ESE' psychic energy more often flows outwards, whereas with ESI, their psychic energy more often flows inward.
ESI' energy levels tend to improve when they're alone whereas ESE' energy levels increase when they're interacting with larger groups.
ESE' energy levels tend to decrease when they're alone whereas ESI' energy levels will decrease when they're interacting with larger groups of people.
With regards to energy levels, ESE tend to have higher energy levels than ESI.
ESI are more often focused on their thoughts and feelings where as ESE are more often focused on their surroundings.
ESE tend to be more active and initiating with others where as ESI tend to be more passive and less initiating.
ESI often have a smaller, closer network of friends where as ESE often have a wider network of friends.
ESE are often more cognizant of their outwards appearance and are thus better at presenting themselves than ESI.
ESI are generally better at concentrating on specific tasks for longer periods of time than ESE.
ESE often prefer to work with others in a team where as ESI often prefer working alone.
ESI 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, ESE 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, ESE are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. ESI, 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 ESE do.
When describing reality, ESI are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. ESE are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
ESI pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as ESI having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, ESE 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, ESE tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than ESI would. On the other hand, ESI would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that ESE may unconsciously minimize.
When conversing, ESE 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, ESI tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
ESI are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than ESE.
When meeting someone knew, ESI are not as likely as ESE to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. ESI know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). ESI, in contrast with ESE, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather ESI 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 ESI 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 ESI and their relationship with the other person.
ESE are more likely to believe in objective truths than ESI. That is, ESE are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ESI.
ESI are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ESE. That is, this relativity is perceived by ESI as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by ESE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ESI) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. ESE are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by ESI as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ESE) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, ESI attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
ESE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like ESI. E.g., ESE see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. ESI 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 ESI than ESE. This comparison not only concerns ESI methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. ESI 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 ESE who perceive terminology as "objective," ESI understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
ESE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ESI. ESE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and ESE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ESI, ESE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; ESE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
ESE are more likely (than ESI) 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 ESE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, ESE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than ESI. ESE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than ESI, and ESE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
ESI are rmore relaxed in their natural state than ESE. However ESI will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ESI demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ESI.
When contemplating a task, it takes ESI longer time to mobilize than ESE; i.e., ESI 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, ESI are more likely than ESE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then ESI mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, ESI spend more time planning and preparing for the project than ESE. In particular, ESI spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, ESI (more so than ESE) 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, ESE are more likely than ESI to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, ESE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For ESE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
ESE are more likely than ESI to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, ESE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to ESI, ESE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; ESE 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, ESE are more likely than ESI to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, ESE are more likely than ESI to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ESI on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
When solving a problem, ESI rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than ESE. ESI are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, ESE are more inclined (than ESI) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, ESE will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
