ILE are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than SEE.
When meeting someone knew, ILE are not as likely as SEE 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 SEE, 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.
SEE are more likely to believe in objective truths than ILE. That is, SEE 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 SEE. 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 SEE 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. SEE 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 SEE) 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.
SEE tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like ILE. E.g., SEE 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 SEE. 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 SEE 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.
SEE are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ILE. SEE assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and SEE often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ILE, SEE apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; SEE consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
SEE 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 SEE be more externally predetermined. Additionally, SEE generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than ILE. SEE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than ILE, and SEE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
ILE are rmore relaxed in their natural state than SEE. However ILE will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ILE demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ILE.
When contemplating a task, it takes ILE longer time to mobilize than SEE; i.e., ILE 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, ILE are more likely than SEE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then ILE mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, ILE spend more time planning and preparing for the project than SEE. In particular, ILE spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, ILE (more so than SEE) 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, SEE are more likely than ILE to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, SEE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For SEE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
SEE are more likely than ILE to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, SEE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to ILE, SEE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; SEE 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, SEE are more likely than ILE to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, SEE are more likely than ILE to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ILE on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
ILE tend to be more idealistic with their heads-in-the-cloud. SEE, on the other hand, are more realistic and down-to-earth.
SEE are better at noticing details than ILE. ILE on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than SEE.
ILE are more focused on ideas and concepts than SEE. On the other hand, SEE are more focused (than ILE) on their surroundings.
SEE are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than ILE.
ILE are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas SEE are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
ILE are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than SEE, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.
SEE are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as ILE often struggle understanding them.
ILE are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than SEE.
SEE tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as ILE prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.
SEE are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than ILE. However ILE in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than SEE.
ILE place greater value on their interests than SEE. For example, ILE will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, ILE may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.
SEE place greater value on their resources than ILE. For SEE, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the SEE will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.
When planning to complete something, ILE 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, SEE 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.
SEE are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than ILE (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). ILE on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
ILE tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps ILE reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, SEE prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
When solving a problem, ILE rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than SEE. ILE are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, SEE are more inclined (than ILE) to solve it by relying predominantly on only the presently available information. Essentially, SEE 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 SEE) 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.
SEE 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. SEE 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.
