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