# Manipulation and Te vs Ti



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

My long-feared sequel to http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/81782-manipulation-fe-vs-fi.html... You saw it coming, Ni users...

It's not solely Feeling functions that manipulate. It's actually pretty interesting, what I just pulled out of my ass. Feeling functions do an "emotional" manipulation, while Thinking functions do a "logical" manipulation.

Te types will manipulate through the simple tenacity of expressing a truth. They will accuse you of being a moron for not seeing this "objective truth" and practically browbeat you into submission. It's a technique to manipulate others into seeing a "universal" logic.

Ti types will manipulate through constant nitpicking. Now, nitpicking in itself is not a form of manipulation, but constantly deriding one's arguments through nitpicking while making no real arguments of your own is. It's a technique that establishes dominance through putting the other's arguments down.

In no way am I saying that all Te or Ti types manipulate, but there are some that do. And I'm more than willing to admit this is not completely accurate.


----------



## Mr. Limpopo (Oct 7, 2011)

Torai said:


> Te types will manipulate through the simple tenacity of expressing a truth. They will accuse you of being a moron for not seeing this "objective truth" and practically browbeat you into submission. It's a technique to manipulate others into seeing a "universal" logic.


"angry_me.txt"


----------



## Metanoia (Nov 21, 2011)

Yup... I can see it, in myself, and others I suspect as Te dom/aux users... nice insights.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Mr. Limpopo said:


> "angry_me.txt"


----------



## hasenj (Sep 23, 2010)

Haha, yea, nitpicking: pointing out the inconsistencies in the opponent's logic.

I don't consider a manipulation technique, but perhaps it really is.


----------



## LykosGaiscioch (Dec 19, 2011)

Torai said:


> Ti types will manipulate through constant nitpicking. Now, nitpicking in itself is not a form of manipulation, but constantly deriding one's arguments through nitpicking while making no real arguments of your own is. It's a technique that establishes dominance through putting the other's arguments down.


_Danggit_, I've been found out! Seriously though, I've observed myself doing this "nitpicking" when in a "debate" with a XXFX* who has begun verbally attacking me instead of the issue at hand. With anyone I start a discussion with, I am willing to layout my reasons (for my stance on a particular issue) in quite a bit of detail if it's been determined they'll actually listen with an open mind. And I'm willing to do the same for their reasons/argument as well. 

When the illogical, emotional reactions begin to roll in though, my openmindedness to hearing what they have to say turns off and I switch to brutually disproving and showing the gaps and errors in their arguments. The "manipulation" comes into play with the nitpicking of their disjointed arguments to pieces. They're already pissed off, I refuse to engage in what they want to turn into a sparring match, I continue to dismantle their argument, and at that point their circuits overload.

I admit the aim (once they've crossed the line) is to annihilate their position and render them completely unable to provide any further counterarguments. Generally though, I'll avoid doing this as much as possible and just walk away since the "manipulation" isn't very productive for obvious reasons.

*Dislcaimer: I am not suggesting that this happens with all Feelers I interact with, or that all Feelers are this way.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I've only done this with siblings. With friends or people I don't know, I'll just walk away. The only time I can see myself doing otherwise would be in an official debate where the other person(s) took it way out of bounds.

Thanks for your analysis, btw.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

hasenj said:


> Haha, yea, nitpicking: pointing out the inconsistencies in the opponent's logic.
> 
> I don't consider a manipulation technique, but perhaps it really is.


In a way, it is. No logic is without its flaws. If you constantly nitpick without making any real arguments of your own, then you're generally just being a huge dick. Anyone who actually wants to make a debate with a constant nitpicker finds it's generally not productive in the least, due to the destruction of ideas without any creation of new ones.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel I might be off the mark on Te manipulation. I only understand Te simplistically. I'm not a Te user, and I don't know how they work from a personal point of view. As a Ti user, I can do pretty well in terms of describing Ti's flaws, but Te is not easy for me. 

So if Te users have anything to say, please do.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> Te types will manipulate through the simple tenacity of expressing a truth. They will accuse you of being a moron for not seeing this "objective truth" and practically browbeat you into submission. It's a technique to manipulate others into seeing a "universal" logic.


That's not manipulation, that's being stubborn (most likely happening in debate settings). Te manipulation is more like this: Hey I think you should do this...here's why <state several convincing logical reasons why doing the Te user's suggestion will lead you to a better position that your current one and will indeed accomplish your goals>

Even better is if you combine it with Fi....first determine what the other person really wants/value....then convince him logically that your method will indeed satisfy what this person wants and is the best such method to do so.....being convinced, the person then goes ahead and follow your suggestions.....of course there may be ulterior motives at play here as well, but that's another story....hehehe...


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

childofprodigy said:


> That's not manipulation, that's being stubborn (most likely happening in debate settings). Te manipulation is more like this: Hey I think you should do this...here's why <state several convincing logical reasons why doing the Te user's suggestion will lead you to a better position that your current one and will indeed accomplish your goals>
> 
> Even better is if you combine it with Fi....first determine what the other person really wants/value....then convince him logically that your method will indeed satisfy what this person wants and is the best such method to do so.....being convinced, the person then goes ahead and follow your suggestions.....of course there may be ulterior motives at play here as well, but that's another story....hehehe...


Isn't that just simple persuasion techniques? Everyone has wants and needs, and it's easy to persuade them towards something. I personally don't see it as manipulation, as long as you don't demand the person do anything. Heck, I do the same thing and I'm Fe/Ti.

I'm going off the basis that Te tends to go into a mindset that logic is ultimately best when it's empirical and objective, and I personally believe unhealthy forms of Te bash people's intelligence for not understanding said objectivity and empiricalness.

Attacking the person's ability to think is a form of manipulation because it tries to set a sort of hierarchy of intelligence, and puts you down in the hierarchy, attempting to stifle your ability to say what you want to say. Simply because you both don't come to the same conclusion. If you use the manipulation properly, it can easily undermine one's sense of self-worth and silence their argument.

Manipulation is hardly logical and attempts to stifle a person's ability to choose, whereas persuasion assumes the person has a choice and looks to make one choice seem more attractive.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> Isn't that just simple persuading techniques? I personally don't see it as manipulation, as long as you don't demand the person do anything. Heck, I do the same thing and I'm Fe/Ti.


Yeah but the thing is Te is more likely to arrive to the objectively most optimal course of action....sure anyone can formulate arguments as to the pros and cons of any specific action, but Te's choice tend to be the most optimal, ie will maximize chance of success and minimize risk given the currently available options....Being able to come up with the objectively optimal course of action implies that others will more likely to see it and therefore more likely to follow it 

Also the key is this:


> as long as you don't demand the person do anything


. 

The reason why it's manipulation is that you've successfully induced the person to do an action that you want him to do out of his own free will without seeming demanding....of course you can be pushy as well, but that will just produce resistance....I find persuasion to be more effective than simple brute force solution in inducing others to action....brute force solution should be this "when all else fail" thing 



> I'm going off the basis that Te tends to go into a mindset that logic is ultimately objective, and I personally believe unhealthy forms of Te bash people's intelligence for not understanding said objective logic.


That's true, but again you're not manipulating anybody when you're doing that. That once again will more likely to produce resistance rather than compliance. 

I mean I guess it depends on what you mean by manipulation.....we may be talking about completely different thing here...


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

childofprodigy said:


> Yeah but the thing is Te is more likely to arrive to the objectively most optimal course of action....sure anyone can formulate arguments as to the pros and cons of any specific action, but Te's choice tend to be the most optimal, ie will maximize chance of success and minimize risk given the currently available options....Being able to come up with the objectively optimal course of action implies that others will more likely to see it and therefore more likely to follow it
> 
> Also the key is this: .
> 
> ...


I understand...

But the big difference, in my opinion, is that manipulation seeks to put down others in order to achieve a goal. Nearly every time someone is manipulated, they never take action out of willingness, but they take it out of reluctance. Someone who is persuaded takes it out of willingness, believing they had taken the proper action.

Browbeating one into submission by attacking their intelligence isn't powerful when only one person does it. Like browbeating one into submission when attacking them for selfishness, like Fe does. But both of them work really well in group situations. Due to confirmation bias, as long as someone agrees with you, you can easily establish a hive mind. _That's_ when it gets scary.


----------



## BlueG (Jun 2, 2011)

If we agree that manipulation is "to manage or influence skillfully, especially in an unfair manner for the manipulator's gain" then how can nitpicking be manipulation? How can it be used as gain for one person other than dominating? Dominating is a very narrow result on the manipulation scale.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

Torai said:


> I understand...
> 
> But the big difference, in my opinion, is that manipulation seeks to put down others in order to achieve a goal. Nearly every time someone is manipulated, they never take action out of willingness, but they take it out of reluctance. Someone who is persuaded takes it out of willingness, believing they had taken the proper action.
> 
> Browbeating one into submission by attacking their intelligence isn't powerful when only one person does it. Like browbeating one into submission when attacking them for selfishness, like Fe does. Both both of them work really well in group situations. Due to confirmation bias, as long as someone agrees with you, you can easily establish a hive mind. _That's_ when it gets scary.


Well in that case we are indeed talking about different things....my conception of manipulation was successfully inducing someone to adopt a certain belief or take a course of action....like propaganda film/advertisements that attempt to "manipulate" the audience to do something....it's manipulation but it's not necessarily through putting others down....


----------

