[ENFJ] ENFJ's: Not Manipulative.

[Athenian200]

I'm going to go ahead and wonder a thing.

See, Te and Fi, they prompt me to speak the case to other people, to present it in whatever its merit, and leave it up to them to join in. If I really want them to join in, I'll say so, and try finding ways to direct their decision toward my cause. But the strongest decision someone else can make for my cause is one they make themselves, an uninfluenced decision. Technically, obviously, NO decision is uninfluenced, all sorts of influence was brought to bear. But the assumption on my part is someone will do something akin to what I would do: they'll check with the inner judge and see if it says yea or nay. And (theoretically) if they look like they can't access an inner judge, I'll make it easy for them, I'll offer many outs, many different ways to escape, lots of reasons to say no. Because someone who hasn't chosen by themselves is someone I CAN'T RELY ON. They'll only keep going with my project if I continually prop them up. Which I can't do. They have to reliably choose for themselves.

That's the theory. I made it sound nice and lovely.

So now... someone... cast it in a nice light, please, I'd like to know...

What does Fe and Ti prompt you to do?

I don't know about other FJs.

But for me... Fe prompts me to choose the option that is most emotionally comfortable for me and the people around me. Ti prompts me to constrain my options to things that I already know I'm competent at so that I won't look bad or let anyone down.

When someone starts making an option sound unattractive by pointing out all the potential pitfalls, it tends to make me want to give up and not try, because I think about all those things and go, "Well, I like this option in many ways, but I might not be competent enough to cope with X, Y, and Z if they happen/are true/are expected, so I guess I shouldn't choose that. I might fail and disappoint someone. Don't want to tell them I can do it and then not be able to live up to it." So I end up fishing for an option that's emotionally neutral or comfortable, and that only demands of me things I already know I'm capable of.

Now, if I'm in a situation where it's clear nothing is expected... I'm more willing to try to do something I don't already know I can do well in most circumstances. And I usually try to master and become comfortable with skills in such an environment before I would be comfortable saying I could do anything involving such things to anyone with expectations.

 

[Kalach]

^ So a positive, supportive, maybe encouragingly progressive personal environment is genuinely valuable. A requirement, even.


(I can't be sure of the adjectives. Are they the right adjectives?)

 

[hommefatal]

You could consider every intuitive activity manipulation.
Most ENFJs don't abuse it. You don't need to tell everything to others. Appealing to the emotions of others is not a bad thing. ENFJs paraphrase things way better.

Compare
A. "I need satisfaction!"
B. "I want to be close to you."

So which would you choose? B of course. ENFJs are likely to say that and it's much more exhilarating than the other one.

 

[Moiety]

You could consider every intuitive activity manipulation.
Most ENFJs don't abuse it. You don't need to tell everything to others. Appealing to the emotions of others is not a bad thing. ENFJs paraphrase things way better.

Compare
A. "I need satisfaction!"
B. "I want to be close to you."

So which would you choose? B of course. ENFJs are likely to say that and it's much more exhilarating than the other one.

Eh?

 

[Udog]

That has always been my policy. Nonetheless, you poor saps out there expecting to manipulate and be manipulated, you're operating in an environment that is alien and offensive to me.

Are your schemes so corrupt that you cannot directly ask for cooperation? And cede me the right to answer yea or nay according to my own lights?

The thing is, it's a mindset. You don't consider direct to be manipulative, but it's easy enough to say that it is. The direct method is just one tool of many that people have at their employ.

 

[hommefatal]

Eh?

I tried to explain ENFJ behaviour.

 

[Kalach]

The thing is, it's a mindset. You don't consider direct to be manipulative, but it's easy enough to say that it is. The direct method is just one tool of many that people have at their employ.

I think perhaps this may all come down to particular focus. As a Te type, I claim to focus on tasks, not people, thus being direct means in principle presenting information not about me, nor about the other person, but about some third thing, the task. In principle then there are two people standing around judging for themselves this third thing. Fe, on the other hand, has the focus on the people. Thus, whatever is going on is directly at or in or about the two people involved, whatever cover story is used. Expressed that way... well, I dunno.

But now, of course, the other hand: speaking as I am in this topic, I am not talking about some third thing, some task, no, I am talking about the people involved.. Which is confusing, and I don't know what it means, except that I'm using Te to talk about people, thus talk about their effect in the world, and it seems that if I keep talking this way I'll be in essence attempting to render illegitimate all Fe efforts to connect with other people. I'll perhaps even attempt to surreptitiously suggest that all people should rather be using internal judgments about what is right and wrong, and what is too much and too little when interacting with others. I'll be saying, in other words, Fi FTW! Or, Fi *is* justice! And all other things are unjust!

From my perspective, I call manipulation when people aim at using the parts of me I have less control over. More specifically, when they aim to bypass the parts I have more direct control over.

I note too that were I take up my Te reason hammers and start lecturing an NFJ, they can legitimately call manipulation too for I--unbeknownst to poor little frightened and just hoping for the greater good me--would be trying to bypass their higher functions. I'd be pushing them around against their better understanding of what they want.

 

[Clonester]

I think it's the Fe, because a close ESFJ friend of mine is quite controlling. I can feel her try and control a situation and pry out information.

The manipulation thing is really one of the few glaring things that bug me about some ENFJ's. There are a lot of great things about them and they can use their powers of persuasion to do great things and motivate others. I think ENFP's and INFP's work well with ENFJ's in general, particularly in relationships.

 

[Kalach]

I wonder, how about asking

"ENFJs: Organisational?"



"Organisatiative"?



*sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh*

I think it's fair to say I fear and detest the influence of Fe in my life.

Am I allowed to say such things?

 

[Unique]

Setting aside for the moment the fact that declaring that your entire type doesn't do something is pretty questionable, I'll respond to your actual point.

I think what you mean is that ENFJs don't *intend* it as manipulation the way ENTJs do. You legitimately see yourselves as helping others/making a positive difference in most situations, and usually you are. So people tend to really like you, and for good reason.

But ENFJs can easily come off as manipulative to other types who don't really understand your thought process/reasoning for your actions. And they may never understand--but the fact is ExxJ types tend to be considered more manipulative, simply because they're outwardly involved with the outside world in a goal-oriented and methodical manner. Dominant Te/Fe gives the impression of manipulation, generally to strong P types who don't take perceived threats to their freedom lightly.

EJ: When are you going back to school?
IP: I dunno, whenever the time feels right.
EJ: You should really make a plan for getting your life together...it would help you in so many ways!
IP: *thinks: "Man, this guy is really manipulative!"* Umm yeah...thanks.

Your good intentions don't always come off the way you think they do.

By the way, strong F types in general can have a tendency to take things too personally. Your tone sounds as if you've taken this accusation rather personally yourself, declaring outright that you, and in fact all ENFJs, are not manipulative instead of asking others for more information to determine why this perception exists--textbook J. Perhaps try actively conditioning yourself not to jump to conclusions--keep your options open. Try to give your auxiliary Ni more time to compete with dominant Fe. This will help Ps stop perceiving you as manipulative.

But hey, look on the bright side. Of the four ExxJ types, you're probably perceived as the least manipulative. There's always that.

I enjoyed this post

Just saying...

 

[Athenian200]

^ So a positive, supportive, maybe encouragingly progressive personal environment is genuinely valuable. A requirement, even.


(I can't be sure of the adjectives. Are they the right adjectives?)

Yes, you got it. This is one reason I'm struggling to find a job in this Te world. They keep expecting me to be comfortable pushing and pushing in the face of discouragement and criticism, and I'm not strong enough that I find that easy (though I can do it in bursts).

 

[Domino]

I wonder, how about asking

"ENFJs: Organisational?"

No.

"Organisatiative"?

No.

*sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh*

I think it's fair to say I fear and detest the influence of Fe in my life.

No.

Am I allowed to say such things?

No.... oh all right! Go for it, tiger!



I've got a working hypothesis as to why people who 1. don't use Fe, 2. have it as an inferior function, or 3. are T primaries freak out when confronted with it.

It takes away your illusions of personal control. You are no more controlled than we are, but you certainly believe you are, and that belief is based on what? A pet theory of yours skewed through your lens of "truth" that wouldn't pass muster in any of your scientific or logical arenas according to your own set of definitions?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

^ interesting hypothesis.

1) I do use Fe. although in a limited range. With those I'm very comfortable with and feel a genuine bond with. Otherwise, I try to be a polite person who shows a natural good will towards his fellow man/woman. 2) I have it as an inferior function. 3) I'm a T that doesn't "freak out" when confronted with it. I have enough experiences to empathize with said person's emotional state.

That being said, I think it's not the Fe outburst that causes most T's to "freak out" but it's more the pressure of having to react to them in a "proper" way (i.e. socially acceptable) that causes stress.
If it were socially acceptable to listen to them in silence while they pour their soul out than have to give hugs and words of encouragement. I think we'd be fine. I think a lot of people that meet that 1, 2, 3 criteria see someone upset and think. "Okay, there's a problem. We need to fix it." And the softness and sympathy get lost in trying to do just that.

As far as T's being confronted with their own Fe? Hmm...I think we just don't trust it. Because feelings are fleeting and are subject to change. So we are much more hesitant to display something that may or may not be "true"...(i.e. true to ourselves - not some universal idea of truth) because the next day we might regret that expression because we don't feel that way anymore. If anything, we want our actions and expression of feeling to be consistent.

 

[Giggly]

ENFJ's are like chocolate.

 

[LadyJaye]

It takes away your illusions of personal control. You are no more controlled than we are, but you certainly believe you are, and that belief is based on what? A pet theory of yours skewed through your lens of "truth" that wouldn't pass muster in any of your scientific or logical arenas according to your own set of definitions?

+1

 

[JocktheMotie]

I've got a working hypothesis as to why people who 1. don't use Fe, 2. have it as an inferior function, or 3. are T primaries freak out when confronted with it.

It takes away your illusions of personal control. You are no more controlled than we are, but you certainly believe you are, and that belief is based on what? A pet theory of yours skewed through your lens of "truth" that wouldn't pass muster in any of your scientific or logical arenas according to your own set of definitions?

I don't really understand the bolded. Also, I think the reason your 1,2, and 3 "freak out" when confronted with it really has to do with the significant amount of discomfort that results when faced with decisions being made on criteria that run completely opposite of your criteria. I really don't think it's because Fe shatters illusions of personal control.

But then again I'm Ti-dom. If you'd like to talk about this pet theory more I'd be interested to hear it. All this ENFJ talk lately has me examining Fe more closely in general.

 

[Mondo]

I think the ENFJ can be manipulative if he or she thinks that manipulating that person is the only way to help them.. the ENFJ's I know can be very self-righteous and act like they know what is best for everyone.

As an anti-authoritarian, risk-taking, "my mind can think of a way to get around the system" ENTP.. I get to listen to such people a lot.. but my friends know I'm tough to change.

 

[Kalach]

It takes away your illusions of personal control. You are no more controlled than we are, but you certainly believe you are, and that belief is based on what? A pet theory of yours skewed through your lens of "truth" that wouldn't pass muster in any of your scientific or logical arenas according to your own set of definitions?

That first sentence is the awful one. Cuz you know, right, that Fi is personal control?

And I kvote: "On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions."

The belief that I am personally controlled comes from an actual cognitive activity: choosing (or claiming to choose) my actions according to what *I* as I alone think is right for the balance of I as I.

Inasmuch as what *I* think is right is influenced by outside factors, experience, other people, history, all the rest of it, I am not personally controlled, I'm controlled by the outside world. However, since I process those influences and in principle pick and choose between them, this idea of personal control grows a pair of balls and will pass scientific muster. Determinism, universal outside influence is defeated by the existence of internal processing that can and will abstract away from immediate influences. And it works because the feeling, such as it is, is focused not on the outside world, but on the processes inside myself.

Do you wish, leader, to insist that this is an illusion?

For it to be an illusion, it must be true that ultimately, in the end, at the final accounting, if there is any feeling for anything at all, its true focus is outside the person. And that introverted feeling is feeling with a perverted focus.

 

[Udog]

From my perspective, I call manipulation when people aim at using the parts of me I have less control over. More specifically, when they aim to bypass the parts I have more direct control over.

I would have replied earlier, but I couldn't understand much of your response. However, this part I can see.

So, in essence, you define manipulation not by intention, but by methodology.

An ENTJ could try and manipulate you, but because they attack via Te/Ni, you'd see it and are still essentially be free to decide if you want to play along. However, an ENFJ who isn't trying to manipulate you would still be viewed as such, because they communicate via your weak Fe, and you would be unable to decipher their intentions.

 

[Kalach]

I think it might be definitional: Dominant and Auxiliary Fe aims at altering the emotional states of others. Or put in a more benign formulation: aims to directly support the emotional states of others.

It seems this is not definitional for Dominant and Auxiliary Fi, though I note that in interaction with others, conscious Fi users will move to smooth over conflict and address feeling, perhaps indirectly.

So what's manipulation and what's not? Probably when you don't want that person to do what they're doing about your feeling but they keep doing it anyway. It becomes a negative interaction that you'd want to say, stop that, you're pushing me around! And it might be exactly the kind of thing other people would love, but since one is just not built to enjoy or accept it, it's force. And if it's secret, undercover, not spoken overtly, it's manipulation. And it's manipulation even if one is built in ways that can accept it but currently doesn't want it.

The more I mull over these ideas, the more it seems the only way to consistently tag ENFJs "manipulative" is to demonise Fe, to insist that Fe users never learn boundaries. But they do. Of course they do. And they push them too, fairly consistently and often. Which is a pain in the ass, but there it is. If they can't push boundaries, neither can I, so that's a freedom I'm not willing to deny them. But people should learn.

*sigh* So I'm wrong. It's really just fear. (Legitimate fear, but fear nonetheless.)


And, going by archetypes, ENTJs don't so much manipulate as they do pwn. They run people down paths of limited opportunity and slot them into their plans. Kinda like ENFJs but the smile is cheerful and toothy rather than caring and concerned.

One thing I like about ENTJ "manipulation" is while they actually sometimes do say it was your own fault they did it, they identify the fault as you not having given them a pragmatic choice, not you having fucked yourself at the heels of their awesomeness that you were supposed to care about.