ILI are more likely than EII to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. ILI focus on individualism more than EII.
ILI attitude towards a specific person (more so than EII) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) ILI recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
EII, more than ILI, frequently perceives and defines themselves and other people through group associations. EII focus on collectivism over individualism.
When EII form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To EII, 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."
EII are often able to form quicker opinions of others they have just met than ILI. This is based on the ability of EII to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; ILI are more reluctant to make these inferences.
ILI are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than EII, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.
EII are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as ILI often struggle understanding them.
ILI are often more interested in studying systems, structures, and functionality than EII.
EII tend to prefer using persuasion as a means of convincing others to do something, where as ILI prefer to use argumentation as a means of convincing others.
EII are more vulnerable to logical manipulation than ILI. However ILI in contrast, are often more vulnerable to emotional or ethical manipulations than EII.
ILI place greater value on their interests than EII. For example, ILI will maintain high levels of energy and focus on an interest they value, even deprioritizing their other resources to maintain the interest. For example, ILI may spend a large amount of energy on an interest they value, often to the detriment of their time, sleep, relationships, money, etc.
EII place greater value on their resources than ILI. For EII, resources like their money, time, sleep, etc., fall into their "inner personal space," and the EII will be more likely to deprioritize an interest if it starts to drain these resources too much.
ILI pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as ILI having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, EII 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, EII tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than ILI would. On the other hand, ILI would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that EII may unconsciously minimize.
ILI are rmore relaxed in their natural state than EII. However ILI will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ILI demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ILI.
When contemplating a task, it takes ILI longer time to mobilize than EII; i.e., ILI 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, ILI are more likely than EII to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then ILI mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, ILI spend more time planning and preparing for the project than EII. In particular, ILI spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, ILI (more so than EII) 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, EII are more likely than ILI to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, EII tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For EII, this state of readiness is their natural state.
EII are more likely than ILI to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, EII are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to ILI, EII can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; EII 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, EII are more likely than ILI to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, EII are more likely than ILI to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ILI on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
ILI tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, EII tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
EII are relatively more flexible and tolerant than ILI.
ILI are relatively more rigid and stubborn than EII.
EII are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. ILI, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
ILI tend to put more effort than EII into finishing any new project they start.
EII tend to start more tasks and other projects than ILI, but the EII are less likely to complete all of them.
ILI tend to have stiffer more angular movements. EII tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
EII tend to have a more democratic leadership style than ILI.
ILI tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than EII.
EII have a relatively higher stress tolerance than ILI. ILI often struggle with continually changing situations more than EII do.
ILI 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, EII 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, EII are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. ILI, 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 EII do.
When describing reality, ILI are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. EII are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
When planning to complete something, ILI 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, EII 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.
EII are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than ILI (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). ILI on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
ILI tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps ILI reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, EII prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
