeah, I thought about that, thanks for bringing it up 

But then it also led to this:

(I'll just mention now that I'm just speaking in general - tired of putting 'most' in front of everything)

Feelers --> more aware of feelings, more focus on it. Although at first they might be the ones who are more easily manipulated (easily swayed through emotions), with more experience they would be better in dealing with it. They're also more in tune with others' emotions and dealing with it; is it possible to relate this to EQ?

I read about mid-life crisis in a reader's digest article this year that men are more likely to experience a worse midlife crisis because women have a better support system in terms of social life. Based on the thinking that more women than men are feelers, could we then relate that the people who can deal better with their emotional problems as being feelers? Does being a feeler mean having higher EQ? Thus being able to deal with manipulation and such better...?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

I think it would depend on what kind of manipulation was going on and the individual, but I do think that there would be a difference between Ts and Fs.


----------



## Sily (Oct 24, 2008)

Hmmmm... well, if one wishes to manipulate a Thinker or a Feeler I think it could be done with equal ease -- to pull either person's strings you just have to figure out what makes them tick, what matters to them, what their hot spots are, because each Thinker and Feeler is different. So I guess my answer is, if the Manipulator is a Professional (adapt @ it), either type could fall prey, with equal fervor.


----------



## Selene (Aug 2, 2009)

I personally have a much easier time manipulating feelers than thinkers for the reasons which de l'eau salée gave*.
*


----------



## Yours (May 7, 2009)

Personally I find thinkers more easy to manipulate then feelers. I can usually relate to their thought structures and use that to my advantage. An example would be my INTP friends. They're usually absent-minded, yet pertain to unhealthy cases of paranoia. I'll usually hint ideas to them whilst eliminating the concepts that I don't want implemented, discussing reasons to them and using feign logic. 

I do use feelers emotions against them sometimes. It's especially easy if they are quite attached to someone/something.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

Thinkers are not easily manipulated by feelers.

In order for a Thinker to be manipulated (easily enough for me to consider for this post, at least) by a Feeler, the feeler would have to out think the Thinker. Which, if it were possible, would indicate that the two probably don't know too much that's going on with their types >.<

The only tools a Feeler has to manipulate a thinker completely don't apply to the Thinker, and the Thinker will more than likely see right through the bullshit.

In which case, he may still opt to go along with whatever scheme may be taking place for their own reasons, but it's not through manipulation, it'd be through choice.

Manipulation is for feelers.

Thinkers can only be manipulated through lies.


----------



## Lepthe (Oct 26, 2009)

the factors feelers use to make their decisions are more subjective

the more subjective something is, the easier it is to manipulate


----------



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

Don't thinkers also have emotions that can be manipulated?

Or are the systems of thinkers and feelers so different that they can't work on each other? Or is it just the matter of figuring the person out?

And unrelated - just a burning question - can feelers be associated with having higher EQ than thinkers?


----------



## Lepthe (Oct 26, 2009)

they don't generally make decisions based on the emotions they feel, they have them, but don't trust them as deciding factors


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Each type can be manipulated in different ways. Some may find one way easier than another but there will always be others who find the opposite way to be easier. Nobody is immune to manipulation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Lepthe said:


> they don't generally make decisions based on the emotions they feel, they have them, but don't trust them as deciding factors


Then one only has to rely on a lack of emperical evidence in order to manipulate the thinker. I have been manipulated in this way...you know the story, Lepethe. It won't happen again though. I had to learn the hard way to trust how I feel.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lepthe (Oct 26, 2009)

absolutely. different strokes for different folks. 

you know its odd - as distasteful as i find emotional manipulation, i find the other strategy even worse.
perhaps its because it seems that emotional manipulation can be done out-of-hand or with less conscious effort.
then again, maybe its because it's the type of manipulation i'm vulnerable to myself, and automatically consider it "worse" and more full of intent


----------



## Singularity (Sep 22, 2009)

Lepthe said:


> they don't generally make decisions based on the emotions they feel, they have them, but don't trust them as deciding factors


Exactly. I have very strong emotions, but that freaks me out and I don't tend to trust them in terms of decision making. I acknowledge them and try to understand what the basis for them is, but then I think about the best action for the given situation and go with that. At times this may completely go against my feelings on the matter. I almost never (possibly even never) do what my feelings say if they oppose what I think I should do. 

I would say I am not easy to manipulate. In fact, I am down right stubborn if I sense any kind of coercion.


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

penpaperaser said:


> Don't thinkers also have emotions that can be manipulated?
> 
> Or are the systems of thinkers and feelers so different that they can't work on each other? Or is it just the matter of figuring the person out?
> 
> And unrelated - just a burning question - can feelers be associated with having higher EQ than thinkers?


Yes we do.

But they're controlled by thinking. 

Which is why we may choose to go along with the manipulation.

It's kinda like the opposite from if say, a Thinker was trying to manipulate a Feeler, but the Thinker didn't succeed, because of some unpredicted "feelings" the Feeler experienced. Manipulation avoided. Same kinda thing, but backwards, in a way. I suck at 'splainin'. 

As for your EQ thing....I think both EQ and IQ are pretty worthless things to measure and offer little benefit if any. So....I don't know how I'd associate them, really. :-\


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

Depends. When it comes to relationships T's are quite unaware of a lot of things that go on underneath their logic. However T's can mess with your brain and do things underneath the awareness of emotions...it's a two way street.


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

theres different types of manipulation. And so i think feelers are more manipulated by thinkers in a thinking manner, and thinkers are more emotionally manipulated by feelers


----------



## Kevinaswell (May 6, 2009)

I don't agree at all.

I am virtually impossible to manipulate emotionally.

Outside of my own acknowledgement.


----------



## SeekJess (Nov 1, 2009)

People who overly express love, or any other positive emotion creep me out. And I feel like they are fake, hiding something, or just entirely depressed using the facade of constant happiness. 

I am a thinker, and I have been manipulated in the past, and used. But after a situation happens, and I figure it all out. I disown the person, and make sure that never happens again. But my one of my best friends who is an ENFP gets far more used than I ever have.. and it makes me sad because I warn him, and he never listens to me.. and girls just drain him dry and use him. -sigh-


----------



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

The compilation so far:

There are two types of manipulation - through logic and through emotions

Thinkers can manipulate other thinkers and to a certain extent feelers from the logical angle. But thinkers generally use more logic than emotions so they won't easily fall prey to emotional manipulation. However, if they do use the emotional angle (which they do rarely), it would be generally easier for them to be manipulated because they are less experienced/in tune with it/etc. It's vice versa with feelers.

I'm curious though - how do you manipulate someone through logic, or, I quote from Munchies, "in a thinking manner"? I thought that logic was something you couldn't argue with, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2.


----------



## LeelooDallas (Sep 15, 2009)

as an ENTP, i find both types to be easily manipulated but the tactics used are different. mouhahahahaha.
thinkers can also be manipulated by facts as well as lies. incomplete information - even if it's all true - can be just as misleading and false information


----------



## NastyCat (Sep 20, 2009)

Kevinaswell said:


> Thinkers are not easily manipulated by feelers.
> 
> In order for a Thinker to be manipulated (easily enough for me to consider for this post, at least) by a Feeler, the feeler would have to out think the Thinker. Which, if it were possible, would indicate that the two probably don't know too much that's going on with their types >.<
> 
> ...


I disagree. A T does not necessarily mean that he/she can think better than an F-- it just means that they use it more.

As much as you can say that a Feeler can be manipulated by their emotions, it can also be said that feelers can more easily detect intentions. 

And no, thinkers can be manipulated by things other than lies. The most obvious would be a 'better argument, backed with greater evidence'. T's aren't emotionless either, so they CAN be manipulated through their emotions.

I guess you can say that everything comes down to either experience, or just knowing what's going on.


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

penpaperaser said:


> From what I know so far, thinkers are typically less aware of others' emotions and intentions, and focus more on logic. Do you think that they would be more easily manipulated because of this lack of awareness?
> 
> Does that then put thinkers in general at a disadvantage?


I don't disagree fully but partially, because of the following regard:
As a Thinker I usually try to create insight into the person I'm interacting with in order to know where both of us are standing (need for forecast at times). Once I've established insight I'm pretty much fixed onto that and so it will be difficult to try and make me believe something else unless there's proof which will make me consider a change in my evaluation. 
So no I wouldn't say I have a lack of awareness since I consider as many aspects as possible (or needed) of the person when delving into them to try and achieve some form of insight. Yes this means I'll probably also use Feeler functions in order to broaden insight.
If I would hypothetically only stick to parameters of logic and not consider subtleties I'd rather say I'm short sighted and rigid but not easily manipulated - rather the contrary.

Why would you assume logic does not deal with things like emotion, intention, and a related awareness?
Why would you assume both of these qualities aren't connected to one another - as emotion etc will also consider logic - ?
If one does not consider the other I regard this as inefficient / lacking.
In that case one can easily trick the other.
Which answers your question.


----------



## Inky (Dec 2, 2008)

skyline said:


> I don't disagree fully but partially, because of the following regard:
> As a Thinker I usually try to create insight into the person I'm interacting with in order to know where both of us are standing (need for forecast at times). Once I've established insight I'm pretty much fixed onto that and so it will be difficult to try and make me believe something else unless there's proof which will make me consider a change in my evaluation.
> So no I wouldn't say I have a lack of awareness since I consider as many aspects as possible (or needed) of the person when delving into them to try and achieve some form of insight. Yes this means I'll probably also use Feeler functions in order to broaden insight.
> If I would hypothetically only stick to parameters of logic and not consider subtleties I'd rather say I'm short sighted and rigid but not easily manipulated - rather the contrary.
> ...


Ah, I see. Thanks for that.

I am wondering though, while thinkers and feelers use both T and F functions, aren't the feelers still more adept at using the F function? It is their dominant function after all. With the dominant F function more quickly broadening insight and the supporting T function piecing the information together using logic, wouldn't feelers generally get a better/faster view of a person?

Hmm... :shocked: Actually now that I think about it I realise it's more of how balanced the functions are. Without the T function supporting the F function and vice versa, each wouldn't work that well. So I guess the manipulation and also the EQ thing depends on balancing. You're right. Thank you :happy:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penpaperaser said:


> From what I know so far, thinkers are typically less aware of others' emotions and intentions, and focus more on logic. Do you think that they would be more easily manipulated because of this lack of awareness? Does that then put thinkers in general at a disadvantage?


As an introverted thinker, I think that I am suspect to overt manipulation. It's the subtle manipulation that I tend to miss and as a consequence have a harder time dealing with it.


----------



## iceman44 (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm not sure to tell you the truth. All in all, it would depend on what the manipulation was to begin with and what purpose it served.:dry:


----------



## Linesky (Dec 10, 2008)

penpaperaser said:


> Ah, I see. Thanks for that.
> 
> I am wondering though, while thinkers and feelers use both T and F functions, aren't the feelers still more adept at using the F function? It is their dominant function after all. With the dominant F function more quickly broadening insight and the supporting T function piecing the information together using logic, wouldn't feelers generally get a better/faster view of a person?
> 
> Hmm... :shocked: Actually now that I think about it I realise it's more of how balanced the functions are. Without the T function supporting the F function and vice versa, each wouldn't work that well. So I guess the manipulation and also the EQ thing depends on balancing. You're right. Thank you :happy:


A non-'natural' preference will of course be more challenging for the individual at hand. Yet with awareness and practice one can choose to make use of both T and F up to a certain extent, which is quite enriching. ^^ 
I don't believe one function is more apt to figure out a person than the other, as both approaches just have insight in 'different layers'. 
Not to forget, it's not just "T" and "F" in usage, it's also the full personality.

And yes, exactly. :blushed: Hehe no prob. Thank you for liking it .


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)




----------



## paperoceans (Sep 27, 2009)

Personally, it's the other way around.


----------



## TurranMC (Sep 15, 2009)

Both thinkers and feelers are equally susceptible to manipulation. You just have to go about it differently depending on the person. Do not think you are more vulnerable, or more resistant, to manipulation simply because you are a T or F.


----------



## InvisibleJim (Jun 30, 2009)

paperoceans said:


> Personally, it's the other way around.


I merely wished to show that the way to decieve both F's and T's is by creating problems where none exist by painting an extreme picture of a situation.


----------



## roxtehproxy (Sep 9, 2009)

Both xxFx and xxTx are vulnerable to manipulation either way, but going black-white with the decision/feeling percentile is the only way to fully judge how they would/who would cause the manipulation, as unrealistic as that is. Ultimately though, the manipulation can could go either way in context; thinker being overwhelmed with emotions, feeler being rationalized.

This is a tricky one


----------



## thehigher (Apr 20, 2009)

I don't think so. I think thinkers are much more sexy.


----------



## roxtehproxy (Sep 9, 2009)

thehigher said:


> I don't think so. I think thinkers are much more sexy.


Just like KT Tunstall


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

This is a matter of perspective:

Thinkers are prone to feel vulnerable when emotionally involved, so receiving awesome feedback from emotional judging will make them fell safe and thus leaving them in a disadvantage to be manipulated by feelings.

Feelers are prone to think as incompetent when logical involved, so receiving positive feedback from logical judging will make them feel worthy and confident thus leaving them in disadvantage to be manipulated by logic.

In short an efficient manipulator, will be able to mess self-consciousness and adhere value in the proper manner.
At the end of the day we all can be fooled by a professional roud:


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Thinking cannot manipulate or be manipulated. Logic doesn't lie.

Thinking can be used as a tool by Sensing or Intuition or even feeling to manipulate by methods such as presenting incomplete logic. For Intuitive manipulation, this could involve simply lying or presenting partial information (using thinking as a tool) to create a sense that thinks are connected. 

example: proof that pirates are here to protect the world from global warming and killing them off has raised the average temp of the earth.. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/tx_eggman/pirates_vs_temp.jpg

Sensing can be used purely to manipulate. Si manipulation could be a traditional value that isn't necessarily good *cough* National Pride *cough*. Se manipulation could be an optical illusion.

Since logic doesn't lie, those who use their feeling to make decisions are more likely to be manipulated. Thinkers keep their emotions and values carefully guarded becuase they seem to know there is a weakness involved in exposing feeling. If you manage to get close to a thinker though and gain their trust, you could manipulate them with their feeling quite easily, as opposed to a feeler who is more experienced with feeling and has been manipulated through this route before. It's always been the F type manipulation that has gotten me...


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

3pnt1415926535897932384 said:


> Thinking cannot manipulate or be manipulated. Logic doesn't lie.


Manipulating and lying aren't the same.:dry: Maybe you are confusing terms (Persuading and Convincing?). 
In fact your implied logical syllogism is a way of manipulating with thinking roud:. It is a way of maneuvering logic cleverly, influencing others by giving an apparent justification that proofs the impossibility of using Thinking to manipulate. 



> ...Since logic doesn't lie, those who use their *feeling* to make decisions are *more likely to be manipulated*.


hmm... what are you trying to say here?



> ...If you manage to getclose to a* thinker* though and gain their trust, *you could manipulate* them *with their* *feeling quite easily*, *as opposed to a feeler* who is more experienced with feeling and has been manipulated through this route before....




So Thinking can't be manipulated nor manipulate because it doesn't lie,and because of this feeling users are more likely to be manipulated. (?)

AND

Thinker can be easily manipulated with feelings, but feelers can't because of their expertise in experiencing this kind of manipulation.

That means 

1) Feelers are more likely to be manipulated and because of this they can't be easily manipulated
2) Thinkers can't be manipulated but they can.
:sad:


----------



## 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 (Nov 22, 2009)

Marco Antonio said:


> Manipulating and lying aren't the same.:dry: Maybe you are confusing terms (Persuading and Convincing?).
> In fact your implied logical syllogism is a way of manipulating with thinking roud:. It is a way of maneuvering logic cleverly, influencing others by giving an apparent justification that proofs the impossibility of using Thinking to manipulate.


Ok, I probably did a bad job of explaining myself in that last post, but still You missed the point that I was trying to make in that logic in it's purest form doesn't manipulate. (this is just another way of saying what I said before that it can be used as a tool). Logic in it's purest form is well, Math. When combined with intution or any other function this combination can manipulate. But by itself Intuition or Sensing could manipulate... so, by separating the components, logic isn't the thing that is manipulative.

And yes, you would have to define manipulation. Dictionary.com gives this defintion: "to manage or influence skillfully, esp. in an unfair manner: to manipulate people's feelings.". So,assuming we accept this definition, the question hinges on what it means by "unfair manner," and how far we take the "esp." For me manipulation is causing someone to believe something false or using deceit or other immoral tools including having ulterior motives... so yes, lying basically. Unless, you want to talk about a more mechanical definition of manipulation, like how I'm manipulating my keyboard to form letters... but applying that definition to people would equal leadership, not manipulation by the definition I'm using.




> hmm... what are you trying to say here?


Feelers leave themselves open to more opportunities, therefore end up being manipulated more than a person with closely guarded feelings. This doesn't mean that at any given opportunity, the probability of a feeler being manipulated feeling-wise is higher, just that they are more open so it's easier for people to pick out their values.




> So Thinking can't be manipulated nor manipulate because it doesn't lie,and because of this feeling users are more likely to be manipulated. (?)
> 
> AND
> 
> ...


Your getting thinkers and thinking confused. In fact all people use all 8 functions and are subject to all types of manipulation (in different proportions ways)... plus you missed the If. it's not easy to get into a thinkers feeling type values in the first place. Pay attention to my conditional statements.


----------



## Blood Rose (Nov 14, 2009)

In my experience, it's easier for me to manipulate Feelers than Thinkers... Thinkers take more time and energy. 
With feelers, at first you befriend them, empathize, lull them into a false sence of security, gain their trust. With that trust, you can get them to tell you almost anything (that is, if they're not a cynical and weary Feeler.)
Not all feelers are open. Some thinkers are very open. Knowing what makes either type tick, and finding out what a person values, what their boundaries are, etc. further aids in manipulation. I think the thinkers see it coming more often than the feelers do though.


----------

