# Just a note about Te and manipulation...



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

myjazz said:


> I meant more as in the manipulation behind this concept of Te manipulation. I would think that the Fi would be more at root cause here


I would say it's Te dealing with information that is better left to Fi 



JungyesMBTIno said:


> This has nothing to do with type on it's own - it's just individual motives the OP is ultimately analyzing. Te is conceptual only - a lot of what the OP might be talking about might have nothning to do with it (other than, perhaps if this person leads with it, they might have devolved into what Jung called "a crafty reasoner"). For the most part, attributing this to type is foolish (or sounds like someone who just isn't properly evaluating the circumstances and might be overreacting to nonsense).


While I get where you're coming from, I'd like to add: I'm not familiar with the OP's situation, but I have experienced similar situations with other Te users. On an emotional level, Te tends to clash with me more than Ti does. Probably because as an Ti/Fe user I understand the Ti users better. I don't think it's the health of the types that are causing the problem in the OP but rather the distance in understanding. What may seem scummy manipulation may just be different perspectives on the same situation. After all, we only have one side of the story.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

hornet said:


> Focus on the manipulation of Te becomes like focusing on the sins of the shovel because it was used in murder.
> Where ever Te goes there is Fi. Fi is involved with all Te usage.
> Te is a henchman, effectively carrying out the Fi agenda.
> Remember that Te and Fi can have any content, type of content is more enlightened by enneagram and other factors.
> ...


I'm happy someone said it. Just because someone's behavior may conflict with your morals doesn't make them unhealthy. It makes you seem unhealthy every time you jump the gun to call someone unhealthy. It gives the illusion that you're healthy and since the other person is the example of what you disagree with morality wise, then they must be unhealthy. When describing other people to someone using this style of speech, you end up projecting that illusion onto the other person to make them agree with you. Now we delve into confirmation bias, cognitive bias and self fulling prophecy which is a deadly three mixture.

As @hornet said, manipulation isn't "unhealthy" in of itself. Its a tool to be used by some to achieve a certain goal. It can be used in negative and positive ways, even if used in positive ways it can cause negative circumstances for some (greater good, necessary evil etc.), this applies vice-versa also.

Back on topic, I have to agree that its inferior Fi projecting itself out through Dom Te which is what may be causing the manipulation tactics that a Te user may use. Even though in my own personal analysis I tend to recognize the patterns that Te users are horrible manipulators. They're to rigid in their logic to manipulate under the surface to be able to convince others to do whatever the goal is. That's from my personal analysis which could possibly be biased since I've only studied the patterns of only so many Te users and not the whole flock.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I stand by what I said previously. That kind of joking sounds like something that type would probably have nothing to do with (sounds more like you would have to examine the persona of the person to figure out why they're doing this to you). I think @_celticstained_ is getting warmer with "look at the feeling function" for the answer - perhaps they thought something you said was stupid or annoying. Type won't explain or solve your problem - it will only be an excuse to blame others for your problems (like, not standing up for yourself or not just asking them to elucidate why they're saying what they're saying). Jung would probably find this question totally irrelevant to type (we're almost going down the "INFJ doorslam" route with this kind of reasoning - that's an internet myth btw, not backed up with any real world correlations or theory). This is exactly the kind of thing Jung said had nothing to do with the thinking function (jokes, ruminations, sarcastic jibes, etc.).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

For as well thought out as some of these posts are, this entire concept is laughable - inferior my ass - there is no inferior at play here (e.g. primitive, unadapted projections, compulsive ties to objects, feeling like your losing your mind, disorientation, negative thoughts attatching to the most valued objects of one's affections, personal tyranny, etc.). I'll say it again, Te has nothing to do with manipulation as a function (that's not ego defense - that's persona defense). Manipulation is manipulation - tying this to functions is silly. I see nothing to suggest much in the way of "crafty reasoning" going on with this person either - it all just sounds like silly joking.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

ThatGuyInBlueRoom2 said:


> I would say it's Te dealing with information that is better left to Fi
> 
> 
> While I get where you're coming from, I'd like to add: I'm not familiar with the OP's situation, but I have experienced similar situations with other Te users. On an emotional level, Te tends to clash with me more than Ti does. Probably because as an Ti/Fe user I understand the Ti users better. I don't think it's the health of the types that are causing the problem in the OP but rather the distance in understanding. What may seem scummy manipulation may just be different perspectives on the same situation. After all, we only have one side of the story.


Yea, there's probably just projection going on from neither trying to see from each other's POV. This whole thing doesn't sound like type at all (it's as simple as saying, "I'm an INTJ, and I wouldn't do that" to bascially end this thread).


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

Way too many ad hominems going on in this thread IMO. Also, I don't think that it's too morally imposing to consider psychopathic/narcissistic behavior unhealthy. That doesn't imply that I think that I'm any more healthy, either. I would call the Te I'm referring to character disordered while I'm neurotic, since hey, I'm a dominant Ji function and not a dom/aux Je function! And Fi is intrapersonal, so if it's tertiary/inferior it's going to be carried out via Te. Fi provides the motivations while Te is the administration. 

Also, the statement that the manipulation isn't unhealthy "because they succeeded" is pretty inherently psychopathic... But whatever. The foundation of corporate America is built on psychopathy and it's practically rewarded in society (see: social darwinism). That's why Te flourishes here lol.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> For as well thought out as some of these posts are, this entire concept is laughable - inferior my ass - there is no inferior at play here (e.g. primitive, unadapted projections, compulsive ties to objects, feeling like your losing your mind, disorientation, negative thoughts attatching to the most valued objects of one's affections, personal tyranny, etc.). I'll say it again, Te has nothing to do with manipulation as a function (that's not ego defense - that's persona defense). Manipulation is manipulation - tying this to functions is silly. I see nothing to suggest much in the way of "crafty reasoning" going on with this person either - it all just sounds like silly joking.


some of the examples the OP used are complaints i've heard from Te-doms before, about other's not being grateful and what not. while these may not link explicitly to one function, and therefore not be a direct product of a function, they may tend to be birthed by a perspective that is associated with a function. 

the similarity i noticed between the OP's observations and my own of Te-doms is what i see as a lack of expression or acknowledgement of feeling altogether--at least from an outsider's perspective. not to stereotype, or to lump all extroverted-thinking dominants into one manifestation, but the uneasiness they may have around the more personal cues of a relationship cause them to show it in other ways such as sacrifice of their own wants and needs in order to account for those of their friend's, partner, or even those of an organization. the problems seem to be that this largely goes unrecognized and the other person sees only a lack of passion or warmness/whatever towards themselves. 

by the way, which example correlates with modes of the inferior you've listed? some seem kind of obvious, others seem vague enough to fit a number of (if not all) of the "grip-eruptions". and what is "crafty reasoning" in terms of a Te-dom--a way of manipulating the outer world in favor of their own wants/needs, all the while finding a "logical" reason for the action that attempts to draw attention away from their real motives?


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

Also, whoever said that they know plenty of INTPs who can "see through Te's bullshit" probably knows a bunch of mistyped TJs.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I really don't know that inferior feeling was meant to conceptualize things like a person showing inconsistent motives - Jung seemed to think it correlated with these types "obliterating" sources of personal passion - inconsistency of caring, I have no idea what the OP is getting at here - it might just be in his imagination, he really hasn't reasoned from the perspective of this other person.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> For as well thought out as some of these posts are, this entire concept is laughable - inferior my ass - there is no inferior at play here (e.g. primitive, unadapted projections, compulsive ties to objects, feeling like your losing your mind, disorientation, negative thoughts attatching to the most valued objects of one's affections, personal tyranny, etc.). I'll say it again, Te has nothing to do with manipulation as a function (that's not ego defense - that's persona defense). Manipulation is manipulation - tying this to functions is silly. I see nothing to suggest much in the way of "crafty reasoning" going on with this person either - it all just sounds like silly joking.


I've been studying your responses to many threads for quite a while and the most noticeable thing is that you attribute almost not one bit of behavior to the cognitive functions. I understand you have read a bit of Jung as I have, but I think you misunderstood a lot of what he was aiming for. The existence of the cognitive functions was to further understand the varying thought processes of humans. These weren't concepts he just made up and hoped everything else just confirmed his theory. No, instead he looked at behavior, he studied the patterns within behavior and then he started to group up specific patterns that had a high probability of crossing/working with each other. Carl Jung didn't know all there is to cognitive functions, he merely saw what others barely pay attention to and started to study what he observed. The fact is he started with behavior, then broke it down to cognitive processes with the help of his patients during his days as a psychiatrist. There is still room to apply certain behaviors to specific cognitive functions, the patterns are there and are undeniable. The problem people come across is that when attributing certain behaviors to types or cognitive functions, you have to realize probability comes into play. A Te Dom can manipulate, and their style of manipulating will differ from an Fe Dom. Nevertheless they both can manipulate, a matter of fact, all types can manipulate. To say that they don't all have their different flavors of manipulation due to their preferred cognitive functions is basically blocking out a part of reality to make yourself feel comfortable.

To be more direct and clear, I have no problem with you as a person. I have a problem with the fact that you try to shut down whatever behavioral patterns some may see in a specific type of person/function. They come to this site to share their experience, their analysis with others to see if their patterns have any validity in the objective world by upping the probability of how often this pattern is seen by others. Going around and saying you don't agree with people, and saying its laughable is equivalent to putting your fingers in your ear and yelling that you're not listening. Show proof (articles or quotes from Jung books) or logical reasoning that displays that what you "think" may have some type of truth within it. Until then, all you're doing is discouraging some users from seeing if there is a specific pattern of behavior within certain types/functions.

Also claiming Jung would find anything irrelevant to type is wrong if you ever read later on in his works. He attributes many behavioral patterns to functions in his works, not just psychological types. For example I'll use a quote from one of his lectures:



Jung said:


> People with an overdevelopment of intuition which leads them to scorn objective reality, and so finally to a conflict such as I have described above, have usually characteristic dreams. I once had a patient as a girl of the most extraordinary intuitive powers, and she had pushed the thing to such a point that her own body even was unreal to her. Once I asked her half jokingly if she had never noticed that she had a body, and she answered quite seriously that she had not--she bathed herself under a sheet!


As you can see, he very well did apply a characteristic of his patient to functions. He did what any analyzer would do, find patterns that share similarities with prior knowledge and delve deeper into it. He did what some of us on here do every day. There is room to build on and learn more about cognitive functions, that's what some of us like to do. Just claiming what Jung would believe isn't enough to discount a theory. Maybe I misunderstand your stance, but if your goal is to get in the way of analysis of any kind without a 100% undeniable logical explanation, then I may ask you to please stop. Well there is freedom of speech, so you can keep on continuing but I'm just letting you know you may be discouraging those who are looking for answers to continue looking for answers.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

fruitarian said:


> Way too many ad hominems going on in this thread IMO. Also, I don't think that it's too morally imposing to consider psychopathic/narcissistic behavior unhealthy. That doesn't imply that I think that I'm any more healthy, either. I would call the Te I'm referring to character disordered while I'm neurotic, since hey, I'm a dominant Ji function and not a dom/aux Je function! And Fi is intrapersonal, so if it's tertiary/inferior it's going to be carried out via Te. Fi provides the motivations while Te is the administration.
> 
> Also, the statement that the manipulation isn't unhealthy "because they succeeded" is pretty inherently psychopathic... But whatever. The foundation of corporate America is built on psychopathy and it's practically rewarded in society (see: social darwinism). That's why Te flourishes here lol.


Do you think all forms of manipulation are characteristics to being unhealthy?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

fruitarian said:


> Also, *the statement that the manipulation isn't unhealthy "because they succeeded"* is pretty inherently psychopathic... But whatever. The foundation of corporate America is built on psychopathy and it's practically rewarded in society (see: social darwinism). That's why Te flourishes here lol.


Gee let us all take things out of context shall we... XD
It isn't unhealthy *within a cognitive perspective.*

I never said that manipulation wasn't unhealthy in other realms.
But this isn't about those other realms.
This is *Jungian cognitive psychology*. 
In this realm, value judgements on the morality of the content parsed trough the cognitive function, 
does not affect the health of the cognitive function.

It is like claiming that malaria infected blood passed trough a metal tube will somehow damage the structural integrity of the
tube, cause malaria is bad, and since it is bad then everything it touches will break down and become corrupted.

The psychopathic claim came from the person who had to introduce the ad hominem concept into the thread.
I find that really fascinating... XD


----------



## ih8thereptilesincharge (Jul 13, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> For as well thought out as some of these posts are, this entire concept is laughable - inferior my ass - there is no inferior at play here (e.g. primitive, unadapted projections, compulsive ties to objects, feeling like your losing your mind, disorientation, negative thoughts attatching to the most valued objects of one's affections, personal tyranny, etc.). I'll say it again, Te has nothing to do with manipulation as a function (that's not ego defense - that's persona defense). Manipulation is manipulation - tying this to functions is silly. I see nothing to suggest much in the way of "crafty reasoning" going on with this person either - it all just sounds like silly joking.


Yeah anybody can be manipulative, but there's certain patterns of manipulation that coincide with different functional stackings. There ARE indeed prevalent patterns of unhealthy manipulation that I have noticed between types.. and I certainly believe TJs have been traumatized in a way that causes them to suppress/hide their Fi and act as if it's not there. This is not healthy for the psyche as the tertiary/inferior function must grow to individuate and promote psychological growth. It does still manifest itself in unexpected places, whether they like it or not. Te has everything to do with manipulation as a function, as the extroverted judging function is where information is catharted. 

Additionally, myjazz stated that Fi would be the root cause for manipulation.. I disagree. Fi is flaunted and used as a toy but is repressed at it's core and is represented in a rather shallow manner in many TJs. Fi displays itself at the surface and can help in being manipulative but I wouldn't say it's the root cause.


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

hornet said:


> Gee let us all take things out of context shall we... XD
> It isn't unhealthy *within a cognitive perspective.*
> 
> I never said that manipulation wasn't unhealthy in other realms.
> ...


Wow. This has nothing to do with the functions whatsoever. The fuck are you even talking about?


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> Do you think all forms of manipulation are characteristics to being unhealthy?


I don't really have a black or white answer to that question, but I know that in certain circumstances someone who may very well be healthy might have to be manipulative just to make it out of a situation in tact, especially in dealing with other manipulative/threatening people. That, however, I would say is an appropriate reaction to an unhealthy situation. I don't think that manipulation should be necessary for people to achieve their means to an end, so I guess I would say that most manipulation isn't very healthy unless it's in defense to an already hostile environment.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

fruitarian said:


> Wow. This has nothing to do with the functions whatsoever. The fuck are you even talking about?


When reason fail use the f-word... :dry:

Tell me *how* does manipulation make a person *cognitively unhealthy...* oh wise wise someone I don't know.
Please cite the relevant sources in Jungs works so that I may easily and painlessly follow your train of thought.


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

hornet said:


> When reason fail use the f-word... :dry:
> 
> Tell me *how* does manipulation make a person *cognitively unhealthy...* oh wise wise someone I don't know.
> Please cite the relevant sources in Jungs works so that I may easily and painlessly follow your train of thought.


Define cognitively unhealthy.
+ appeal to authority


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

fruitarian said:


> Define cognitively unhealthy.
> + appeal to authority


Cognitively unhealthy:

Inability to keep a balance between subjective and objective information.
Losing touch with inner self or external reality.

I dunno what your point is about appeal to authority...
Maybe you are so arrogant that you believe that you have a firmer grasp of this subject than Jung had.
If so please elaborate, share your infinite wisdom...
So far I'm starting to suspect you are in over your head and don't have a clue about the subject matter.


----------



## fruitarian (May 31, 2012)

hornet said:


> Cognitively unhealthy:
> 
> Inability to keep a balance between subjective and objective information.
> Losing touch with inner self or external reality.
> ...


Your definition of cognitively unhealthy is completely arbitrary. Besides, it's funny that you call me arrogant, considering that you've been condescending from the start. Using several "XD"s in your post totally means that you know what you're talking about. Also, by appeal to authority, I'm saying that you're such an intellectual sheep that the only way you'll believe any form of cognitive theory is if it's quoted out of a book for you. Good for you. Think that I'm in over my head all you want, since your posts are pretty incomprehensibly insipid anyways. Have fun thinking you're an ISFP.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

fruitarian said:


> I don't really have a black or white answer to that question, but I know that in certain circumstances someone who may very well be healthy might have to be manipulative just to make it out of a situation in tact, especially in dealing with other manipulative/threatening people. That, however, I would say is an appropriate reaction to an unhealthy situation. I don't think that manipulation should be necessary for people to achieve their means to an end, so I guess I would say that most manipulation isn't very healthy unless it's in defense to an already hostile environment.


So to say the least, you personally have a distaste for the art of manipulation (since all manipulation including those used in defense are always used for a means to an end). If what I'm stating is true, then I must ask if you are aware of your bias towards manipulation and how it might hinder your analysis of a certain someone since you make a judgement call based on manipulative tactics. See I disagree with you, I think manipulation should be used as a means to an end when the end promises a positive reaction. In other words (which I've caught my self using these references way to much in the past few days), I think manipulation in of itself isn't a negative nor positive thing, it could be a necessary evil for a greater good or it could be nothing but harmful to others.

So may I ask another question, do you fear manipulation?


----------

