ILE are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than LSE.
When meeting someone knew, ILE are not as likely as LSE to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. ILE know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). ILE, in contrast with LSE, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather ILE 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 ILE 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 ILE and their relationship with the other person.
LSE are more likely to believe in objective truths than ILE. That is, LSE are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ILE.
ILE are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than LSE. That is, this relativity is perceived by ILE as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
When something is perceived by LSE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ILE) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. LSE are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
When something is perceived by ILE as being incorrect, they are more likely (than LSE) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, ILE attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
LSE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like ILE. E.g., LSE see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. ILE 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 ILE than LSE. This comparison not only concerns ILE methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. ILE 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 LSE who perceive terminology as "objective," ILE understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
LSE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ILE. LSE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and LSE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ILE, LSE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; LSE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
LSE are more likely (than ILE) 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 LSE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, LSE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than ILE. LSE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than ILE, and LSE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
ILE are more likely than LSE to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. ILE focus on individualism more than LSE.
ILE attitude towards a specific person (more so than LSE) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) ILE recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
LSE, more than ILE, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. LSE focus on collectivism over individualism.
When LSE form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To LSE, 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."
LSE are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than ILE. This is based on the ability of LSE to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; ILE are more reluctant to make these inferences.
ILE tend to be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. LSE, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
LSE are better at noticing details than ILE. ILE on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than LSE.
ILE are more focused on ideas and concepts than LSE. On the other hand, LSE are more focused (than ILE) on their surroundings.
LSE are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than ILE.
ILE are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas LSE are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
ILE 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, LSE 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, LSE are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. ILE, 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 LSE do.
When describing reality, ILE are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. LSE are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
ILE tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, LSE tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
LSE are relatively more flexible and tolerant than ILE.
ILE are relatively more rigid and stubborn than LSE.
LSE are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. ILE, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
ILE tend to put more effort than LSE into finishing any new project they start.
LSE tend to start more tasks and other projects than ILE, but the LSE are less likely to complete all of them.
ILE tend to have stiffer more angular movements. LSE tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
LSE tend to have a more democratic leadership style than ILE.
ILE tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than LSE.
LSE have a relatively higher stress tolerance than ILE. ILE often struggle with continually changing situations more than LSE do.
When solving a problem, ILE rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than LSE. ILE are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, LSE are more inclined (than ILE) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, LSE will develop a process or method uniquely fitted towards the present problem, and this method is designed using the present conditions and information.
ILE are more likely (than LSE) 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.
LSE are more likely than ILE 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. LSE 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.
ILE pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as ILE having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, LSE 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, LSE tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than ILE would. On the other hand, ILE would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that LSE may unconsciously minimize.
