ESE are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than SEE.
When meeting someone knew, ESE are not as likely as SEE to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. ESE know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). ESE, in contrast with SEE, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather ESE 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 ESE 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 ESE and their relationship with the other person.
SEE are more likely to believe in objective truths than ESE. That is, SEE are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ESE.
ESE are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than SEE. That is, this relativity is perceived by ESE as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by SEE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ESE) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. SEE are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by ESE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than SEE) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, ESE attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
SEE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like ESE. E.g., SEE see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. ESE 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 ESE than SEE. This comparison not only concerns ESE methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. ESE 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 SEE who perceive terminology as "objective," ESE understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
SEE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ESE. SEE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and SEE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ESE, SEE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; SEE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
SEE are more likely (than ESE) 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 SEE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, SEE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than ESE. SEE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than ESE, and SEE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
ESE are rmore relaxed in their natural state than SEE. However ESE will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ESE demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ESE.
When contemplating a task, it takes ESE longer time to mobilize than SEE; i.e., ESE 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, ESE are more likely than SEE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then ESE mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, ESE spend more time planning and preparing for the project than SEE. In particular, ESE spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, ESE (more so than SEE) 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, SEE are more likely than ESE to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, SEE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For SEE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
SEE are more likely than ESE to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, SEE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to ESE, SEE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; SEE 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, SEE are more likely than ESE to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, SEE are more likely than ESE to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ESE on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
ESE tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, SEE tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
SEE are relatively more flexible and tolerant than ESE.
ESE are relatively more rigid and stubborn than SEE.
SEE are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. ESE, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
ESE tend to put more effort than SEE into finishing any new project they start.
SEE tend to start more tasks and other projects than ESE, but the SEE are less likely to complete all of them.
ESE tend to have stiffer more angular movements. SEE tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
SEE tend to have a more democratic leadership style than ESE.
ESE tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than SEE.
SEE have a relatively higher stress tolerance than ESE. ESE often struggle with continually changing situations more than SEE do.
When developing a plan of action or process, SEE 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, ESE 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, ESE experience more discomfort (than SEE) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because ESE have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than SEE because they are outside of the process.
ESE 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, SEE 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, SEE are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. ESE, 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 SEE do.
When describing reality, ESE are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. SEE are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
When planning to complete something, ESE 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, SEE 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.
SEE are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than ESE (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). ESE on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
ESE tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps ESE reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, SEE prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
ESE are more likely (than SEE) 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.
SEE are more likely than ESE 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. SEE 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 conversing, SEE 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, ESE tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
