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