Okay, thank you for those who actually gave advice on the problem. For those who digressed into whether or not the actual Meyers-Briggs test is accurate or not, maybe you should use your energy to come up with a more accurate test than the original since you are so confident it is wrong.
The test is an indicator. That means based on answers someone gives at the time, it indicates the
likelihood of a type. It doesnt tell you your type for sure. People frequently mistype by relying on test results only.
People who strongly identify with being an INFP, like my relations, feel very strongly that all INFPs are incapable of digressing into manipulative behavior, and the worst they believe themselves capable of is being whiny and moody.
False. We are simply noting that the patterns of how INFPs act manipulatively are quite different and that these descriptions do not align with how INFPs go bad.
It is possible you are simply using some Fe speak which labels these behaviors via your lens, aka some projection is involved, and that is why we dont recognize bad INFPs in these descriptions.
Frankly, I wish I had such social power. As noted though, INFP manipulation is characteristically done via witholding. Its lack of response. Instead of affecting others covertly, its refusing to be affected, to be moved, to do anything. Its an implosion, like a black hole, and it sucks stuff into it if they get too close.
Unhealthy INFPs struggle to know what is real, so stubborn ideas of "right" tend to be abstract ideals, not opinions of people in a social sphere. An INFP will stubbornly cling to an ideaology, but they're unlikley to go on a social rampage slandering individuals.
When I've been unhealthy emotionally, I tend to think everyone hates me, and I certainly may feel a few individuals are just "evil" and out to get me. But this is also because I will feel victimized by those people and feel they are powerful, so I dont feel able to go toe-to-toe in some social warfare. Instead, I tend to "play dead" so to speak. This IS manipulative when someone needs a response from you, as it is a passive invalidation of them. But that is exactly how the INFP regains power when they feel threatened.
I also have paranoia over what is real, and this is some weird effect of Ne I guess - you cannot drop nagging suspicions of alternate interpretations of reality. What makes the stereotypical INFP seem weak and conflict-avoident (as opposed to covertly manipulating) is the struggle to commit to a perspective and act with it. The typical response is to devalue something mentally until it no longer requires action from you (and the only thing you mentioned that vaguely resembles this is the young teenager rudely not bothering to call to cancel her dance practice).
Inferior Te meltdowns involve INFPs going on a rampage where they openly berate someone or something with a laundry list of everything that angers them. Sure, some of it may contain shaming that emotionally manipulative and it may be outright violent, but its not covert social maneuvering. Instead, it will be very raw and very open in terms of motive, in such a way that the INFP ends up looking bad, even if what they say is valid. Naomi Quenk's "Was That Really Me?" is a book which details how types have meltdowns, basically, and I reccommend it if you want to identify people when they act out of their inferior. For IFPs, this means aggressive criticism, judgments of incompetence, and precipitous action. All of this is unusual aggressivness, but it's NOT subtle or covert enough to be manipulative, because it's more "in your face". So you have extremes of withdrawl or becoming aggressive for INFPs, but generally not smoothly manipulating people into holding ideas about others or operating in such a covert way. I add the caveat of "generally" because its not a matter of what is possible, but of what is typical, aka, what characterizes someone (or a type), hence suspicion over these individuals ALL appearing to be major exceptions to their supposed type.
Its not because I or other INFPs are above such manipulation, but I know that I just dont have a sure enough grasp of a singular reality and the social structures therein to manipulate it. It's a weakness too because some of that is positive skill, as far as creating positive dynamics in a group and promoting others with "gossip" (using that term more broadly).
Whereas Si-dominant types seem to have a very sure grasp of what is real, or rather, their very ego is based on building some sure sense of it, and even as it is highly subjective, the Je part of their mentality aids them in structuring reality to match it. This structuring obviously happens a lot in the social realm for ISFJs, and it can be positive too, but other times, manipulative.
I think Im sensitive to the OP and having it attributed to INFPs because some of that has been done to me, mainly by ISFJs. I had my character pegged a certain way since childhood and was guilted and shamed into believing it, but I also had those same SFJs aggressively defend me when I didnt deserve it (ie like the mother getting mad at the director for reprimanding the teenager who deserved it).
So, ever attempting to tell an INFP that you didn't like their manipulative behavior is pointless and waste of time since they are convinced it is not possible for them to ever go there, and it must be the accuser that has it wrong, no matter what.
That is a poor way to approach a conflict with anyone, regardless of type. If you want to solve a problem, then you focus on resolution, not pointing the finger and playing victim yourself.
