EII are rmore relaxed in their natural state than EIE. 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 EIE; 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 EIE 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 EIE. 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 EIE) 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, EIE are more likely than EII to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, EIE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For EIE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
EIE 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, EIE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to EII, EIE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; EIE 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, EIE 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, EIE 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.
EIE' psychic energy more often flows outwards, whereas with EII, their psychic energy more often flows inward.
EII' energy levels tend to improve when they're alone whereas EIE' energy levels increase when they're interacting with larger groups.
EIE' energy levels tend to decrease when they're alone whereas EII' energy levels will decrease when they're interacting with larger groups of people.
With regards to energy levels, EIE tend to have higher energy levels than EII.
EII are more often focused on their thoughts and feelings where as EIE are more often focused on their surroundings.
EIE tend to be more active and initiating with others where as EII tend to be more passive and less initiating.
EII often have a smaller, closer network of friends where as EIE often have a wider network of friends.
EIE are often more cognizant of their outwards appearance and are thus better at presenting themselves than EII.
EII are generally better at concentrating on specific tasks for longer periods of time than EIE.
EIE often prefer to work with others in a team where as EII often prefer working alone.
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, EIE 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, EIE 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 EIE do.
When describing reality, EII are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. EIE 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 EIE. EII are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, EIE are more inclined (than EII) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, EIE will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
EII are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than EIE.
When meeting someone knew, EII are not as likely as EIE 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 EIE, 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.
EIE are more likely to believe in objective truths than EII. That is, EIE 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 EIE. 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 EIE 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. EIE 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 EIE) 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.
EIE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like EII. E.g., EIE 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 EIE. 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 EIE 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.
EIE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as EII. EIE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and EIE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than EII, EIE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; EIE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
EIE 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 EIE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, EIE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than EII. EIE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than EII, and EIE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
EII pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as EII having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, EIE 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, EIE tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than EII would. On the other hand, EII would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that EIE may unconsciously minimize.
When conversing, EIE 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.
