• ESFP: denial, selective inattention, humor, feigning confusion, feigning innocence, minimization, exaggeration. Their language will distort the truth when they try to persuade people; and when they commit a wrong, they may try to get out of it either by playing it down or claiming that they never meant any harm to begin with.
• ESTP: lying, shaming, provocation, feigning innocence, humor, minimization, exaggeration. They may lie to cover their tracks. To establish dominance they will use shaming language; and to escape consequences for their actions, they will play down their abuse, or re-frame it as a joke. At worst, they will deliberately gaslight the victim.
• ESTJ: intimidation, shaming, provocation, vilifying the victim. Their go-to tactic is intimidation, but they may shame victims; and they may even taunt their victims when they are in a position of powerlessness. Their tactics are not as versatile, but they come off strong.
• ESFJ: flattery, splitting, smear campaigns, triangulation, poisoning the well, reinforcement, the silent treatment. They may dole out flattery to win some influence with the victim; but they also have a tendency to gush with genuine compliments to reward behavior they deem appropriate (positive reinforcement). They may launch smear campaigns to try to isolate the victim and harm their reputation; then follow up by communicating their demands through the victim’s friends (triangulation), or at worst pit their own friends against them (splitting).
• ISFP: secrecy, playing the victim role, guilt-tripping, the silent treatment. They are usually not very manipulative, but they can be persuasive. Their manipulation usually centers around their own impression management, and concealing information; they’re the mostly likely to say “I don’t want to talk about it”. If they are artists, they may try to sublimate their messages into their art. They may be deliberately obscure in their communication to frustrate their opponent into leaving them alone.
• ISTP: selective inattention, the silent treatment, feigning confusion, secrecy, denial, lying, minimization. Their manipulation is defined by their non-responsiveness to criticism. If their behavior causes problems and others point it out, they may simply ignore these remarks. They may pretend as if their behavioral problems do not exist.
• ISTJ: avoidance, the silent treatment, shaming, guilt-tripping. They are probably the least manipulative of all types. They could learn any kind of manipulation tactic and use it ruthlessly, but they are not naturally drawn to any tactic in particular. They are prone to social policing every now and then, in which event they may use language to shame or guilt-trip those who do not conform to their ideals. In most situations in which they feel threatened, they are more likely to detach altogether than employ a manipulation tactic.
• ISFJ: playing the servant role, guilt-tripping, shaming, self-victimization passive aggressiveness, reciprocity. They may act like they are there to help the victim so as to gain trust, then use their newfound influence to try to change the victim; or they may do something nice, then extort the victim’s sense of reciprocity to emotionally bribe them. They are also prone to guilt trips.
• ENFP: humor, distraction, poisoning the well, self-victimization, flattery. They usually don’t manipulate, but they are capable of any emotional manipulation tactic. They tend to defuse criticism with humor. Their main tactic is distraction — because they are normally so unfocused, their attempts at changing the focus of attention often fly under the radar.
• ENTP: provocation, humor, shaming, exaggeration, minimization, rationalization. Their tactics are geared toward trolling. They are experts at provoking the anger of their victims to disarm of them of their logical faculties; they then argue their opponent into circles, then use humor to win the favor of their audience. To further absolve themselves of responsibility, they may offer a twisted justification for their behavior — e.g. that they were doing the victim a favor by challenging the victim’s beliefs.
• ENFJ: flattery, playing the servant role, triangulation, humor, vilifying the victim, poisoning the well, smear campaigns. Woe to anyone who makes a true enemy of this type. Most of the time, their manipulation is benign, and they justify it by claiming to help the victim. At the absolute worst, they can isolate the victim from friends, convincing them that the victim is the problem, then stage an “intervention” on the victim’s behalf.
• ENTJ: intimidation, provocation, rationalization, vilifying the victim. They don’t rely on manipulation tactics as much as charisma; they use persuasive language and rhetoric, and they naturally project confidence. They take initiative to maneuver into a position of power, where they have less need for such tactics. They may employ tactics to maneuver into that position or to maintain it — such as intimidating their opponents, or provoking them such that they lose composure — however they tend to dispense with these once they are in power.
• INFP: self-victimization, projecting the blame, guilt-tripping, shaming. They normally will not manipulate, but if they do it usually has a moral element. They are masters at playing the victim. For anything that may be wrong with them, they have the uncanny ability to displace the blame onto something else — usually society, or their opponent.
• INTP: avoidance, selective inattention, rationalization, self-victimization. They are usually not motivated to manipulate. If they are threatened, they will usually withdraw or ignore their opponent. They can usually offer a justification for their behavior. Sometimes they will play the victim role to get others on their side, but sadly this position is justified more often than not.
• INTJ: rationalization, distraction, secrecy, triangulation, lying, avoidance, intimidation. This type has an extraordinary potential for manipulation (which may or may not be actualized) because they possess Ni. They can rationalize anything, including their opponent’s behavior. They can usually tell where a conversation is going and can divert it long before it arrives there. It is possible for them to manipulate circumstances without their opponent even realizing they exist — they are the most likely to conspire against their opponents, while at the same time avoiding a direct confrontation with them. They also possess the death glare, which avails them of some intimidation.
• INFJ: distraction, secrecy, avoidance, humor, flattery. This type is said to be among the most potent manipulators, because they possess Ni. They typically use covert tactics in a conversational setting. Their favorite is to steer the conversation using questions, keeping the focus of attention on their interlocutor while remaining secretive about themselves. Under the guise of curiosity, in a sort of “unstructured” interview, they lead their opponent to a predetermined conclusion. They may defuse conflict with humor, and instill a sense of trustworthiness by doling out compliments.
• ESFJ: Emotional manipulation, invoking social norms to ostracize people like by telling them they are abnormal or that what they’re doing is socially “unacceptable” or “wrong,” trying to make people feel guilty, and building dependence so that a person feels like they need them, and using groups to peer pressure people.
• ISFJ: Like the ESFJ but without the peer pressure.
• ENFJ: Emotional manipulation, building dependence so that a person feels like they need them, manipulating groups of people to use peer pressure and threats of rejection from the group in order to coerce people into loyalty and obedience.
• ENTJs: Using power hierarchies to manipulate groups usually being the leader similarly to the ENFJ, using threats of action against people like blackmail and destroying their reputation, using Machiavellian tactics and power plays, using “carrot and stick” tactics like invoking rewards for loyalty and threatening punishments for disobeying them.
• INFJs: Psychological manipulation, making people dependant on them, using ultimatums, coercing people into doing things, using guilt, twisting narratives around to make other people look bad when really it was they who were acting dishonestly, or behaving antagonistically and then convincing a person it was, in fact, their fault or that they somehow “deserved” it.
• ISFPs: Being passive-aggressive, playing the victim to avoid responsibility, and sometimes using guilt.
• ISTPs: Deceiving people, being intentionally vague, being intentionally unavailable, making promises to people and then abandoning the person or promise when it no longer serves their interests, using chaotic situations to evade responsibility.
• ESTPs: Using social charm, coercing people into doing things, sometimes using threats, lying to people, creating chaos to disorient people and gain the upper hand or to evade responsibility, making promises to people and then abandoning the person or promise when it no longer serves their interests, exploiting people’s for everything they can get out of them and then abandoning them when they get bored or find someone else to exploit.
• ESFPs: Becoming dependant on people and making them feel responsible for them, using guilt, threatening to harm themselves if a person leaves them, using affection in a conditional way, threatening to make a scene in public or throw a tantrum.
• INFPs: Using guilt, evading responsibility, and playing the victim.
• INTPs: Psychological manipulation, tricking or deceiving people to escape from situations, evading responsibility, creating a system of logic specifically designed to support their own agenda and claiming that is objective truth.
• INTJs: Only referencing the facts that support their own agenda while dismissing any contrary facts as being irrelevant, Psychological manipulation, using ultimatums, using certain Machiavellian tactics and power plays, claiming that they know best while trying to prove to other people that they are stupid, need INTJs guidance, and should never question INTJs methods.
• ENTPs (Oh boy, this is gonna be quite a list): Psychological manipulation, gaslighting, social charm, creating chaos to disorient people and gain the upper hand or to evade responsibility, making things intentionally confusing so that they appear to know more than other people, using a purposely nonsensical twisting system of logic to suit their agenda and then pointing out all the flaws in that system when anyone else tries to use it to justify their ideas or basically establishing a principle to justify themselves and then tearing that principle to the ground before anyone can use it, shifting blame, obscuring reality, using red herring arguments to throw people off course, using logic and reason to undermine or invalidate people’s values and sentiments with their Ti, while also using appeals to emotion to validate their own values and sentiments using Fe, leading people into logical, social, or ideological traps where they are cornered and made to make claims or statements that undermine themselves and validate the ENTP, intentionally provoking people to test their limits, study their reactions, and find out their breaking point.

I have proposed and twisted narratives to my advantage before.

Andrew told me he likes to evoke emotional reactions in people. That he likes playing mind games etc.

I use to have a habit of liking to evoke shame in people, and it was so subtle too.

I don’t think evoking emotions in people like that, especially in an insincere way can be that healthy though. I have always live life wanting to be straightforward and sincere. But sometimes situations calls for manipulation like white lies.

If that is not me. I direct conversations sometimes to land to a predetermined conclusion. Literally, I try to trap people to where I want them land at sometimes.

I’ve also seen what has been listed in people before for their respective types.

I need to learn about the influence of outcomes. The outcomes is what that should matter. Not just how both parties feel during the times I do that sometimes. Because that’s usually my focus.

I also need to learn to know how to manipulate and influence without making it obvious.

Andrew told me this before. That a lot of girls influence others on their decisions. That when you do make the decision it’s like this is the the supposed decision. And it’s like your decision. But actually they already made the decision for you.

— — —

• dude was mad at me and tried to use ONE EXAMPLE and his frustration on me avoiding all the time to justify himself
• because basically i called him stupid
• and he was like your logical reasoning is deficient (BY A SINGLE SITUATION)
• bruh
• you and your ridiculousness.
• your one sided narrow minded off assumptions. who are you to say that? almost got gaslighted. by the use of a generalisation. so you got angry right? and i pulled something to make everything you do and say backfire on you? try me. this is what happens when you try to displace blame and when the other person sees the displacement. it goes back on you and you sound stupid.
• and trap. leading on people to things. just to pose an argument. .. lol
• we both have covert underlying motives behind what we do and say sometimes
• it doesn’t feel straightforward
• the other day you posed your question like “tell me what other MISCONCEPTIONS you have of me” — nice one
• how you say these statements just to test the response of the recipient to gain an answer. i learn from you. the testing.

— — — — -

• turning questions onto the other party. and shift the blame.
• subtle differences in tone — Peter. detachment
• emotional nuances of phrases
• poisoning the well by asking you’re like 20 right? (PETER OMG). but such a logically flawed attempt from my eyes.
• avoidance and distraction — Alvin
• using jokes and provoking statements to disarm and evade the statement — white mojos glen waverley guy
• the eyes of someone when they lie. when they look intently and i look like i’m being stupid and innocent to make them unaware that i notice it
• lying ….
• agreeing with someone first then later provide a counter statement after disarming them
• casually mentioning external things to alleviate social status — Aaron
• big flattery statements sound so fake — peter. legit can’t take it seriously. does he not know how stupid it sounds?
• subtly emotionally provoking statements that’s obvious as fk to the other party sometimes — Andrew
• phrases littered with emotional nuances — Andrew

— — — -

• the advice i gave to Stefan: “when you’re genuine the other person can feel it and it becomes easier to build a connection like that”