# Directing VS Informing



## Setsuna (Jun 27, 2012)

OK, so I'm starting this thread so that I can hear y'alls thoughts on using the directing vs informing style of communication as far as determining someone's J vs P preference. For the uninitiated, this boils down to the basic idea that J types prefer a directing style of communication, whereas Ps tend to learn to an informing style. Of course, Js will not be all directing and Ps will not be totally informing, but if you look you should be able to identify which communication style a person prefers. If you want more information on the nuances of the theory, I recommend the following links:

Interaction Styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
INFJ or INFP? a closer look

So I would like to hear how you guys feel about this. Do you think the Directing/Informing idea is a reliable measuring stick? I think that it is effective at identifying some types, such as NTs, who tend to be quite directing, but others not as much. I ask this question in part because I have a couple of younger brothers who both use directing interaction, but seem like such Ps in every other way! I even feel this way about myself- I don't consider myself very directing at all, even though I'm a J, and I don't think that one person I know would describe me as 'bossy' or 'demanding' (and I swear that that's not the denial talking). So I would love to get some feedback on this issue. Thoughts?


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

I think extroverts may be more prone to directing and introverts may be more prone to informing. I guess yes extroverted judgement types may be more prone to directing while introverted judgement types may be more prone to informing. In my case I generally do inform. It is more important to me that other people make their own choices regarding what they want or wish to do rather then me making or forcing them do it. I value freedom and expression of the self above all else and that is important to me. So yeah I would say I am more inclined to inform and let other people make their own informed choices rather then box them into doing what I want them to do, which I believe is more directing.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

It's reliable as long as you don't try to read too much into it. Remember you can't really say something like Extraverts will be directing and introverts informing as a matter of fact, or any such thing. Because you would have to know what was motivating the person. For instance informing can be often a subtle form of passive-aggressiveness which stems from other psychological issues like avoidance or low self-esteem or whatever. Directing, on the other hand can have many of the same root causes like low self-esteem, but manifested in a different manner (perhaps narcissism or the inability to let life happen and always needing to be in control). Again these are psychological issues that often have deep root causes beyond simply saying "extravert" or "introvert," "thinking type," or "feeling type." These things might color the way in which a person directs or informs (possibly, but much of that will be a function of the person's persona).

Berens is pointing out general tendencies that are probably related to psychological disorders or neurosis that tend to affect certain types (like the Te-type having a tendency to be narcissistic and authoritarian). But remember, even the passive-aggressive INFP still tyrannizes the world with their inferior Te (much more so than a Te-dom actually because the Thinking of an INFP is raw and undifferentiated), so if you wanted to be safe what you would notice is that a person who tends to be informing outwardly is probably inwardly very directing and wants things done his way but just has the graces, or anxiety to be unassuming about it, whereas the person who is always bossing everyone around probably secretly fears losing control or being overwhelmed. There's always two sides to every coin. Take the Beren's interaction styles as basically who the person presents themselves to be, then add its opposite and you'll probably get a more complete version of the person really is.


----------



## Navi (Jul 8, 2012)

It's too late right now and I'm tired, but as an INTP with a distinct perceiving preference, I'm definitely an informer.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Directing and Informing are basically the old "people vs task" factor of classic temperament, along with I/E. That's why both factors are apart of Interaction Styles (which are basically the classic ["social"] temperaments under new names). It does not correspond to I/E, it is a perpendicular dimension to it in the temperament matrix. We express and respond to others. I/E is expressiveness, and D/Inf is responsiveness.

It's not necessarily always a literal communicating in the form of directions or information. It could overall be described in terms of the original Galen "dry" vs "wet", with directives being the "dry" in speech ones. It also corresponds pretty well to FIRO's "wanted Inclusion", with the people-focused informatives generally wanting more interaction from others, and task focused directives tending to want less unsolicited interaction from others. Supporting this, is that Keirsey (who actually introduced the factor) described role-directive as tending to "define the relationship" with others, while role-informative allowed the other person to define the relationship.

D/Inf is not always J/P. Only for N's (So yes, all NP's are informative). For S's, it's actually T/F!
There is a parallel people/task factor for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive", which is the inverse of D/Inf. 
For S's, it now picks up J/P, and for N's, it's T/F. (It pairs together opposite temperaments SP with NF and SJ with NT). 

So overall, you could say J is across the board "task" focused, along with T, and P and F are more "people"-focused.


----------



## Setsuna (Jun 27, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> It's reliable as long as you don't try to read too much into it. Remember you can't really say something like Extraverts will be directing and introverts informing as a matter of fact, or any such thing. Because you would have to know what was motivating the person. For instance informing can be often a subtle form of passive-aggressiveness which stems from other psychological issues like avoidance or low self-esteem or whatever. Directing, on the other hand can have many of the same root causes like low self-esteem, but manifested in a different manner (perhaps narcissism or the inability to let life happen and always needing to be in control). Again these are psychological issues that often have deep root causes beyond simply saying "extravert" or "introvert," "thinking type," or "feeling type." These things might color the way in which a person directs or informs (possibly, but much of that will be a function of the person's persona).
> 
> Berens is pointing out general tendencies that are probably related to psychological disorders or neurosis that tend to affect certain types (like the Te-type having a tendency to be narcissistic and authoritarian). But remember, even the passive-aggressive INFP still tyrannizes the world with their inferior Te (much more so than a Te-dom actually because the Thinking of an INFP is raw and undifferentiated), so if you wanted to be safe what you would notice is that a person who tends to be informing outwardly is probably inwardly very directing and wants things done his way but just has the graces, or anxiety to be unassuming about it, whereas the person who is always bossing everyone around probably secretly fears losing control or being overwhelmed. There's always two sides to every coin. Take the Beren's interaction styles as basically who the person presents themselves to be, then add its opposite and you'll probably get a more complete version of the person really is.


This is interesting. So then if a person is informing in the communication then that means that their dominant process is judging? So then would you say that an INFJ is a person who wants things done their way, but has social graces? Or would that person still have an obviously directing style, but just cloak it better than, say, an INTJ?

Also, would you guys say then that a more accurate way to portray directing vs informing type is that directors tend to be more straightforward in their expression, whereas informers are more prone to beat around the bush? Another way to say this is 'passive-aggressive' (although I'm not particularly fond of that term because I think it's unnecessarily negative). Although I think that it is interesting that my mom calls my dad, who is 100% ENTJ, passive-aggressive all the time, and this is true! He can be quite passive-aggressive in conflict situations. Does this apply, or is it only something that you consider in what they say, as opposed to what they do? Because he's quite down the line in his words- he is a total drill sergeant when you're actually listening to what he's saying.

And Eric, task-focused directives want less unsolicited interaction with people, but couldn't you say the same thing about an INxP? I don't think that they necessarily want to be around people and be people-oriented either? Please correct me if I'm wrong- I'm interested to know more about the 'dry' vs 'wet', which I'm not familiar with.


----------



## lpolaright (Jul 29, 2012)

If i understood correctly from the comments and the wiki page you supplied (though i didn't read too much of it) you might confuse between some definitions. Also i have my own take on communication and a theory:

========

Directive is to enforce decisions or ideas upon another. 
Informing is to let someone have his own decision but letting him know your opinion first. 

Directive is very fitting for Js and informing is for Ps. So far so good. 

Directive though are not necessarily more inclined to approach people. In fact its again split to two categories:

=============

Approaching is to decide to create a conversation. 
Seeking is to looking to be approached. 

I would say that approaching fits Ns but not entirely, and i have yet to nail it down. And seeking seems to fit S pretty good. 

So approaching is N. Seeking is S. 

======= ======

Adapt is to realize where the conversation goes and is to learn to fit into it. 
Change is to realize how to take the conversation to originate from you. 

To Adapt is introverted (I) . 
To Change is extroverted (E) . 

=============

Self-interest is to talk because of a cause. 
Morality is to talk just for the sake of making a connection. 

Self interest is T. 
Morality is F. 

=========


Now that i have all these definitions that i took out from my mind i can say that directing can be confused with Change (because it originates conversation and thus making appear enforcing) or self interest (because it originates talking to gain something) or approaching (because it looks to start something rather to wait for it to happen) 

Thats why ENTPs for example seem to be directive (with your definition) rather than informing.


Sorry for the lack of styling, im writing from my cell phone


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

There's a list of communication and interaction styles and MBTI types on the dolphin site:
INFJ Interaction Style Pattern
INFJ Communication Styles

The first link has a list of all the MBTI types and their styles. I want to clarify that the types that seem to have behind-the-scenes type will probably find ALL other types to be directive to a degree or another because behind-the-scene types are on the far end of the directive-informative spectrum.


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

What @Eric B said.
Also some subjective comments:
You could probably say that Te users are more likely to be directive than informing. Introverted Fe users seem to tend to be informing rather than directive, at least if they are mature. I (Ti user) definitely am more informing than directive, but I have a feeling that many Fi users can fall on the directive side of things (although I'm not sure how this fits with a mature Fi user).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

zynthaxx said:


> What @_Eric B_ said.
> Also some subjective comments:
> You could probably say that Te users are more likely to be directive than informing. Introverted Fe users seem to tend to be informing rather than directive, at least if they are mature. I (Ti user) definitely am more informing than directive, but I have a feeling that many Fi users can fall on the directive side of things (although I'm not sure how this fits with a mature Fi user).


I think enneagram plays a bigger role here than T/F. T/F simply informs about different things.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Setsuna said:


> This is interesting. So then if a person is informing in the communication then that means that their dominant process is judging? So then would you say that an INFJ is a person who wants things done their way, but has social graces? Or would that person still have an obviously directing style, but just cloak it better than, say, an INTJ?


 It has nothing to do with the dominant. Informative can be most concisely summed up as a preference for Sensing with Feeling, or extraverted iNtuition. Likewise, directive is Sensing with Thinking or introverted iNtuition.
It does seem complicated, as there are two different qualifiers; one for S and one for N. That's because we have two different frameworks mapped to each other (functions and classic temperament matrix), so they do not map symmetrically.


> Also, would you guys say then that a more accurate way to portray directing vs informing type is that directors tend to be more straightforward in their expression, whereas informers are more prone to beat around the bush?


 Yes, that would be a good way to describe it.


> Another way to say this is 'passive-aggressive' (although I'm not particularly fond of that term because I think it's unnecessarily negative). Although I think that it is interesting that my mom calls my dad, who is 100% ENTJ, passive-aggressive all the time, and this is true! He can be quite passive-aggressive in conflict situations. Does this apply, or is it only something that you consider in what they say, as opposed to what they do? Because he's quite down the line in his words- he is a total drill sergeant when you're actually listening to what he's saying.


Passive-aggressive can come out in different ways, and I think you've overgeneralized it from your first example, regarding straight forward vs beating around the bush. Are you saying your ENTJ father beats around the bush? If so, there could be reasons for that, and the ENTJ would be the purest Choleric in the temperament system, and Cholerics are known for mimicking any behavior to achieve their goals. So I would bet his nature is really to be more straightforward (they are the "Field Marshalls" after all), but he's modifying his behavior for some purpose.


> And Eric, task-focused directives want less unsolicited interaction with people, but couldn't you say the same thing about an INxP? I don't think that they necessarily want to be around people and be people-oriented either? Please correct me if I'm wrong- I'm interested to know more about the 'dry' vs 'wet', which I'm not familiar with.


 INP's are "Behind the Scene", which is represents the fourth classical temperament, Phlegmatic. But, as I've always been pointing out, there is really a fifth temperament, Supine, which falls in the true "introverted/people-focused" slot, while Phlegmatic is moderate in both dimensions (ambiverted, and relates to both people and task). Of course, the new temperament is not recognized in the type system, which is based on groups of four, and the Phlegmatic was considered introverted/people-focus, in contrast to the other three. So it seems both temperaments will fall into the same groups: the INP/ISF Interaction Style, and the NF conative temperament. 

So an INP might look like they reject people for one of two reasons. 
If they are Supine, the Supine does look like a Melancholy (introverted/task-focused, or Chart the Course), because they are so non-expressive, yet they really do want people to approach them, and often have this need met, because it requires people essentially reading their minds. This is probably why the temperament went unrecognized for centuries.
If they're Phlegmatic, then while technically (according to their behavior) on the "informative" side, they really could "take people or leave them", and also won't seem like they "want" people that much. 
So a lot of INP's, especially INTP's, seem to be Phlegmatic, and Phlegmatics are in the middle like that in the first place because they have a low energy reserve (they are not driven either towards or away from people in either dimension) thus really need to conserve their energy, so they will only want a certain amount of interaction before their energy runs out, and afterwards, will seem more reluctant.



zynthaxx said:


> What @_Eric B_ said.
> Also some subjective comments:
> You could probably say that Te users are more likely to be directive than informing. Introverted Fe users seem to tend to be informing rather than directive, at least if they are mature. I (Ti user) definitely am more informing than directive, but I have a feeling that many Fi users can fall on the directive side of things (although I'm not sure how this fits with a mature Fi user).


Te _preferrers_ ("users" is not really a good term) are always directive. (ExFP can be considered "Te users", but as FP's, they are the opposite; always informative. I used to wonder how that figured, but the way it stands, Te in the tertiary or inferior position will support Fi, and all the more go along with informativeness, especially as they will tend to look up to Te decisions. The same with Fi for TJ's backing up their Te).

This page, while not beliveing in temperament or Interaction Style, is what shaped my understanding of it: Achilles Tendencies, the Essay particularly the section titled "How People Use the Judging Attitudes to Engage or Dis-Engage".

TJ's are both directive and structure focused, which makes them doubly "task" focused, and FP's are informing and motive focused, which makes them doubly "people" focused.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't know really, but from what I've observed is that people who have an extraverted judging function as dom or aux will usually have a directing style.

EDIT:

ExTJ
ExFJ
IxTJ
IxFJ


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

NFJ's are directive, but SFJ's are actually informative (due to the S+F). They are, however, structure-focused, which is a sort of parallel to directiveness. So J's (extraverted judging function) will always be directive, or structure focused or both, and so will T's.


----------



## Setsuna (Jun 27, 2012)

Eric B said:


> Yes, that would be a good way to describe it.Passive-aggressive can come out in different ways, and I think you've overgeneralized it from your first example, regarding straight forward vs beating around the bush. Are you saying your ENTJ father beats around the bush? If so, there could be reasons for that, and the ENTJ would be the purest Choleric in the temperament system, and Cholerics are known for mimicking any behavior to achieve their goals. So I would bet his nature is really to be more straightforward (they are the "Field Marshalls" after all), but he's modifying his behavior for some purpose.
> INP's are "Behind the Scene", which is represents the fourth classical temperament, Phlegmatic. But, as I've always been pointing out, there is really a fifth temperament, Supine, which falls in the true "introverted/people-focused" slot, while Phlegmatic is moderate in both dimensions (ambiverted, and relates to both people and task). Of course, the new temperament is not recognized in the type system, which is based on groups of four, and the Phlegmatic was considered introverted/people-focus, in contrast to the other three. So it seems both temperaments will fall into the same groups: the INP/ISF Interaction Style, and the NF conative temperament.
> 
> So an INP might look like they reject people for one of two reasons.
> ...



Thank you for that article- it was great and the first one that I've seen that described J and P preferences in a different way than the organized vs disorganized, directive vs informing. In the 'How People Use the Judging Attitudes to Engage or Dis-engage', I was wondering if you had any more information about how FPs tend to talk about their values and concerns indirectly. Am I to understand that they would say something such as 'People who are honest are important to me' secretly hoping that the other person will change their behavior to accomidate this, whereas judging types will say 'You'd better be honest if you plan on being my friend' because they're being more direct with the individual? And if all types are capable of being passive-aggressive or outspoken, how do we discern between whether a person is J or P? Is the only way to do this by examining the person's motives, because a J is more likely to be trying to control or affect the people around them/their enviornment then is a P, and will therefore be passive-aggressive if they think it will get them more control over an outcome? I'm sorry, I really hope that these questions aren't idiotic or obvious- I have this weird mental block when it comes to understanding this aspect of the theory. :bored:


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Setsuna said:


> In the 'How People Use the Judging Attitudes to Engage or Dis-engage', I was wondering if you had any more information about how FPs tend to talk about their values and concerns indirectly. Am I to understand that they would say something such as 'People who are honest are important to me' secretly hoping that the other person will change their behavior to accomidate this, whereas judging types will say 'You'd better be honest if you plan on being my friend' because they're being more direct with the individual?


 Maybe. You'd probably have to ask the author to be sure what exactly he means by it, but from what I know (including the fact that FP's will be largely Supine or Phlegmatic, who will be less direct than others), that would seem to fit. (I don't 100% understand everything he says on there, but it was enough to help shape my understanding of how responsiveness fits in type). 


> And if all types are capable of being passive-aggressive or outspoken, how do we discern between whether a person is J or P? Is the only way to do this by examining the person's motives, because a J is more likely to be trying to control or affect the people around them/their enviornment then is a P, and will therefore be passive-aggressive if they think it will get them more control over an outcome? I'm sorry, I really hope that these questions aren't idiotic or obvious- I have this weird mental block when it comes to understanding this aspect of the theory. :bored:


 You can't judge that purely by J/P, so J/P is best determined by trying to discern their preferred functions.


----------

