LSI are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than LSE.
When meeting someone knew, LSI are not as likely as LSE to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. LSI know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). LSI, in contrast with LSE, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather LSI 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 LSI 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 LSI and their relationship with the other person.
LSE are more likely to believe in objective truths than LSI. That is, LSE are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than LSI.
LSI are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than LSE. That is, this relativity is perceived by LSI 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 LSI) 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 LSI 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, LSI 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 LSI. E.g., LSE see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. LSI 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 LSI than LSE. This comparison not only concerns LSI methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. LSI 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," LSI 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 LSI. 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 LSI, 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 LSI) 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 LSI. LSE tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than LSI, and LSE assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
LSE' psychic energy more often flows outwards, whereas with LSI, their psychic energy more often flows inward.
LSI' energy levels tend to improve when they're alone whereas LSE' energy levels increase when they're interacting with larger groups.
LSE' energy levels tend to decrease when they're alone whereas LSI' energy levels will decrease when they're interacting with larger groups of people.
With regards to energy levels, LSE tend to have higher energy levels than LSI.
LSI are more often focused on their thoughts and feelings where as LSE are more often focused on their surroundings.
LSE tend to be more active and initiating with others where as LSI tend to be more passive and less initiating.
LSI often have a smaller, closer network of friends where as LSE often have a wider network of friends.
LSE are often more cognizant of their outwards appearance and are thus better at presenting themselves than LSI.
LSI are generally better at concentrating on specific tasks for longer periods of time than LSE.
LSE often prefer to work with others in a team where as LSI often prefer working alone.
LSI 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. LSI, 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, LSI are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. LSE are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
LSI are rmore relaxed in their natural state than LSE. However LSI will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, LSI demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of LSI.
When contemplating a task, it takes LSI longer time to mobilize than LSE; i.e., LSI 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, LSI are more likely than LSE to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then LSI mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
When getting ready to start a project, LSI spend more time planning and preparing for the project than LSE. In particular, LSI spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
When describing their reasoning for their actions, LSI (more so than LSE) 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, LSE are more likely than LSI to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, LSE tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For LSE, this state of readiness is their natural state.
LSE are more likely than LSI to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
When doing a task, LSE are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to LSI, LSE can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; LSE 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, LSE are more likely than LSI to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
When discussing work, LSE are more likely than LSI to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. LSI 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, LSI rely more heavily on their generalized past experiences than LSE. LSI are inclined to use already prepared, preformulated methods and processes to solve a problem.
When solving a problem, LSE are more inclined (than LSI) 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.
LSI pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as LSI 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 LSI would. On the other hand, LSI would be more cognizant of the potential risks and potential losses that may accompany the decision that LSE may unconsciously minimize.
When conversing, LSE 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, LSI tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
