Directive/Informative "Roles"

[Badlands]

Keirsey talked about how in each of the four temperaments there's a directive role and an informative one. This is probably one of the better ideas in personality theory, as this idea can be expanded on not just on a level within the temperament, but I think the temperaments themselves have high or low levels of direction and information inherent in them. From directive to informative, it's probably something like:
1. Guardian
2. Rational
3. Idealist
4. Artisan

How the roles fall in seems to follow a pattern almost:
1. Administrator (STJ)
2. Coordinator (NTJ)
3. Mentor (NFJ)
4. Conservator (SFJ)
5. Operator (STP)
6. Engineer (NTP)
7. Advocate (NFP)
8. Entertainer (SFP)

In a way, they correlate with their "establishment view". 1 and 2 (TJs) "actively support" the establishment, 3 and 4 (FJs) "work for" (semiactive support) the establishment, 5 and 6 (TPs) "participate in" (passive support) the establishment, and 7 and 8 (FPs) "oppose" the establishment.

 

[Eric B]

In Keirsey's temperament model, the closest thing to Directive and Informative would be Structure vs. Motive. This is a sort of "cross-factor" invented by Linda Berens linking opposite temperanents (SJ/NT, NF/SP), and it is somewhat similar to Directive and Informative. So yes, they would be in an order like that with Guardians and Rationals the most Structure-oriented, and Artisans and Idealists as Motive-oriented. And the TJ's are both Structure and Directive, (hence "the most directive") the FP's Motive and Informative, and the TP's and FJ's cross both pairs up.

While Directive and Informative were used by Keirsey in those eight roles; Berens created the Interaction Styles model by pairing the new dichotomy with E/I, leading to a model that more resembles Social Styles and DiSC.

 

[Gabe]

In Keirsey's temperament model, the closest thing to Directive and Informative would be Structure vs. Motive. This is a sort of "cross-factor" invented by Linda Berens linking opposite temperanents (SJ/NT, NF/SP), and it is somewhat similar to Directive and Informative. So yes, they would be in an order like that with Guardians and Rationals the most Structure-oriented, and Artisans and Idealists as Motive-oriented. And the TJ's are both Structure and Directive, (hence "the most directive") the FP's Motive and Informative, and the TP's and FJ's cross both pairs up.

While Directive and Informative were used by Keirsey in those eight roles; Berens created the Interaction Styles model by pairing the new dichotomy with E/I, leading to a model that more resembles Social Styles and DiSC.

Ok. There is no temperment 'more' or 'less' directing than another temperment, even an interest in structure has nothing to do with role directing. The two informing-preffereing guardians, are ESFJ and ISFJ. And the directing-prefering artisians are ESTP and ISTP. It also has nothing to do with being for or agianst 'the establishment', and it has been shown that the different temperments might show up in varying compatibility with an establishment depending on whether the establishmnet meets thier temperment needs. Interesting ideas though.

 

[anii]

My husband (infj) falls into the directive role and I fall into the informative role most naturally.

He doesn't like it when I'm indirect, but I don't mind it when he's directive. Go figure.

 

[Totenkindly]

As an Informer, I don't mind Directive people at all...

...as long as they don't expect me to actually do exactly what they say.

 

[Eric B]

Ok. There is no temperment 'more' or 'less' directing than another temperment, even an interest in structure has nothing to do with role directing. The two informing-preffereing guardians, are ESFJ and ISFJ. And the directing-prefering artisians are ESTP and ISTP.

Well, it's ultimately not temperaments that are more or less "directive". Temperaments are either structure-oriented, or motive oriented, and the Interaction Styles are directive or informative. Each of the 16 types are apart of one temperament and one Interaction Style, and it's basically the types or other groupings of types (TJ, TP, etc) that are being called "more or less" directive.
And some people have unknowingly made a parallel between those two dichotomies, by noting that the TJ's do seem "the most directive". (which you see in Badland's list). The TJ's all have in common both directing and structure. Looking at the definition of both, it is evident that both will produce more critical [not necessarily in a bad sense] or serious upfront behavior towards others, compared to "informing" or "motive". So sometimes the terms will be interchanged, with "structure" being called "directive". I'm just trying to point out this parallel, because perhaps not too many people are aware of Berens' Structure vs. Motive dichotomy, yet they do notice the traits shared in common by otherwise 'opposite' temperaments and can't put their finger on why.

It also has nothing to do with being for or agianst 'the establishment', and it has been shown that the different temperments might show up in varying compatibility with an establishment depending on whether the establishmnet meets thier temperment needs. Interesting ideas though.

I didn't make the comment about the "establishment", and I myself had questions about that, especially regarding the FP's. I know the ENFP supposedly doesn't like "bueauracies" and things, but you would think the supposedly "most friendly" FP's would not be that resistant. It seemed the pragmatic SP's and NT's would be the ones to specifically "oppose" establishments (while the SJ's of course "guard" or "actively support" them). Of course, two of the FP's are SP's. The NF's I would think would go along with them (or perhaps "work for" or "passively support") if it meets their need for unity and doesn't otherwise compromise their values.

 

[Badlands]

Yeah, I was having my doubts about the establishment view thing as well; just an observation. But I think "directive" and "informative" roles are relative to the other role within the temperament. SFJs are probably more directive than STPs; Js more readily direct than any P, as direction and planning defines the Judging preference. It's just comparing the most informative "directive" role with the most directive "informative" role.

 

[Eric B]

Thing is, for S types, the J partly defines temperament, while T/F would define Interaction Style, so SFJ is considered "informative", while STP is "directive". However, SFJ is structure-oriented, while STP is Motive-oriented. THIS is what you are seeing. "Structure" focus would also add a measure of "directing" behavior, even if it is an informing role/style. So T/F are involved in this "directive" behavior as well, with T being more serious. (For N types, it is reverse; with J/P determining directive and informative (Interaction Styles) and T/F determining temperament (structure/motive).

 

[Domino]

As a mentor, I just want you all to know that I love you, support you, and will be charging $200 an hour for my fine fine grade-A advice.

I advise you to eat lots of salad and to sing "Kumbaya" (starting with Edahn because we all know his voice is weakest and that he compensates with outdated hip-hop moves that include very sorry headspins and something supposed to be the Roger Rabbit.)

You'll get my bill anon.