An INFP comments on the directing/informing dimensions:

When someone says, "Let's go to a movie!" I immediately feel pressured. The speaker has right off the bat expressed a desire and taken a step toward pulling me into it. Sure I'm free to say yes or no, but if I say no I feel I'm rejecting the speaker, and I'm reluctant to snub somebody like that--because I myself wouldn't want to be snubbed in that situation.

Likewise, when I'm the speaker, I rarely come right out with "Let's go to a movie!" because I feel it puts pressure on the listener and sets me up for possible rejection (e.g., "Let's not.").

As an "informative responder," I'm usually in the situation where two of us are sitting around bored on a Saturday afternoon and she says, "So, what do you want to do?" And I might reply, "We could go to a movie." Less often, I might speak first and say something like, "We could go to a movie."

Yes, that's a statement of the obvious. And precisely because of that, I'm expecting the listener to use a bit of imagination and guess that I must be indirectly suggesting something beyond the obvious: i.e., I might want to go to a movie.

But by putting it that way, I've delayed putting any emotional investment into the suggestion. It's purely informational, so the listener can nod and ignore me, add more information (e.g., "Yes, we could; and as it happens, there's a movie playing that I'd like to see sometime."), fish for an emotional investment (e.g., "Do you want to?"), or take the bait and make an emotional investment (e.g., "Yeah, let's go!). If she doesn't want to go, she can decline without saying anything that would make me feel rejected (e.g., "We could--but it's a sunny day, and I'd rather be in the garden than a dark theater.").

Actually, I'm so sensitive that even that last response would give me a slight twinge of rejection. But at least it's still on a purely informational level with no emotional charge to it. That makes it a lot easier to swallow than, "No. Go by yourself or find someone else. I'm not going."

Another factor is that to me sharing information is a way to end up making the best decision. Even if I weren't sensitive about pressure and rejection and such, I'd still want to swap info in order to work out *why* we're doing whatever we're thinking of doing. Because the fact that one of us *wants* to do it is just one of many factors. OK, you want to go to a movie, and I don't want to-- but now what are the other factors? Do we have other things we ought to be doing? Can we afford to go? Should I come along to keep you company even though I'm not in a movie mood? And so on.

So, from my POV, the "informing" style has benefits: it protects the sensitive and facilitates arriving at the best decision.

On the downside, it's a slower process and there's a risk of wasting time sharing information about something that neither party wants to do.

A brief remark from another INFP around the reasons behind informing:

I like for people to be able to think for themselves, and figure out things for themselves. I don't want to have to tell folks step by step what needs to be done, but I will if that's the only way to get it accomplished. I would much rather give them the pertinent information and let them decide what approach they wish to take to solve their problem. This to me is what is behind my informing communication style.

(My way -- Vicky Jo's way -- of understanding this remark is that informing types want people to want to.  They want others to perform of their own free will, not from obligation)