EII tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, SEI tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
SEI are relatively more flexible and tolerant than EII.
EII are relatively more rigid and stubborn than SEI.
SEI 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 SEI into finishing any new project they start.
SEI tend to start more tasks and other projects than EII, but the SEI are less likely to complete all of them.
EII tend to have stiffer more angular movements. SEI tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
SEI tend to have a more democratic leadership style than EII.
EII tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than SEI.
SEI have a relatively higher stress tolerance than EII. EII often struggle with continually changing situations more than SEI do.
EII tend to be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. SEI, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
SEI are better at noticing details than EII. EII on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than SEI.
EII are more focused on ideas and concepts than SEI. On the other hand, SEI are more focused (than EII) on their surroundings.
SEI are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than EII.
EII are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas SEI are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
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, SEI 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, SEI 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 SEI do.
When describing reality, EII are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. SEI are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
When solving a problem, EII rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than SEI. EII are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, SEI are more inclined (than EII) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, SEI will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
SEI are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than EII.
When meeting someone knew, SEI are not as likely as EII to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. SEI know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). SEI, in contrast with EII, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather SEI 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 SEI 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 SEI and their relationship with the other person.
EII are more likely to believe in objective truths than SEI. That is, EII are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than SEI.
SEI are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than EII. That is, this relativity is perceived by SEI as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by EII as being incorrect, they are more likely (than SEI) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. EII are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by SEI as being incorrect, they are more likely (than EII) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, SEI attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
EII tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like SEI. E.g., EII see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. SEI 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 SEI than EII. This comparison not only concerns SEI methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. SEI 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 EII who perceive terminology as "objective," SEI understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
EII are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as SEI. EII assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and EII often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than SEI, EII apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; EII consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
EII are more likely (than SEI) 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 EII be more externally predetermined. Additionally, EII generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than SEI. EII tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than SEI, and EII assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
SEI are more likely than EII to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. SEI focus on individualism more than EII.
SEI attitude towards a specific person (more so than EII) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) SEI recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
EII, more than SEI, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. EII focus on collectivism over individualism.
When EII form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To EII, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us."
EII are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than SEI. This is based on the ability of EII to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; SEI are more reluctant to make these inferences.
SEI are more likely (than EII) 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.
EII are more likely than SEI 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. EII 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.
SEI pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as SEI having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, EII pay more attention to what is actually present in a situation, and this can be interpreted as an affirmative or positive manifestation of the surrounding world, situations, possibilities, and prospects (e.g. "the glass is half full").
When assessing an option or available choice, EII tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than SEI would. On the other hand, SEI would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that EII may unconsciously minimize.
