|
Communication
Redux
Some people get all confused by the
directing/informing thing. They simply can't decide where they fall on
the spectrum.
An alternate way of exploring this issue is to ask whether you prefer
conversations to be explicit or implicit. And to help you decide which
style you naturally gravitate toward, you might consider whatever feedback
you've heard from others over the years.
One of the most cautious remarks I've heard describing the INFJ communication
style is that it's "refreshingly direct." That's a nice way of
saying that INFJs are oftentimes pretty bald-faced when they communicate, and
it can be rather bracing for other people to experience. INFPs, on the
other hand, tend to infer. They are more inclined to choose their words
carefully and indirectly say what they mean. (I call that
"pussyfooting.")
I liken this communication difference to coaches and therapists. Coaches
will tell players to go out there and win. Reach for the stars!
And an INFJ might make remarks that are shockingly close to the bone about
someone. (Some people liken it to having bamboo shoots thrust under
their fingernails!) INFJs can be startlingly direct and personal at the
same time. I have yet to meet an INFJ who hasn't learned to temper their
words and "tone it down."
In contrast, therapists are more likely to soft-pedal their ideas.
"And how did you feel about that?" -- which has reached the status
of a cliche -- is nevertheless a good example of typical INFP
questioning. It represents an attempt to "draw out" the other
person, rather than outright telling them what you think. It is an
indirect form of communication. People don't usually feel like they just
had their ears pinned back when they interact with INFPs. People often
consider INFPs very comfortable to traffic with.
Here's how an INFP describes this dichotomy:
> To be
"role-directing" is to be naturally predisposed to thinking and
> speaking in terms of directives, imperatives, commands, and such. To
> be "role-informing" is to be naturally predisposed to thinking
and
> speaking in terms of intimations, insinuations, suggestions, and such.
>
> When someone tries to control me, or provides an atmosphere of chaos
> and uncertainty, my behavior continues to be role-informing. I'll
> still say things like, "This is not what I signed up for!" or
"This
> really sucks!" or "Who does that guy think he is?" All
role-informing
> remarks. Nothing role-directing about it.
>
> It's entirely possible to express displeasure using informing-style
> language. For that matter, it's also possible to get people to do
> things using informing-style language (e.g., "Oh, we're out of eggs,
> Tom. Are you going to the store anytime soon?").
>
> So I have to agree with Dr. Berens, who says that each individual
> is permanently hard-wired to either the Directing or Informing style.
> It's just a preference, or predisposition, of course, like everything
> else in the model. But I do not see myself as Directing in some areas
> and Informing in others; I see myself as having an Informing
> predisposition across the board, under all circumstances.
So think about it, and consider the feedback you've gotten over the years as a
result of your communications. Are people more inclined to tell you to
"back off" because you're coming on too strongly -- or are people
more inclined to look puzzled and ask you to "come out with it" or
"spit it out"? Is your natural tendency to be explicit, or are
you more comfortable being implicit?
As usual, I'm talking in extremes -- and remember, as we mature we are all
capable of adapting our communication styles to appropriately suit any variety
of situations. A therapist who prefers INFJ will be trained how to use indirect
communication techniques, and a coach who prefers INFP will be trained to direct their
team and players. But what comes most naturally to you? If you
can remember how you were in high school, and even college, that might give
you the best clues! How do you compensate for your natural tendencies?
It can be very funny to see INFPs who have mis-typed themselves as INFJs
interact with a genuine INFJ on a type list. It isn't long before you
see the INFPs begging the INFJs to modify their style of communication so it
isn't quite so baldfaced or straightforward. What's ironic is how the
INFP doesn't see that as a clue that perhaps they should revisit their OWN
choice of type and look for adjustment there instead.
And here's a comment from somebody about the corollary:
You know what's even more funny? INFJs who mistype themselves
as INFPs on an INFP web forum. They don't take it kindly if an INFP suggests
that they have INFJ tendencies. The INFPs start begging the INFJ to tone
things down but the INFJ just starts quoting the type profiles that talk about
INFPs being stubborn when they adopt a "cause" and the next thing
you know the INFJ who is claiming to be INFP has a "cause" to defend
in every conflict that makes them "right" and the rest of the forum
"wrong." :P It's so annoying. And then later, when on the INFJs own,
the INFJ comes to the conclusion that they are actually an INFJ and not an
INFP, they go about trying to inform the INFPs about how different the INFJ is
and how we should be more in tune with things that are important to them so
that the INFJ will feel less attacked or offended. *rolls eyes* As if the INFJ
ever made any efforts to change their communication when they were asked
earlier, back when they claimed to be INFP.
It's interesting how it's
always easier to initiate a Pygmalion Project than it is to examine oneself in
the mirror.
Consider this an invitation to look in a mirror. (That's
why you're here, right?)
|
