INTPs have an interesting relationship to control because for the most part I've noticed the type doesn't desire to control or be controlled. If the need for autonomy is especially strong, it can result in some forms of control that can be unconscious because of requiring behaviors to accommodate those specific needs. I think the unconscious control in MBTI terms comes from the Si-Fe which can have very specific needs in relationship to the concrete world and socially. It isn't consistent, and I'm not suggesting it applies to all INTPs, nor is it intended as a criticism. It is just interesting because the type can by nature be one of the least controlling overall, but there can be unexpected pockets of control that creep in - sometimes without awareness.
Can you provide examples of what you're specifically talking about? I think I know, but I'm not certain. And I think there are a number of ways of looking at the issue.
I remember advising someone who was struggling in a relationship with an INTP who insisted that there be no expectations in their relationship (something I've been guilty of myself) and I told her to tell him that demanding no expectations IS an expectation. So he was being both inconsistent and unfair. Pointing out such inconsistencies is often a good way of negotiating with an INTP.
There are many ways of controlling others (e.g via aggressive coercion or the more subtle methods -often employed by F types - of appealing to ego, guilt-tripping or emotional blackmail); common to all is intentionality. In such cases, there is a desire to alter the behaviour of an external party, perhaps against their will or own interests. Of course, any type can be guilty of this, but there is a deep aversion to such behaviour which seems to be inherent in INTPs,
because we treasure autonomy - both for self and others. This is a direct result of being Ti-Dom, rather than a Si/Fe inferior issue.
The latter can appear, however, in the hypersensitivity to being controlled by others, which can lead INTPs to take extreme counter-measures, which might feel controlling. They rarely have any interest in controlling others though, i.e. that isn't a driver of behaviour. The driver is almost always about maintaining autonomy. If I set up a roadblock on my private road, you could argue that I am curtailing your freedom, but only insofar as it infringes on my right to privacy and security, which rights I also extend to you. Respecting the integrity of the individual is paramount.
The chief INTP method of maintaining control (over their autonomy) is generally passive resistance. The inflexible INTP is the proverbial unmovable object. Again, controlling others is not the motivating force - but it can be an unintentional side effect. I think power imbalances arise in relationships with INTPs because we are not as interdependent as other types, and the more dependent party is likely to find themselves doing most of the compromising. Still, that's an unforced choice. It is neither coerced, nor manipulated behaviour.
Where INTPs seem inflexible, it's often not a choice and therefore, non-negotiable. They may be so profoundly controlled by their own anxieties or self-expectations, that the weight of another person's feels like a completely unmanageable burden (inferior Fe). They also won't do anything that seems unreasonable, because they prioritise reasonableness above harmonious relations. It's easy to dismiss as stubbornness or controlling behaviour something which may actually be a matter of principle or even just a genuine deficit. If you can construct a convincing argument, they will often capitulate. (Unless they have underlying pathologies which are not type-related.)