EII are rmore relaxed in their natural state than LSI. 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 LSI; 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 LSI 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 LSI. 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 LSI) 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, LSI are more likely than EII to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, LSI tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For LSI, this state of readiness is their natural state.
LSI 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, LSI are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to EII, LSI can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; LSI 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, LSI 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, LSI 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 be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. LSI, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
LSI are better at noticing details than EII. EII on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than LSI.
EII are more focused on ideas and concepts than LSI. On the other hand, LSI are more focused (than EII) on their surroundings.
LSI are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than EII.
EII are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas LSI are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
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, LSI 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.
LSI 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, LSI prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
When solving a problem, EII rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than LSI. EII are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, LSI are more inclined (than EII) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, LSI 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 LSI.
When meeting someone knew, EII are not as likely as LSI 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 LSI, 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.
LSI are more likely to believe in objective truths than EII. That is, LSI 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 LSI. 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 LSI 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. LSI 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 LSI) 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.
LSI tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like EII. E.g., LSI 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 LSI. 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 LSI 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.
LSI are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as EII. LSI assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and LSI often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than EII, LSI apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; LSI consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
LSI 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 LSI be more externally predetermined. Additionally, LSI generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than EII. LSI tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than EII, and LSI assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
EII are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than LSI, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.
LSI are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as EII often struggle understanding them.
EII are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than LSI.
LSI tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as EII prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.
LSI are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than EII. However EII in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than LSI.
EII place greater value on their interests than LSI. For example, EII will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, EII may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.
LSI place greater value on their resources than EII. For LSI, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the LSI will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.
EII are more likely (than LSI) 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.
LSI 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. LSI 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.
