IEEs tend to have a difficult time describing a concept or system in a manner in which the essential facts are all that is needed to understand or describe it. The IEE's focus in describing a concept or system is in how they themselves came to understand and see what they are describing. If an IEE is asked to describe or explain something, their natural tendency is to describe the pieces of the concept, system or idea that are related to the subject as a foundation before explaining the actual concept itself. The IEE will often describe details or aspects of a system that are unnecessary to the understanding of the system's properties, but the IEE views these details as essential functions of a sequential system (as opposed to describing the concept or system and only the concept or system as an independent entity). In other words, even if a detail is deemed outside of the IEE as extraneous, the IEE that is describing it will see it as a vital and significant part of a chain in order to paint the full, "proper" picture of the system the IEE wants to describe. An IEE will tend to start off explanations with a tremendous amount of detail, energy and patience and will move towards a more general explanation as they tire out (if they tire out). If something in the IEE's chain is broken or questioned, the description (in the IEE's mind) halts or falls apart.
When an IEE understands a logical concept or system, they are much better at describing anecdotal experiences with the concept or system that help to illustrate the concept or system. They would prefer to do this rather than describing the concept or system as described in the previous paragraph -- describe the essential facts of a concept or system.
IEEs will demonstrate inconsistent behavioral patterns to the objective, outside world. But to the IEE, these behavioral patterns are as a result of a relativist view of how they make their decisions. For example, an IEE might be steadfastly against going to a particular branch of a bank to deposit a check that is easily accessible and only 2 miles away, but is perfectly content going to a different branch of the same bank that is 25 miles away and requires a roundabout route to get there. To the outside world this would not make sense; why not just go to the branch that is easier to access that can handle the same function? But to the IEE, this does not matter. Something at the closer branch bothers the IEE enough to justify going to the further one. Maybe a particular person works there that the IEE wants to avoid, maybe one time the IEE did something embarrassing while at the closer branch and they are embarrassed to show their face again. Regardless of the reason, the IEE will justify circumstances to dictate the decisions they make in their behavioral patterns.
The IEE is keenly aware of societal structures and affiliations that they belong to. These structures can be small entities such as "family" and large entities such as "political affiliation". As such, an IEE will naturally speculate about how these societal structures they belong to would interact if they mingled (
+
). With a propensity to be involved in a diverse number of interests, IEEs find themselves in a position where they would deem that members of certain societal structures would clash if they met. This will, at times, cause IEEs to hide their affiliations to parties that they feel might cause scrutiny or criticism of their affiliations. They would rather not be judged by others based on their affiliations. Also, if an IEE is cast into an "incorrect" category, this can cause deep wounds in the IEE especially if the IEE believes that the person doing the casting will not change their position about the IEE's affiliation, and as a result of that, believes it to be a negatively connoted statement of their own character.