EIE are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than LSE.
When meeting someone knew, EIE are not as likely as LSE to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. EIE know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). EIE, in contrast with LSE, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather EIE 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 EIE 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 EIE and their relationship with the other person.
LSE are more likely to believe in objective truths than EIE. That is, LSE are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than EIE.
EIE are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than LSE. That is, this relativity is perceived by EIE as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by LSE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than EIE) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. LSE are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by EIE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than LSE) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, EIE attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
LSE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like EIE. E.g., LSE see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. EIE 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 EIE than LSE. This comparison not only concerns EIE methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. EIE 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 LSE who perceive terminology as "objective," EIE understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
LSE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as EIE. LSE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and LSE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than EIE, LSE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; LSE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
LSE are more likely (than EIE) 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 LSE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, LSE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than EIE. LSE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than EIE, and LSE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
EIE tend to be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. LSE, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
LSE are better at noticing details than EIE. EIE on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than LSE.
EIE are more focused on ideas and concepts than LSE. On the other hand, LSE are more focused (than EIE) on their surroundings.
LSE are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than EIE.
EIE are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas LSE are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
When planning to complete something, EIE 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, LSE 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.
LSE are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than EIE (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). EIE on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
EIE tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps EIE reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, LSE prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
EIE are rmore relaxed in their natural state than LSE. However EIE will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, EIE demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of EIE.
When contemplating a task, it takes EIE longer time to mobilize than LSE; i.e., EIE 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, EIE are more likely than LSE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then EIE mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, EIE spend more time planning and preparing for the project than LSE. In particular, EIE spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, EIE (more so than LSE) 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, LSE are more likely than EIE to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, LSE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For LSE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
LSE are more likely than EIE to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, LSE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to EIE, LSE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; LSE 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, LSE are more likely than EIE to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, LSE are more likely than EIE to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. EIE on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
EIE are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than LSE, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.
LSE are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as EIE often struggle understanding them.
EIE are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than LSE.
LSE tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as EIE prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.
LSE are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than EIE. However EIE in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than LSE.
EIE place greater value on their interests than LSE. For example, EIE will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, EIE may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.
LSE place greater value on their resources than EIE. For LSE, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the LSE will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.
When solving a problem, EIE rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than LSE. EIE are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, LSE are more inclined (than EIE) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, LSE will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
EIE are more likely (than LSE) 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.
LSE are more likely than EIE 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. LSE 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.
