LIE are more likely than LSE to perceive and distinguish themselves primarily through personal qualities. LIE focus on individualism more than LSE.
LIE attitude towards a specific person (more so than LSE) is based on their personal characteristics (authority, intellect, personal achievements, etc.) LIE recognize superiority of certain individuals drawing from their personal qualities
LSE, more than LIE, 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 LIE. This is based on the ability of LSE to draw conclusions about the person based on the groups the person belongs to; LIE are more reluctant to make these inferences.
LIE 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 LIE. LIE on the other hand, are better at seeing the big picture than LSE.
LIE are more focused on ideas and concepts than LSE. On the other hand, LSE are more focused (than LIE) on their surroundings.
LSE are more naturally comfortable with physical confrontations than LIE.
LIE are often more interested in the idea or theory of something, whereas LSE are more interested in the actual practice or implementation of it.
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, LSE 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.
LSE 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, LSE prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
When developing a plan of action or process, LSE tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. On the other hand, LIE tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.
When working on a project, LIE experience more discomfort (than LSE) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because LIE have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than LSE because they are outside of the process.
LSE are rmore relaxed in their natural state than LIE. However LSE will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, LSE demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of LSE.
When contemplating a task, it takes LSE longer time to mobilize than LIE; i.e., LSE 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, LSE are more likely than LIE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then LSE mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, LSE spend more time planning and preparing for the project than LIE. In particular, LSE spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, LSE (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 LSE 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 LSE 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 LSE, 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 LSE 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 LSE to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. LSE 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, LSE rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than LIE. LSE are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, LIE are more inclined (than LSE) 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.
LSE pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as LSE having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, LIE 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, LIE tend to focus more on how the choice could benefit them (what it would potentially yield) than LSE would. On the other hand, LSE would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that LIE may unconsciously minimize.
When conversing, LIE 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, LSE tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
