manipulation and MBTI knowledge

[sculpting]

Is manipulation of other evil/bad/wrong/unethical?

Where do you draw the line between using personality type information to build better teams/relationships and actually manipulating others?

Is it wrong to influence someone's behavior with MBTI knowledge if it does them no harm but accomplishes your objective?

Is it wrong to try and help them become more well rounded as a person/workplace contibutor using your MBTI knowledge, even if they are unaware of what you are doing-ie you actuually give them some benefit?

Folks have always used the way they function-lets just say the function like Fi (for me for instance)-to influence others on some level-likely not realizing exactly what they were doing. Once we become aware of what we are doing is it now unethical to continue doing so, as we recognize we have an advantage over the other person?


I dont know the answers to most of this and I am troubled much by this area... All thoughts are good. Please contribute.

 

[ajblaise]

Can you give an example of someone using MBTI knowledge to manipulate someone?

I suppose manipulation isn't inherently bad. It's a conscious effort to influence someone. If you're trying to be a positive influence, it could end up being a good thing. Just don't deny what your intentions are once you notice them.

 

[sculpting]

For me this is most encountered in the workplace.
I am making this up but-say I need to get an ISTJ to complete a task for me as part of a project. I could attempt any number of things to get him to do the task:

1) appeal to his SJ sense of responsibility
2) use my Fi to tickle his tertiary Fi to form an emotional connection, thus form a potential emotional obligation on his part
3) use Ne-Fi to make him laugh, break the Si-Te wall and cause him re-engage on a new set of ideas I am trying to introduce
4) Use social pressure of other SJs to get him to conform, understanding his innate tendancies
5) Use a combination of Ne-Fi-Te to engage him in a provocative maner which might indicate a sexual interest

I find 5 utterly mortifying and disgusting. I routinely engage in 1 and 3 and sometimes use 4. I do sometimes use 2 on long term relationships but it is very real on my part-they REALLY are my friend if I do this. I have no choice. I also become emotionally obligated to him in the future.

Only in the last month have I spent time understanding and thinking on these topics, so I could have been harming others in the past unaware.

 

[Mole]

Begging the question

Is it wrong to try and help them become more well rounded as a person/workplace contibutor using your MBTI knowledge...

This is called, "Begging the question".

And the question being begged is, "Does MBTI provide reliable and valid knowledge?".

And unfortunately the answer is that MBTI does not provide reliable and valid knowledge of the personality.

And so your question - is it right or wrong to use MBTI knowledge? - is moot. And is simply begging the question.

 

[Snow Turtle]

This was one of the reasons I had such strong resistance to the famous book such as "How to win friends and influence people" despite most of the material talking about benefitting both party members. Then I came to the conclusion (It was also mentioned in the book) that all actions will influence someone thus manipulating them. So it was time for some redefining...

Manipulation - Putting someone at a disadvantage for your own benefit. It's clear that what I was actually resisting was the negative idea of selfishness/hedonism.

 

[Snow Turtle]

For me this is most encountered in the workplace.
I am making this up but-say I need to get an ISTJ to complete a task for me as part of a project. I could attempt any number of things to get him to do the task:

1) appeal to his SJ sense of responsibility
2) use my Fi to tickle his tertiary Fi to form an emotional connection, thus form a potential emotional obligation on his part
3) use Ne-Fi to make him laugh, break the Si-Te wall and cause him re-engage on a new set of ideas I am trying to introduce
4) Use social pressure of other SJs to get him to conform, understanding his innate tendancies
5) Use a combination of Ne-Fi-Te to engage him in a provocative maner which might indicate a sexual interest

I find 5 utterly mortifying and disgusting. I routinely engage in 1 and 3 and sometimes use 4. I do sometimes use 2 on long term relationships but it is very real on my part-they REALLY are my friend if I do this. I have no choice. I also become emotionally obligated to him in the future.

Only in the last month have I spent time understanding and thinking on these topics, so I could have been harming others in the past unaware.

1,3 and 4 are done with the ISTJs awareness. You can't really manipulate someone who is aware of what's occuring, while the pressure may exist, it's totally up to them whether they reject it or not.

2 and 5 are where deception can come in. Pretending to be something in order to get an upper hand.

 

[nanook]

while i sort of disagree with victors disregard for the typological patterns, he is right about "unreliable and invalid" in many specific cases, for example

2) use my Fi to tickle his tertiary Fi to form an emotional connection, thus form a potential emotional obligation on his part
3) use Ne-Fi to make him laugh, break the Si-Te wall and cause him re-engage on a new set of ideas I am trying to introduce

i am confident that this is a contradiction (boldified) because i am down with the socioncs function order.
and if your experience tells you, that any of this actually works out, than this proves that you are actually just referring to experience while using arbitrary (nonsensical/wrong) function labels to access your memory of experience approved understanding and you are not referring to clear understanding of patterns (from the book, not experience) which would be typology.

in case i was wrong about the socionics function order, it would mean, that i am the one who is using labels arbitrary, but still they work for me, in my experience, so this would not change anything about my argument but again prove it.


of course we use our experience to address people in a predictable way.
we can't stop doing that.

 

[Mole]

The purpose of MBTI jargon is to put the critical mind to sleep, so that we will uncritically accept whatever suggestions are made to us.

MBTI merely gives the illusion of control, when its purpose is to take control out of your hands.

MBTI works. And it works entirely as a cult.

 

[ajblaise]

For me this is most encountered in the workplace.
I am making this up but-say I need to get an ISTJ to complete a task for me as part of a project. I could attempt any number of things to get him to do the task:

1) appeal to his SJ sense of responsibility
2) use my Fi to tickle his tertiary Fi to form an emotional connection, thus form a potential emotional obligation on his part
3) use Ne-Fi to make him laugh, break the Si-Te wall and cause him re-engage on a new set of ideas I am trying to introduce
4) Use social pressure of other SJs to get him to conform, understanding his innate tendancies
5) Use a combination of Ne-Fi-Te to engage him in a provocative maner which might indicate a sexual interest

I find 5 utterly mortifying and disgusting. I routinely engage in 1 and 3 and sometimes use 4. I do sometimes use 2 on long term relationships but it is very real on my part-they REALLY are my friend if I do this. I have no choice. I also become emotionally obligated to him in the future.

Only in the last month have I spent time understanding and thinking on these topics, so I could have been harming others in the past unaware.

1 and 4 seem fine. With 2, 3, and 4 I suppose the real issue might be just the fact than an ulterior motive is being used. If someone tailored some INTP-specific methods to get me to do something, I probably wouldn't mind, my only issue would be with someone trying to fly something over my head, I like to know what's happening to me, but for minor things and in the context you used, I wouldn't care.

 

[nanook]

MBTI merely gives the illusion of control, when its purpose is to take control out of your hands.

so if taking control through misinformation is evil, than you are implying that control in the intra-personal space, via valid insight, is of good value?

i think so.

of course there is always the ethical issue, but it must never be confused with the tool itself, because every tool can be abused by the mind that is intelligent enough to use it, but not enough to understand what he is doing with it.

interestingly there is a pattern: it's not true in all cases, but often the ones who abuses sophisticated tools are not the ones who would be able to produce them, completely on their own, without help from people who are of more sophisticated spirit.

so, it's the mixing of infrastructure, information, tools, societies .. that creates this problem of tool-abuse. there is no solution.

but on a case by case basis, it can be easy to make the distinction for what is likely abuse and what is likely good use (let aside possible mistakes), because of this pattern. the one who is capable of understanding people, and who is therefore the original inventor of the tools that he get's out of this understanding, is most likely also ethically equipped to use this tool in a good way. naturally there is incomplete understanding, purely empirical understanding, monkey style: "whatever happens if i push that button, might happen again ..." - this is not what i meant by understanding, albeit it can accumulate to a somewhat powerful tool.

 

[Mole]

so if taking control through misinformation is evil, than you are implying that control in the intra-personal space, via valid insight, is of good value?

i think so.

of course there is always the ethical issue, but it must never be confused with the tool itself, because every tool can be abused by the mind that is intelligent enough to use it, but not enough to understand what he is doing with it.

interestingly there is a pattern: it's not true in all cases, but often the one's who abuses sophisticated tools are not the one's who would be able to produce them, completely on their own, without help from people who are of more sophisticated spirit.

so, it's the mixing of infrastructure, information, tools, societies .. that creates this problem of tool-abuse. there is no solution.

but on a case by case basis, it can be easy to make the distinction for what is likely abuse and what is likely good use (let aside possible mistakes), because or this pattern. the one who is capable of understanding people, and therefor the original inventor of the tools that he get's out of this understanding, is most likely also ethically equipped to use this tool. naturally there is incomplete understanding, purely empirical understanding, monkey style: "what happens if i push that button" ... this is not what i meant by understanding, albeit it constitutes to a somewhat powerful tool.

There are valid and reliable personality tests.

And these tests only remain valid and reliable when provided by a professional.

And MBTI is not only an unreliable and invalid personality test, but it is not provided by professionals.

The fact is MBTI remains as valid and reliable as astrology.

So it is no surprise to find that many MBTI aficionados also use astrology.

But just as no astronomer in the world believes in astrology, no psycho-metrician believes in MBTI.

 

[nanook]

And MBTI is not only an unreliable and invalid personality test, but it is not provided by professionals.
The fact is MBTI remains as valid and reliable as astrology

agree, for the typical mbti that is applied by standard testing and nothing more.

no psycho-metrician believes in MBTI.

*cries* ... you mean i am not a ...?

one issue i have with your wording: professionals who apply any "valid and reliable typology tests" (uhm, which one would be more accurate ??) are often having a different "profession" from the one who invented these test. they are paid to be incompetent (in that area, sometimes the do different things than just taking tests), and have "authority". therefore i like the autodidact better. at least he cares enough about the topic, to study without getting anything out of it. and you know what you are dealing with, if you take any of their advice on your type

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

Did not read the thread. Just a short comment on word def:

People have wildly different idea of manipulation, others considering it neutral, others wrong.

We have the idea of word fights going on.

 

[Mole]

i like the autodidact better. at least he cares enough about the topic, to study without getting anything out of it.

Yes, the amateur loves their work, and we tend to love amateurs.

And as you know the word amateur comes from the latin, "to love".

And all the world loves a lover.

 

[nanook]

reminds me of the word dilettante. wikipedia treats it much like a synonym of amateur, but the conformist authority praising society has changed it's colloquial meaning (in germany) to "someone who does not know at all, what he is doing (and causes accidents and stuff. handyman who blows the house up)"

 

[sculpting]

while i sort of disagree with victors disregard for the typological patterns, he is right about "unreliable and invalid" in many specific cases, for example



i am confident that this is a contradiction (boldified) because i am down with the socioncs function order.
and if your experience tells you, that any of this actually works out, than this proves that you are actually just referring to experience while using arbitrary (nonsensical/wrong) function labels to access your memory of experience approved understanding and you are not referring to clear understanding of patterns (from the book, not experience) which would be typology.

in case i was wrong about the socionics function order, it would mean, that i am the one who is using labels arbitrary, but still they work for me, in my experience, so this would not change anything about my argument but again prove it.


of course we use our experience to address people in a predictable way.
we can't stop doing that.

The "labels" above may vary I guess however the seem to make sense. I could of course always be wrong or have the labels wrong.
However it doesnt change the root question at all.

As for the debate concerning if it is even a valid question, regarding MBTI, that is not the point of the thread and really pulls us into a new direction.

I have always used an innate set of tools-I never understood what they were labeled before or exactly why they worked this way, however now, by observing MBTI/Jungian functions I can assign and analyze the "tools" to some extent. If they were not predictive and actually functional, I would have long ago abandoned the whole thing and went and studied astrology, or water dowsing. Let's move forward with the premise that the tools and the MBTI system are at least somewhat valid and readdress using them.

(This same question could be asked for NLP, however since you are seriously fucking around with folks brains there it is a very. very serious matter)

 

[nanook]

i am not sure if i was clear enough. i am saying most of us make typology work, because we rely on experience (perception) more than, theory. and this is the right way. i want to say, that it would be unethical, to apply theories without ever checking how they match nature, thinking something like "it may work for the wrong reasons and have side effects but its good enough as long as it gets me that specific thing that i personally want to get right now" . checking how a tool works if applied in an arbitrary way, is totally different from using it with the intention to check how (good) it works in the way it is intended to work. ... so it's a matter of balance of perception and theory. in so far as all theory is thesis based on/inspired by reality (hopefully), all usage of theory from the same mindset that maintains the theory, is an ethical approach to dealing with reality, even if it is never perfect. because it is the best we have got and we need something.

 

[CrystalViolet]

Happy Puppy,
Your'er a manager of people right? So you have to herd people to do what you want, because ultimately they benefit too, and that means using all the tools in kit if you are good manager? I personally would be cautious of using tools number 2 and 5 though. #2 because as you stated above, it is a two way street, and they enter friend territory.
#5 because ethically, I feel that's wrong. Plus (and this my jelously talking here) it's not a tool I have at my disposal - far too socially inept for that.
So long as you only use your powers for good though, I see no harm. I think others really don't mind either, so long as it's not for selfish reasons.

 

[Mole]

reminds me of the word dilettante. wikipedia treats it much like a synonym of amateur, but the conformist authority praising society has changed it's colloquial meaning (in germany) to "someone who does not know at all, what he is doing (and causes accidents and stuff. handyman who blows the house up)"

The aristocratic ascendancy ruled England for more than 100 years before the settlement of Oz.

And indeed they gave England 100 years of peace.

And interestingly the aristocrats valourised the amateur. Indeed, you might say they were a bit snobby about the professional.

And we here inherited the values of the aristocratic ascendancy - and in particular the love of the amateur.

And this gave rise to our thriving civil society that persists to this day.

 

[simulatedworld]

The purpose of MBTI jargon is to put the critical mind to sleep, so that we will uncritically accept whatever suggestions are made to us.

MBTI merely gives the illusion of control, when its purpose is to take control out of your hands.

MBTI works. And it works entirely as a cult.

I wonder if you'll ever be able to conceptualize what MBTI actually does instead of just repeating this worthless scarecrow of an argument.

For just a moment I'm going to treat you like a rational, thinking adult and I'd appreciate it if you'd make an effort to respond like one.

You are still holding MBTI to an unrealistic standard and this is why you find it to be a failure. MBTI is nothing more than an abbreviation, an arbitrary label given to summarize a group of behaviors observed directly in an individual.

It works within a predefined system! If I define the system such that anyone who exhibits observable behaviors x, y and z is called "type WKLR", then I'm not making a logical mistake by calling that person type WKLR. I'm also not providing any particularly new insight into the personality itself--MBTI doesn't actually do this, nor do its serious proponents purport that it does. I am truly at a loss to explain how you continue to miss this distinction.

Your insistence that MBTI has no practical use or validity is like suggesting that arithmetic is a cult because there's no evidence that 2+2=4, and you're missing the fact that all data gained using the system is predicated on arbitrarily predefined assumptions--it's not intended as concrete knowledge or truth, but merely a method of organizing incomplete observed data.

Once again, it's just a categorization system that provides a little bit of improved efficiency in attempting to observe the behaviors of others and predict future behaviors based upon them. MBTI types are loose labels that derive from nothing more than arbitrary groupings of concrete, observable behavioral patterns.

For this much, it is valid, and if you're still unable to see why there is no logical fallacy, I'm not sure anyone can really help you. You need to stop interpreting MBTI as some attempt at dogmatic perfection and start looking at it in terms of the context in which it was intended, or you'll never really grasp why anyone sees any validity in it.

But if MBTI is truly a worthless cult, I have to wonder: why do you still hang around this message board?