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