IEI are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than IEE.
When meeting someone knew, IEI are not as likely as IEE 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 IEE, 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.
IEE are more likely to believe in objective truths than IEI. That is, IEE 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 IEE. 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 IEE 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. IEE 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 IEE) 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.
IEE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like IEI. E.g., IEE 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 IEE. 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 IEE 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.
IEE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as IEI. IEE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and IEE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than IEI, IEE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; IEE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
IEE 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 IEE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, IEE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than IEI. IEE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than IEI, and IEE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
IEE' psychic energy more often flows outwards, whereas with IEI, their psychic energy more often flows inward.
IEI' energy levels tend to improve when they're alone whereas IEE' energy levels increase when they're interacting with larger groups.
IEE' energy levels tend to decrease when they're alone whereas IEI' energy levels will decrease when they're interacting with larger groups of people.
With regards to energy levels, IEE tend to have higher energy levels than IEI.
IEI are more often focused on their thoughts and feelings where as IEE are more often focused on their surroundings.
IEE tend to be more active and initiating with others where as IEI tend to be more passive and less initiating.
IEI often have a smaller, closer network of friends where as IEE often have a wider network of friends.
IEE are often more cognizant of their outwards appearance and are thus better at presenting themselves than IEI.
IEI are generally better at concentrating on specific tasks for longer periods of time than IEE.
IEE often prefer to work with others in a team where as IEI often prefer working alone.
When solving a problem, IEI rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than IEE. IEI are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, IEE are more inclined (than IEI) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, IEE will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
When conversing, IEE 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, IEI tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
IEI are rmore relaxed in their natural state than IEE. However IEI will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, IEI demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of IEI.
When contemplating a task, it takes IEI longer time to mobilize than IEE; i.e., IEI 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, IEI are more likely than IEE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then IEI mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, IEI spend more time planning and preparing for the project than IEE. In particular, IEI spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, IEI (more so than IEE) 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, IEE are more likely than IEI to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, IEE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For IEE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
IEE are more likely than IEI to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, IEE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to IEI, IEE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; IEE 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, IEE are more likely than IEI to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, IEE are more likely than IEI to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. IEI on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
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, IEE 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, IEE 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 IEE do.
When describing reality, IEI are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. IEE 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, IEE 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, IEE 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 IEE may unconsciously minimize.
