Where does N get off and projection kick in?
At what does N'ness get categoriesed as projection? Technially there must be an argument that almost all N-ness is projection... making intative jumps is basically thinking into a situation beyond the data, using all the minutia details that most folks ignore... but that can also be termed projection - reading the signs....
Any thoughts on this?
I'm not sure
exactly what you are asking here, but I think I get the main point. I think my N-ness reads both "between" the data and also "beyond" the data. Really, it attempts to consider
all possibilities, all scenarios, all outcomes. When it goes wild, so to speak, then it can certainly get into "projecting".
Let me give some examples:
Reading "between" the data (not projecting):
I have been in a work situation where performance of workers was measured/monitored by how quickly they finished "x" items. The only thing that the SJ supervisors considered was the numbers - the hard data. On any given day, a worker's performance was either "good" or "bad". He either met the predetermined standard of productivity or he didn't. If he did, then he didn't hear anything and he went home. If he didn't, he got reprimanded/scolded for bad performance. Very black and white. Very "data based".
Ne realizes (very easily) that, on any single day, there were other factors in play besides just the raw numbers. One may not have felt good, one may have been extremely tired because of a new crying baby at home, one may have gotten hung up for 20 minutes on an internal problem that should have been fixed by management weeks ago (but wasn't), one's stomach may have been grumbling and they had to make an emergency 15 minute visit to the bathroom, one may have even been engaged in conversation (while the clock continues to tick and output suffers)
by the very supervisor who will later reprimand his low productivity. The possibilities are endless. That's the world we live in. Lots of variables, lots of things going on. So, in this particular example, when an SJ supervisor reprimands an employee with Ne at the end of the day, the Ne employee is thinking, "You just aren't taking everything into consideration. All you're thinking about is raw numbers and, while they are important, they are not/cannot be
everything in this equation. There are factors "in between" the data that are being overlooked.
Going "beyond" the data (projecting!):
A lot of people who are socially anxious are anxious because they believe they are being judged, looked down upon, or laughed at by others. So, to avoid the humiliation, they isolate. Well, if person "x" literally laughed in your face and/or told you that they think you are a raging idiot, then that would be "data" to confirm your reasons for feeling judged. But, in 90% of these situations, the other person/people in the social environment
did not laugh in your face and
did not tell you that they think you're an idiot. And Ne can pick up a small facial expression by the other person and make the connection (sometimes true, sometimes false) that they are being judged. If another person in the room laughs or giggles while looking in their direction, they make a connection (projection) that the other person is obviously laughing at them, even though there is no real data to confirm this. In reality, the other person could be laughing at any number of things, most of which have nothing to do with the socially anxious person. The Ne is "reaching" beyond any real data. It's attempting to "mind read" other people's actions and thoughts.
I believe it is this second scenario (the totally abstract thoughts) that result in some very pure and original thought. It's where really creative thought comes from. Ever had an idea that you thought was truly brilliant - a really awesome idea - and you mention it to an SJ and they immediately point out a
huge, fundamental flaw in the idea. Like maybe in your Ne daydream you came up with an idea of a bicycle that can be ridden on water. You're thinking though all the details of it and how it works, etc, etc. Then you realize (or it's pointed out to you) that bicycles can't be ridden on water. And you still like your idea because it was your idea, but you see that it was flawed and that you overlooked something very important. That's because the mind was just wandering freely, pondering openly. It was in that "reaching beyond the data" mode. Sometimes really good ideas come out of this (maybe we'll discover in 100 years that we could have been riding bikes on water this whole time), but sometimes some really crazy nonsense comes out of it too.
/My 2 cents
