Differences between SEI (ISFp) and ESI (ISFj)
1. ISFps tend to judge their available options by how likely the option will help them reach their goal. If a choice no longer helps ISFps reach their goals, it will be dismissed and discontinued. On the other hand, ISFjs prefer to continue pursuing their current option, opting to adjust their ultimate goal in order to fit the current choice.
2. ISFjs tend to have a more authoritarian, hierarchical leadership style than ISFps.
3. ISFjs are more likely to believe in objective truths than ISFps. That is, ISFjs are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ISFps.
4. ISFjs are more likely (than ISFps) 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 ISFjs be more externally predetermined. Additionally, ISFjs generally progress in relationships through stages, and therefore are more familiar with these stages than ISFps. ISFjs tend to be more linear in their relationship progression than ISFps, and ISFjs assign importance to the formalities of recognizing the start and end to each of these stages.
5. ISFjs tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, ISFps tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
6. ISFps are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ISFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by ISFps as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
7. When something is perceived by ISFjs as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ISFps) to tell the person who made the error what they did wrong and how to do it the right way. ISFjs are focused on who made the error and helping them to correct the mistake.
8. When planning to complete something, ISFps 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, ISFjs 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.
9. When describing their reasoning for their actions, ISFps (more so than ISFjs) tend describe how and why they came to a certain decision, and focus less on the timing and initiation of the action.
10. When something is perceived by ISFps as being incorrect, they are more likely (than ISFjs) to ask why it was done that way. Instead of necessarily trying to correct the person who made the error, ISFps attempt to understand the person's reason for their decision/action.
11. When describing why they undertook a project, ISFjs are more likely than ISFps to focus on the moment when a decision is made and to speak in detail about the stages of its implementation.
12. When describing reality, ISFjs are more likely to talk about the properties and structure of reality. ISFps are more likely to describe reality as movements, interactions, and changes.
13. When working on a project, ISFjs experience more discomfort (than ISFps) if the project does not have a clearly delineated end-goal or result. This happens because ISFjs have more difficulty monitoring and understanding how the project is developing than ISFps because they are outside of the process.
14. ISFjs tend to have stiffer more angular movements. ISFps tend to have more relaxed fluid movements.
15. ISFjs tend to internally combine emotional exchanges with other activities rather than separating them out like ISFps. E.g., ISFjs see having fun occurring simultaneously with other activities, such as work or even serious affairs. ISFps are more likely to internally separate out having fun with other activities, although the two can be interchanged at a high frequency.
16. When developing a plan of action or process, ISFps 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, ISFjs tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.
17. ISFps are relatively better at assessing the emotional atmosphere occurring in a group or during an activity than ISFjs.
18. ISFps are comfortable making changes and adjustments to their decisions quite frequently. ISFjs, on the other hand, prefer to not make changes to their decisions.
19. ISFps are more likely (than ISFjs) 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.
20. ISFjs are more likely than ISFps to tackle a task in its entirety, rather than breaking it up into smaller separate stages.
21. When working on a project, ISFps are more likely than ISFjs to break up larger tasks into several stages. Then ISFps mobilize to carry out each stage (and demobilize between the stages).
22. ISFps are relatively more flexible and tolerant than ISFjs.
23. When describing the stages of an event, ISFps are more likely to focus on how stage A leads to stage B, how stage B leads to stage C, etc. ISFjs, 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 ISFps do.
24. When getting ready to start a project, ISFps spend more time planning and preparing for the project than ISFjs. In particular, ISFps spend more time discussing the plan, discussing options and ways to approach the project, etc.)
25. ISFjs are relatively more rigid and stubborn than ISFps.
26. ISFjs are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ISFps. ISFjs assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and ISFjs often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ISFps, ISFjs apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; ISFjs consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.
27. When doing a task, ISFjs are inclined to work for the sake of the result (for example, a reward or bonus for completing the task). In contrast to ISFps, ISFjs can renounce their comforts and conveniences for this; ISFjs evaluate their place of work by looking at what returns they get for the effort they invested (e.g., monetary, prestige, etc.).
28. ISFps have a relatively higher stress tolerance than ISFjs. ISFjs often struggle with continually changing situations more than ISFps do.
29. ISFjs are more likely than ISFps 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. ISFjs 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.
30. When conversing, ISFps 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, ISFjs tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.
31. ISFps tend to start more tasks and other projects than ISFjs, but the ISFps are less likely to complete all of them.
32. The "comparison and verification of concepts" is a more common phenomenon among ISFps than ISFjs. This comparison not only concerns ISFps methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. ISFps 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 ISFjs who perceive terminology as "objective," ISFps understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.
33. When discussing work, ISFjs are more likely than ISFps to focus on the fruits of their labor, about what their effort will yield. ISFps on the other hand are more likely to focus on the environment they work in, e.g., their work conditions, conveniences, commute time, etc.
34. When it comes to completing a task, ISFjs are more likely than ISFps to mobilize for longer periods of time. Specifically, ISFjs tend to mobilize for an action early and stay mobilized for a longer period of time after the task has been completed. For ISFjs, this state of readiness is their natural state.
35. ISFps are rmore relaxed in their natural state than ISFjs. However ISFps will mobilize and concentrate when needed to accomplish an objective. After the task has been completed, ISFps demobilize again. This state of demobilization is the natural state of ISFps.
36. ISFjs 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, ISFps tend to perceive events in a continuous sequence; i.e., they see events evolving fluidly rather that one state to the next.
37. ISFjs tend to put more effort than ISFps into finishing any new project they start.
38. When meeting someone knew, ISFps are not as likely as ISFjs to perceive "getting to know somebody" as a special kind of activity. ISFps know very well whey they are getting acquainted (i.e., what the purpose of the relationship is, be it business, personal, travel, etc.). ISFps, in contrast with ISFjs, do not divide the process of getting acquainted into consecutive stages; rather ISFps 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 ISFps 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 ISFps and their relationship with the other person.
39. When contemplating a task, it takes ISFps longer time to mobilize than ISFjs; i.e., ISFps 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.
40. ISFjs are able to change and make adjustments to their goals more easily than ISFps (depending on how progress is being made, etc.). ISFps on the other hand, prefer to stick with their original goals.
41. ISFps tend to have a more democratic leadership style than ISFjs.