IEI are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than ESI.
When meeting someone knew, IEI are not as likely as ESI to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. IEI know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). IEI, in contrast with ESI, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather IEI 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 IEI 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 IEI and their relationship with the other person.
ESI are more likely to believe in objective truths than IEI. That is, ESI are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than IEI.
IEI are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ESI. That is, this relativity is perceived by IEI 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 IEI) 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 IEI 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, IEI 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 IEI. E.g., ESI see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. IEI 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 IEI than ESI. This comparison not only concerns IEI methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. IEI 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," IEI 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 IEI. 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 IEI, 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 IEI) 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 IEI. ESI tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than IEI, and ESI assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
IEI tend to be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. ESI, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
ESI are better at noticing details than IEI. IEI on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than ESI.
IEI are more focused on ideas and concepts than ESI. On the other hand, ESI are more focused (than IEI) on their surroundings.
ESI are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than IEI.
IEI are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas ESI are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
When solving a problem, IEI rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than ESI. IEI are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, ESI are more inclined (than IEI) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, ESI will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
IEI 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 IEI 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.
IEI are more likely than ESI to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. IEI focus on individualism more than ESI.
IEI attitude towards a specific person (more so than ESI) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) IEI recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
ESI, more than IEI, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. ESI focus on collectivism over individualism.
When ESI form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To ESI, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us."
ESI are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than IEI. This is based on the ability of ESI to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; IEI are more reluctant to make these inferences.
IEI tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, ESI tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
ESI are relatively more flexible and tolerant than IEI.
IEI are relatively more rigid and stubborn than ESI.
ESI are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. IEI, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
IEI tend to put more effort than ESI into finishing any new project they start.
ESI tend to start more tasks and other projects than IEI, but the ESI are less likely to complete all of them.
IEI tend to have stiffer more angular movements. ESI tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
ESI tend to have a more democratic leadership style than IEI.
IEI tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than ESI.
ESI have a relatively higher stress tolerance than IEI. IEI often struggle with continually changing situations more than ESI do.
IEI 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, ESI 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, ESI are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. IEI, 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 ESI do.
When describing reality, IEI are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. ESI are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
IEI pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as IEI having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, ESI 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, ESI tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than IEI would. On the other hand, IEI would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that ESI may unconsciously minimize.
