EII are rmore relaxed in their natural state than IEI. However EII will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, EII demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of EII.
When contemplating a task, it takes EII longer time to mobilize than IEI; i.e., EII prefer to spend some time in a more natural state of relaxedness which will then prepare them to subsequently mobilize and concentrate at the crucial moments, improving their performance.
When working on a project, EII are more likely than IEI to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then EII mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, EII spend more time planning and preparing for the project than IEI. In particular, EII spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, EII (more so than IEI) tend describe how and why they came to a certain decision, and focus less on the timing and initiation of the action.
When it comes to completing a task, IEI are more likely than EII to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, IEI tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For IEI, this state of readiness is their natural state.
IEI are more likely than EII to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, IEI are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to EII, IEI can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; IEI evaluate their place of work by looking at what returns they get for the effort they invested (e.g., monetary, prestige, etc.).
When describing why they undertook a project, IEI are more likely than EII to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, IEI are more likely than EII to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. EII on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
EII tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, IEI tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
IEI are relatively more flexible and tolerant than EII.
EII are relatively more rigid and stubborn than IEI.
IEI are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. EII, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
EII tend to put more effort than IEI into finishing any new project they start.
IEI tend to start more tasks and other projects than EII, but the IEI are less likely to complete all of them.
EII tend to have stiffer more angular movements. IEI tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
IEI tend to have a more democratic leadership style than EII.
EII tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than IEI.
IEI have a relatively higher stress tolerance than EII. EII often struggle with continually changing situations more than IEI do.
EII tend to perceive events in an episodic manner, i.e., they see events evolve in discrete states rather than continuous changes. On the other hand, IEI tend to perceive events in a continuous sequence; i.e., they see events evolving fluidly rather that one state to the next.
When describing the stages of an event, IEI are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. EII, on the other hand, focus more on the stages themselves without necessarily seeing or emphasizing the transitions or causes and effects of the stages to the extent that IEI do.
When describing reality, EII are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. IEI are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
When planning to complete something, EII are more likely to focus their attention on the goal itself, overlooking and deprioritizing the individual actions needed to reach that goal. On the other hand, IEI tend to focus their attention on the each action; i.e., they're focused on how each decision and choice is being made (towards reaching the goal), in a step by step process.
IEI are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than EII (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). EII on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
EII tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps EII reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, IEI prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
EII are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than IEI.
When meeting someone knew, EII are not as likely as IEI to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. EII know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). EII, in contrast with IEI, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather EII immediately establish the necessary emotional distance in contact and can regulate it if needed. To bridge the gap between poorly acquainted people in a group EII amp up the emotional tone; this can be mutually experienced happiness or misfortune. The name and title of the person are of secondary relevance to EII and their relationship with the other person.
IEI are more likely to believe in objective truths than EII. That is, IEI are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than EII.
EII are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than IEI. That is, this relativity is perceived by EII as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by IEI as being incorrect, they are more likely (than EII) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. IEI are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by EII as being incorrect, they are more likely (than IEI) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, EII attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
IEI tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like EII. E.g., IEI see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. EII are more likely to internally separate out having fun with other activities, although the two can be interchanged at a high frequency.
The "comparison and verification of concepts" is a more common phenomenon among EII than IEI. This comparison not only concerns EII methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. EII are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc. In contrast to IEI who perceive terminology as "objective," EII understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
IEI are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as EII. IEI assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and IEI often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than EII, IEI apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; IEI consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
IEI are more likely (than EII) to use special rituals or other culturally accepted formalities when forming relationships with others. What that means is that the emotional proximity and relationship status for IEI be more externally predetermined. Additionally, IEI generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than EII. IEI tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than EII, and IEI assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
EII are more likely (than IEI) to seek new and novel experiences rather than returning to something already lived through. They will generally only re-read a book, re-watch a movie, or revisit the same place if they have forgotten it or are hoping to learn something new from it.
IEI are more likely than EII to use "emotional anchors" that resonate with their internal emotional condition. These emotional anchors could be a book, a movie, a place, a song, etc. IEI use these anchors to strengthen their inner emotional state and thus will repeat the experience: e.g., re-reading a book, re-watching a movie, continually going back to a place to experience the emotions associated with it.
When developing a plan of action or process, IEI tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. On the other hand, EII tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.
When working on a project, EII experience more discomfort (than IEI) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because EII have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than IEI because they are outside of the process.
When conversing, IEI types are inclined to communicate in the form of monologues, where each party has "its turn." Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a series of monologues. Conversely, EII tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
