Lightfruit55's Journal

[OutOfTheBlue]

Ehh, maybe this comes down to semantics, but I disagree with the choice of the imagination word. Intuition is rooted in some framework in that it subconsciously follows its laws. For example, a mathematician will use intuition based on previous mathematical understanding to "intuit" what the proof of a new theorem might very feel look like and then knowing the goal start computing the intermediate steps from theorem to QED. A better example might be a good chess player that recognizes a good structure out of millions of future positions and only then calculates the moves to get there.

Imagination (as I understand it) is intuition without rules or that structure. Imagination lets people make up whatever they want. Intuition does not.

I understand your point.

To be sure, it is not a question of substituting a word/concept with another, but of making the distinction/differentiation clearer.

Okay, I took a quick stab at C. G. Jung's Psychological Types, and I see he himself acknowledges that "The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms.", Here is the "full" quote:

INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms. In intuition a content presents
itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents. Like sensation (q.v.), it is an irrational (q.v.) function of perception. As with sensation, its contents have the character of being “given,” in contrast to the “derived” or “produced” character of thinking and feeling (qq.v.) contents. Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction, which enabled Spinoza (and Bergson) to uphold the scientia intuitiva as the highest form of knowledge. Intuition shares this quality with sensation (q.v.), whose certainty rests on its physical foundation. The certainty of intuition rests equally on a definite state of psychic “alertness” of whose origin the subject is unconscious.

In Eligio Stephen Gallegos' words: Jung was in a peculiar position in that he was highly intuitive and his imagery was very powerful. Furthermore, his intuition, i.e., knowing things beyond the present moment and circumstance and for which there is no immediate evidence, came to him through his imagery. So it is not surprising that he didn't differentiate the two. It is clear that his life's purpose was to help Western humankind return to the window of imagery as a valid mode of knowing.

Gallegos also has this relevant footnote about intuition:

C. G. Jung. Psychological Types, Volume 6 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Princeton University Press, 1921, quoted from The Portable Jung, Viking, 1971, p.221. Jung speaks of intuition as being "the function of unconscious perception” (Ibid, P. 220). Intuition may, in fact, derive from the interrelated functioning of all modes of knowing, analogous to the experience of depth that results from using both eyes simultaneously rather than only one eye, or each eye alternately. Intuition would then essentially be a depth of knowing that emanates from the harmony of all four modes, and as such could appear in the guise of any of them, and to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the degree of alignment.

In "Animals of the four windows", there is also a chapter called "Intuition as a dimension in itself".

I think he is really making a compelling argument for imagination as the fourth mode of consciousness/window of knowing, without invalidating the importance and function of intuition.

Would that be the case, incidentally, this could have implications for a personality model that relies on intuition as being one of the modes, such as MBTI.

ON [ACTIVE] IMAGINATION AND MAKING THINGS UP

In Jungian Robert A. Johnson's book "Inner Work : Using Dreams and Active Imagination for Personal Growth", he relates an episode with a client of his who came to do analysis, and at first nothing was happening. He could remember no dreams, and there was no significant discussion, He then taught him Active Imagination, and after a failed attempt, explained again to him the steps and asked him to “Go do something in your imagination—anything! Just record it in your journal. We will start from there.”

The next week he returned, and he had that gleam in his eye again. I knew he was up to something. He put down a couple of pages of Active Imagination. It was hair-raising material. It was pure melodrama, a combination of The Perils of Pauline and two generations of Peyton Place all rolled into one.

After that, week after week, he brought his pages of Active Imagination. The events got more intense, more desperate. It was huge battles of darkness against light, villains and victims, persecuted heroines, scandalous intrigues, and betrayals. The poor girl was jumping from ice floe to ice floe with babe in arms, crossing the river with the villain in hot pursuit. Week after week this went on, and I said very little. It was registering, but I watched to see where all this inner drama was leading, what was going to distill out of it.

One day he came in and dramatically threw down the last installment of the Active Imagination. There I read a terrible, but also marvelous, denouement of the plot that had been developing all this time. When I finished reading he said: “There, you bloody idiot! I’ve been pulling your leg the whole time. I’ve been making the whole thing up just to make a fool out of you. There wasn’t a word of truth in it!”

I said nothing […], I just sat and waited. I looked at him, and I’ll never forget the change that came over his face. The triumphant expression changed slowly to one of horror. Tears came to his eyes. He said: “Damn you, damn you, damn you! You tricked me. It was all true, and I didn’t know it.” Then he just fell apart.

You see, even when he was trying to conjure up his “fake” story in order to fool me and ridicule the whole process, that “fake” story had to come out of his own insides, his own psychological “guts,” as it were. While he thought he was inventing something, he was spilling out the secret contents of his interior being.

That horrible villain in the story was none other than the rogue who gave him the sly gleam in his eye, who controlled him so much from hidden places —the same rogue who believed that the whole point of analysis was to make an ass out of the analyst. The persecuted heroines were none other than his own inner feminine side: His inner life and feeling life were consigned to the ice floes. All the intrigues, innocent victims, tragedies, and adventures were an involuntary reflection of the horrible conflicts that raged within his own soul.

He had tried to fake it. But accidentally, in the process he did his Active Imagination. He experienced the symbols from the unconscious. Finally, his Active Imagination brought him face-to-face with his inner self. He was never quite the same again.

Whenever I start a patient on Active Imagination, I get a series of questions: “How do I know that I’m not just making all this stuff up?” “How can I talk with someone who is only a figment of my imagination?” From my experience I am convinced that it is nearly impossible to produce anything in the imagination that is not an authentic representation of something in the unconscious. The whole function of the imagination is to draw up the material from the unconscious, clothe it in images, and transmit it to the conscious mind. Whatever comes up in the imagination must have been living somewhere in the fabric of the unconscious before it was given an image-form by the imagination.

Even if a person is frivolous and deliberately tries to fabricate something, to conjure up something silly and stupid, to imagine a pure fiction, the material that comes up through the imagination still represents some hidden part of that individual. It can’t be made up from thin air. It has to come from somewhere inside the person who is producing the images.

The real question is not the authenticity of the images, but rather, What do I do with them? It is easy to misunderstand them and misuse them. But most people never get to the real question of what to do with the revelation from the unconscious because they are so stuck in doubting its authenticity.

[…]

If you feel that you are talking to yourself, excellent! If you feel you are “making it up,” as my sly patient did, that is fine. Whatever you make up will come from your unconscious; it will be one of your interior personalities speaking. All that is required, ultimately, is that you write down what you have to say, write down what the interior persons have to say, and write down what you do together. When you begin to see your imagination for what it really is, you will realize that it reflects the inner world of your unconscious as faithfully as a highly polished mirror.

Yeah, but Jung works with subconsciously generated problems wherein people have [for whatever reason] formed bad mental constructs that they are not aware of. This is not the case for a well-working brain. Looking at dreams may be the only way to unlock structures that people have subconsciously repressed. However, dreams and Rorshack tests are not exactly what drives a well-constructed mind. As a physicist I have on occasion dreamed in equations and while those equations made sense to me while I was sleeping, they were junk when I woke up. Conversely, I do not intuit/imagine that level of junk imagery in a waking state.

What about individuation, Jung’s metaphor for the innate drive toward wholeness? I don't think Jung's work with the unconscious and the imaginal to be solely pertinent for and directed at people with "bad mental constructs" or non "well-working brains". It is relevant to every individual, and his is not necessarily a pathology oriented psychology.

Also, I'd wager that many [scientific and otherwise] discoveries, inventions and other leaps [as well as the occasional equation] have originated/emerged from imagination (including sleeping dreams) and not merely thinking.

But of course, imagination/intuition can't replace thinking and will fail [often spectacularly] when asked to perform its functions in its stead.

From my previous Bill Plotkin quote, I want to stress the following:

Each of the four [thinking, feeling, sensing and imagining or even intuition] is of equal power and importance in living a balanced and creative life. Each is a distinct faculty not reducible to any of the other three.

Problems may arise when we rely on (culturally and personally) overgrown thinking to handle "on its own" situations that require the input of other psychological functions/modes of knowing.

Jacob, do you agree with this assessment or would you rather tackle everything almost exclusively through thinking?

---

There is a lot more to say with regards to imagination, but I'll stop here for now, with apologies about the lengthy post!

[jacob]

@OutOfTheBlue -

MBTI stack theory has all four "functions" present in the CAR-model for each type by construction (see construction details in the stack theory 101 thread).

Temperament is determined by the relative dominance between the four. Note that they ALWAYS come in pairs by construction. The construct is as follows.

1. If the driver is a perceiving (that is, N or S) function, then the codriver is a judging (that is, T or F) function and vice versa. This is because having two judging functions on the frontseat would be blind/incapable of perception or having two perceiving functions would be incapable of making any decisions.
2. If the driver is introverted, the codriver is extroverted, and vice versa. This is because the frontseat needs one person to engage with the outer world and one person to engage with the inner world. Again for obvious reasons.
3. The 10yo is in the same perception or judging category as codriver. E.g. if the codriver is a perceiver, then so is the 10yo. To avoid competition between these "somewhat equally" mature positions, if one is introverted, the other is extroverted and vice versa.
4. The 3yo is in the opposite P/J category of the 10yo (same rule for the backseat as the frontseat). Again, this avoids conflict.

Thus, E/I and J/P basically determine how sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling are arranged in the "car" and whether the functions are directed towards the inside of the car or outwards trying the windows.

IOW, if I give you the dominant function, tell you whether it's introverted or extroverted, and tell you what the auxiliary (2nd) function is, the rest follows from the constructor. For example, my dominant function is introverted intuition (Ni) and my supporting function is thinking (by rule 1). Therefore my thinking must be extraverted, so Te (by rule 2). Because of rule 3, this makes the third function Fi. By rule 4, the fourth function is this Se.

For example, I'm an INTJ. This means that Ni is the driver (I spend most time looking inwards for the mental patterns---latticework---I've been constructing for decades). Te is the codriver (mainly serves to translate these patterns into logical explanations such as the one you're reading now). Fi is the 10yo (my values of what's right or wrong are internally generated; they do not come from an outside group. IOW, I care more about what feels right to me than what the group feels. Fi is what made it possible to stand out from society and maintain a <$7,000/year spending level---because I think it's the right thing to do and I don't care what society says. My feelings are very much "into the car" rather than "out of the car") Se is the 3yo (an immature toddler who takes an all or nothing approach to sensation. Yes to participating in sports. No to just watching sports. Yes to hot sauce that sets the mouth on fire. No to "sensual hints of walnut, honey, and tobacco".)

People are either strongly typed or weakly typed. If someone is strongly typed, the frontseat is solidly in charge and able to override what commentary comes in from the peanut gallery in the back. That doesn't mean that backseat is irrelevant. It may determine where the car goes, but it rarely takes part in how the car goes there. In a weakly typed person, the backseat will sometimes switch sides with the front seat.

In other words, according to MBTI, the four functions all exist but they generally DO NOT exist in balance.

Methinks that Jung by virtue of being an NF was very into artsy imagery with myths and legends and stories that were emotionally captivating. In constrast, my intuition has been constructed by logically consistent theories into a giant system or system of systems that do not contradict.(*) I can tell you what I know and how I know it or if I don't know something.(**) This system (of systems) is too gigantic to traverse step by step. My T-based intuition works by recognizing patterns and similarities between the systems. IOW, my "Jungian Archtypes" are not "subpersonalities" like the Hero or the Lover or the Sage, rather they are "stock-flow model", "variable dependency", "1-1 and onto functions", "coupled equations", "convergence", ... Because this intuition is directly modelled on a scientific understanding of objective reality, it makes me rather good at intuiting things about objective reality and relating to that reality in a logical way(***). This means that my "imagination" is rooted in logical coherence. I can more or less only "imagine" things that are likely to conform to reality because of that(+). It doesn't work very well on Rorshach tests.

(+) A better explanation may be how a good chess player is better able to memorize positions than an amateur as long as those positions come from real games. Players become equally bad if the pieces are arranged randomly. As such the good player has not only chunked a bunch of patterns. He can intuitively understand the potential in a position without having to think or calculate it. This is the difference between informed intuition and thinking.

(*) Fun fact: Until I was 20, I presumed this was how everybody's brain worked.
(**) And that any disagreement could be resolved by hashing out the exact point/assumption that caused the subsequent logical conflict with others.
(***) Conversely, I'm SOL when it comes to relating emotionally to others in a way that abides general expectations. For example, talking feelings with others or saying the right things in emotionally sensitive circumstances, such as, someone telling me they were pregnant and the first thing out of my mouth being "That was unexpected. Was it an accident?", the right answer of course being "Congratulations, I'm so happy for you".

Insofar we peel off the layers on the underlying hardware and stick some probes into the brain, the functions are really more like this.

• I/E is a measure of dopamine sensitivity.
• S/N indicates whether there's a preference for a holistic (patterns) or analytic (specifics) framing of the world. This also correlates with IQ and acetylcholine levels.
• T/F measures the limbic influence on the neocortex and relates to serotonin/amygdala sensitivity.
• P/J is post-Jungian and basically determines who is the driver and who is the co-driver. I don't know if this is influenced by a particular neurotransmitter.

It's possible to "fight" one's innate neurotransmitter levels but that's a steeper hill to climb. The transmitter settings are the hand of cards one has been dealt, but one is free to play it as best as possible. However, it may be like trying to get good at basketball despite being only 5' tall. Better? Yes. Great? Probably not.

In MBTI, personality is seen as constructed on a Lockian blank slate. The primary function appears first (for me Ni) and quickly gets support from the auxiliary (for me Te). There's basically a neurotransmitter preference for using either N or S + either T or F and so the child begins using whichever combo and gets better at using this combo the more they use it. This, then, forms their characteristic temperament.

(Environment may influence the direction. For example, if you have an innately NT child and take away their books and screens and restrict them to sportball practice or horse riding (because you think that only losers and nerds read books or play with computers or that these activities are somehow "unhealthy"), they will develop Se and Fi traits... but likely they will not be happy about it and instead presume that suffering is just the default condition of being human. This is unfortunately more common than not with Fi children being ordered to go and play with the others or Ne children being told to get their head out of the clouds.)

The next two functions, being less active, appear later. As mentioned in my posts above, the tertiary and inferior functions may never get exercised much at all. If not developed, they may appear in "unhelpful" (very immature) ways.

In MBTI the shadow is simply the E/I mirror image of the car. E.g. NiTeFiSe's shadow is NeTiFeSi. That's basically flipping the inside/outside focus on all functions. The intuition that used to be directed inwards now looks outwards---something they otherwise never do. The thinking that was outwards now looks inwards. In practice, if the shadow appears, the NiTe who used to find solutions by looking into his brain explaining them to the world, now finds himself grasping for informative patterns in the world while trying to make logical sense of it internally. This makes for a poorly functioning INTJ---a prime candidate for paranoia and conspiracy theories. IOW, the MBTI definition of the shadow is characterized by "what is lacking" (blindspots) rather than "what is wrongly there". It is a blindspot, not a "wrong strength".

So unlike Jung, MBTI does not follow an involution where the innate archtypes emerge from a mystic shared consciousness that eventually come together to form a complete unique self. Rather, in MBTI the self is constructed from the ground up based on the kind of brain that is available and the environment it lives in. One can tell within a few years whether a child is NT, NF, ST, or SF based on how they're playing and what they're playing with... but it takes another decade to tell whether they're INT* or ENT* and some two+ more whether they're INTJ or INTP.

[jacob]

Oi! I realize I didn't answer this:

Each of the four [thinking, feeling, sensing and imagining or even intuition] is of equal power and importance in living a balanced and creative life. Each is a distinct faculty not reducible to any of the other three.

Problems may arise when we rely on (culturally and personally) overgrown thinking to handle "on its own" situations that require the input of other psychological functions/modes of knowing.

Jacob, do you agree with this assessment or would you rather tackle everything almost exclusively through thinking?

I think problems mainly arise when someone is forced by circumstances (parents, schools, jobs, expectations, well-intended advice whether it's about being "balanced", "trying not to cry", "acting like a robot") or forced into environments that require constant use of functions that their brain chemistry either doesn't reward much or finds overstimulating.

Insofar people want play around with previously neglected functions, that is fine, because that is their own volition. However, it should be acknowledged that not everybody gets the same "kick" out of solving a problem in calculus and not everybody gets the same kick out of being hugged.

I suspect a lot of ADHD cases emerged because our instititutional schooling systems (as well as the subsequent jobs) now demand the kind of "sit still and concentrate" performance from 2/3 of the population which not all that many have the natural levels of acetylcholine and right dopamine levels to handle---and so we adjust their levels with Adderall et al to make it possible to endure this environment. I find that rather horrendous. This is not much different than using alcohol (a downer) in order to avoid being overstimulated from a loud party full of people and music.

However, insofar a function is somehow "overgrown" it is not just a problem with thinking. It could equally well be a problem with an overgrown focus on feeling, especially for those who aren't naturally as affected by serotonin levels. An "overgrown" focus on specifics and details in the immediate present would cause people to miss the big picture and slowly train wreck their way into otherwise preventable problems. An "overgrown" focus on the big picture may "lose the kingdom for lack of a nail".

People "should" grow in a direction (relative preference) that corresponds to their natural direction.

Plotkin says that a creative life comes when each of the four functions have equal power (a direction of 25/25/25/25). I somehow doubt that very much. (Perhaps we're using different standards?) I think the highest levels of creativity and insight come when one of those 4 or 8 functions is far more developed than the others. This is where genius resides. IOW, someone who has 25000 hours on one function and 5000 hours on the three others will be far more creative than someone with 10000 hours in each of the four. But they will only be superb in that one function.

The strength of a balanced approach lies in its flexibility and resilience from being good at many things. Whereas the strength of the focused approach lies in being great at one or two things. Each comes with a price tag vis-a-vis not being great at anything or being bad at some things. There's no free lunch.

To bring it back on track and being relevant to the OP journal, RE does offer a good opportunity to explore previously neglected functions or functions that the previous environment has somehow suppressed if that's the case. (The whole uncertainty about being ISTJ or INTJ that started these lengthy posts) New environments, especially when chosen voluntarily, can do that. I count three eras in my life with each "persona" of that era being different and somewhat disagreeable to the other two. These were all caused by changing my environment.

[OutOfTheBlue]

@OutOfTheBlue -

MBTI stack theory has all four "functions" present in the CAR-model for each type by construction (see construction details in the stack theory 101 thread).

@jacob

Thank you for this discussion and for taking the time to reply in such a detailed and insightful manner.

Your explanations helped clarify some confusions and revisit the Stack theory thread with better understanding.

The linking with input from neuroscience is interesting, and I particularly appreciated the differentiation of MBTI with Jung. This has opened threads to pursue and study further.

@lightfruit55, hopefully this discussion with its different perspectives is helpful for you too, and apologies for the lengthy posts!

---

I think problems mainly arise when someone is forced by circumstances (parents, schools, jobs, expectations, well-intended advice whether it's about being "balanced", "trying not to cry", "acting like a robot") or forced into environments that require constant use of functions that their brain chemistry either doesn't reward much or finds overstimulating.

Insofar people want play around with previously neglected functions, that is fine, because that is their own volition. However, it should be acknowledged that not everybody gets the same "kick" out of solving a problem in calculus and not everybody gets the same kick out of being hugged.

I suspect a lot of ADHD cases emerged because our instititutional schooling systems (as well as the subsequent jobs) now demand the kind of "sit still and concentrate" performance from 2/3 of the population which not all that many have the natural levels of acetylcholine and right dopamine levels to handle---and so we adjust their levels with Adderall et al to make it possible to endure this environment. I find that rather horrendous. This is not much different than using alcohol (a downer) in order to avoid being overstimulated from a loud party full of people and music.

However, insofar a function is somehow "overgrown" it is not just a problem with thinking. It could equally well be a problem with an overgrown focus on feeling, especially for those who aren't naturally as affected by serotonin levels. An "overgrown" focus on specifics and details in the immediate present would cause people to miss the big picture and slowly train wreck their way into otherwise preventable problems. An "overgrown" focus on the big picture may "lose the kingdom for lack of a nail".

People "should" grow in a direction (relative preference) that corresponds to their natural direction.

Plotkin says that a creative life comes when each of the four functions have equal power (a direction of 25/25/25/25). I somehow doubt that very much. (Perhaps we're using different standards?) I think the highest levels of creativity and insight come when one of those 4 or 8 functions is far more developed than the others. This is where genius resides. IOW, someone who has 25000 hours on one function and 5000 hours on the three others will be far more creative than someone with 10000 hours in each of the four. But they will only be superb in that one function.

The strength of a balanced approach lies in its flexibility and resilience from being good at many things. Whereas the strength of the focused approach lies in being great at one or two things. Each comes with a price tag vis-a-vis not being great at anything or being bad at some things. There's no free lunch.

To bring it back on track and being relevant to the OP journal, RE does offer a good opportunity to explore previously neglected functions or functions that the previous environment has somehow suppressed if that's the case. (The whole uncertainty about being ISTJ or INTJ that started these lengthy posts) New environments, especially when chosen voluntarily, can do that. I count three eras in my life with each "persona" of that era being different and somewhat disagreeable to the other two. These were all caused by changing my environment.

I am saving this space and will update the post soon (tomorrow, probably, as tiredness sinks in) as I think the points raised above deserve to be addressed before bringing the particular in-thread discussion to a close.

[lightfruit55]

Thanks @Jacob, @OOTB and @ego for the thoughtful exchanges. I’ve read them over the past few days but did not want to reply until I had the time to actually sit down and thoroughly process the same. I’ve nothing to worthwhile to add to the relative preference vs skills debate or the imagination vs intuition debate. But the most practical insight gleaned is that I AM NOT FIXED and that it is worth maturing one’s children and lower-rung cognitive functions!

The CAR model tool of ascribing age to your cognitive functions is really helpful. Rather than trying to be more of another MBTI personality-type, it makes more sense to work on developing my tertiary and inferior cognitive function (i.e. the oldest and youngest children) as a start rather than trying to develop my bottom rung functions (e.g. the trickster or demon functions).

As a self-identified ISTJ, my CAR children are Fi and Ne. Developing Fi can help me to identify my personal values and make decisions according to these values. Developing Ne can help me to see possibilities and potentials.

Practical ways to develop Fi muscles:
-Study morality and ethics and consider the moral and ethical viewpoints of situations
-Consider social justice arguments
-Consider yourself a unique individual - Your set of morality is unique, and so is the way you think about things
-Make it a point to express your authenticity through your appearance, words and actions
-Journal about your feelings
-Care more about what feels right to you than what the group/society feels
-Avoid basic emotions and work on spotting differences between nuanced feelings
-Think about what is important for you in life and what motivates you personally
-Give yourself permission to do what you like/give into desires without making a case for it or justifying it. Even if the Te reasons exist for doing something, you don’t need to talk about it. Make a decision based on Fi and do not feel the need to justify it with Te reasoning
-Ask the questions: Do I want more this or less of this? Do I want to be closer to this or that? Disregard practical facts and reality (e.g. how much does it take to get more of this or less of the) temporarily to shine more focus on what you feel.
THEME: IDENTIFY, AND MAKE DECISIONS ACCORDING TO YOUR, CORE VALUES. NOTICE AND GIVE INTO YOUR DESIRES WHILE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING JUDGMENT AND JUSTIFICATIONS.

Practical ways to develop Ne muscles:
-Engaging in activities that encourage divergent thinking and creativity
-Think about a situation and imagine all the great things that can happen
-Surround yourself with creativity e.g. art, music, movies and culture
-Look at the future as a place of exciting opportunities and not of possible stress and anxieties
-Make a bucket list of things that excite you
-Dream about changes you wish to make in your life and brainstorm ways to achieve them
-Trying lots of different things and look at things with new perspectives! Invite variety of activities and ways of thinking into your life
-Avoid routines or jig up your routine
THEME: EMBRACING NEWNESS AND VARIETY

@OOTB - My therapy was not based on Jungian theories but looking back at my sessions, my therapist was definitely onto something when she gave me homework to increase my awareness of, and to give in to, the slightest of desires. (I struggle with intrinsic desires.) I thought it was so “airy fairy” then but it seems she was trying to help me develop my Fi function! Haha if she’d presented the CAR model theory, it would have been a lot simpler for me to understand that I’m weak in my children functions and that it would benefit me to work on developing them. Thanks also for recommending the James Hollis’ Finding Meaning in the Second Half of Life. I’ve read some reviews and it sure looks deep and interesting. Now if only I can find some time for to pick up the book. (I'm in one of those ISTJ careers which involves a lot of unpleasurable reading and since getting into my career, I have more of less stopped long-form/book reading as a hobby... to my own disadvantage.)

[lightfruit55]

Likewise, an ISTJ with Ne in the 4th position may over time mature (or practice) their Ne to move from fantasizing about cool rebellious stuff to actually planning it out and doing it as part of their SiTe.

I feel personally attacked . Actually in my life I've in the past done some cool rebellious stuff (from the outside) but from within it was actually planned out. I suppose the endeavour to actually quit working full time is one of them (I suppose it will look like that to others because I don't reveal my careful planning)... it's just that the accumulation grind is taking pretty damn long especially when I keep shifting back the goal post to cater to worst case scenarios!

[ertyu]

I developed my Fi by studying the book Focusing by Eugene Gendlin. It's an older book and thus cheap and easily available, including as an ebook, but very worthwhile.

[lightfruit55]

The child/cat update

Well, since our counselling, my partner stopped pursuing the baby issue. It seems to me that he has given up on having a child. I feel bad because I know that being a father has been his childhood dream. I am not exactly anti-children or anything. It just seems too risky an endeavour (how another human will turn out and develop is really out of one’s control, despite best efforts) and entails an overwhelming amount of commitment and responsibilities. While I do feel some FOMO and do wonder how my partner and I would be like as parents (I’m quite sure we will be responsible, conscientious parents), I don’t feel any strong maternal urge to have one, at least now.

So the decision now is that instead of a child, our couple project/“baby” will be a cat instead. I even went for counselling sessions to open my mind to having a cat: envisioning and idealising a wonderful life with a cat, researching caretaking requirements and assessing my capabilities and division of labour with partner, managing expectations about my responsibilities and associated loss of freedom, rationalising the decision (literally the most compelling reason to me for having a cat is that it will be a unique life experience to live and care for another species), setting aside a sum which is the expected cost of raising a cat from kitten to its end of life, etc. I still feel unprepared and scared but given my partner’s parenting desire, I’m willing to take this leap of faith for him and us. The kitten that we are eyeing is of imported pedigree and costs 7,500. There are so many adoption options but it seems to me that everything about this endeavour must be perfect in terms of breed, demeanour and appearance. I’ve also been reading up on quality consumables such as food, supplements, litter, etc. This whole thing is so bloody ridiculous and un-ERE. I think it goes to show my neurosis, perfectionist tendencies, and fear of responsibilities/committment etc.

How am I ever going to open my mind to a having a child if I have so much anxiety over just one cat.

Anyway, this decision is life changing for someone who has shunned responsibilities/commitment most of her life, and I hope this illogical decision will open my world for the better.

[ertyu]

How am I ever going to open my mind to a having a child if I have so much anxiety over just one cat.

I think you're absolutely right that you're going perfectionistic because of your anxiety and worry. My intuition here is, this is precisely why you should NOT get a perfect, purebred cat and feed it the best supplements.

Get a kitten from the garbage bins instead. Or a random street kitten. Or a free non-pedigree kitten from some random people whose cat just gave birth [ease of these options varies between countries - the important part is, deliberately -- deliberately go in precisely the OTHER direction of what your anxiety demands of you.

Get the kitten normal litter. Feed it regular kitten food, or table scraps for that matter. Take it to one vet visit to deworm it and vaccinate it, and to another to get it spayed/neutered, but other than that, don't worry about supplements or anything like that.

Play with your kitten. Tie something dangly to the end of a stick, and watch it go batshit. Pet it and watch it purr.

I think you can already guess at the reason for approaching the kitten like this. Very quickly, you will discover that life is way sturdier than you think. Your runt of a normal kitten will be playful, it will shred the corner of your couch, it will climb your curtains, and in short, it would be a regular, normal, thriving cat, and you wouldn't have needed to be perfect about it or to have made sure you gave the kitten the most optimized option at every turn. You will soon see that you never needed to be perfect, you just need to be alright enough.

[2Birds1Stone]

Agree with ertyu......paying 7,500 for a designer kitten is borderline batshit crazy. Adopt a cat, maybe an adolescent one so you get a taste of personality.....let the cat be a cat, enjoy, let go of trying to make everything perfect.

[lightfruit55]

I get it, ertyu, and I'm trying to temper expectations. Getting a cat is already a big step and being somewhat in control of the breed/type/temperament, etc, makes it more appealing and also less daunting.

I know 7,500(SGD) is un-ERE. But it's not exactly a super special designer kitten - just a normal imported pedigree. Pets (if one is to buy) are not cheap in Singapore. Any standard British shorthair which would maybe cost between 1000-3000USD in America will cost upwards of 5,000(USD) here.

[Slevin]

According to the ASPCA, In the US about 3% of people buy cats from a breeder, while 97% of people get them from the shelter / friends / find them somewhere. So everyone from the US is acting like you are doing something weird, because to us you are. I’ve never personally known anyone who paid more than $200 USD or so for their cat, and I know a lot of cat owners.

As for the temperament thing, that’s just gonna be a thing developed between the cat and you. People can say fancy things about different cat breeds or whatever, but I know plenty of shelter cats who like water and play fetch and are little snuggle monsters, and a lot of them are that way just from how they are raised.

[Scott 2]

Can you reach any animal shelters in Singapore? Volunteer at one, maybe foster some pets first. I know nothing about the country, but this site came up:

https://spca.org.sg/help-us/

There are a lot of negatives hidden behind a cat priced at $7500. More importantly, I think you need some exposure, practice and social support related to having the pet. The animal shelter will offer you a community to draw upon. They may even take the animal back, if it doesn't work out.

I say this as someone who's had cats their whole life and been around animal shelters for the past 20 years. IMO, your current path doesn't make sense.

[arbrk]

My parents always got adult cats from the shelter rather than kittens because you never know how a kitten is going to turn out, but you can see how an adult cat has already turned out. We picked our childhood cat by volunteering at the animal shelter. My mom took me when I was 3 and my sister was 6 and we volunteered for a few weeks as "kitty cuddlers" and then my mom picked the cat that was not afraid of us kids.

[arbrk]

Thanks @Jacob, @OOTB and @ego for the thoughtful exchanges. I’ve read them over the past few days but did not want to reply until I had the time to actually sit down and thoroughly process the same. I’ve nothing to worthwhile to add to the relative preference vs skills debate or the imagination vs intuition debate. But the most practical insight gleaned is that I AM NOT FIXED and that it is worth maturing one’s children and lower-rung cognitive functions!

The CAR model tool of ascribing age to your cognitive functions is really helpful. Rather than trying to be more of another MBTI personality-type, it makes more sense to work on developing my tertiary and inferior cognitive function (i.e. the oldest and youngest children) as a start rather than trying to develop my bottom rung functions (e.g. the trickster or demon functions).

As a self-identified ISTJ, my CAR children are Fi and Ne. Developing Fi can help me to identify my personal values and make decisions according to these values. Developing Ne can help me to see possibilities and potentials.

Practical ways to develop Fi muscles:
-Study morality and ethics and consider the moral and ethical viewpoints of situations
-Consider social justice arguments
-Consider yourself a unique individual - Your set of morality is unique, and so is the way you think about things
-Make it a point to express your authenticity through your appearance, words and actions
-Journal about your feelings
-Care more about what feels right to you than what the group/society feels
-Avoid basic emotions and work on spotting differences between nuanced feelings
-Think about what is important for you in life and what motivates you personally
-Give yourself permission to do what you like/give into desires without making a case for it or justifying it. Even if the Te reasons exist for doing something, you don’t need to talk about it. Make a decision based on Fi and do not feel the need to justify it with Te reasoning
-Ask the questions: Do I want more this or less of this? Do I want to be closer to this or that? Disregard practical facts and reality (e.g. how much does it take to get more of this or less of the) temporarily to shine more focus on what you feel.
THEME: IDENTIFY, AND MAKE DECISIONS ACCORDING TO YOUR, CORE VALUES. NOTICE AND GIVE INTO YOUR DESIRES WHILE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING JUDGMENT AND JUSTIFICATIONS.

Practical ways to develop Ne muscles:
-Engaging in activities that encourage divergent thinking and creativity
-Think about a situation and imagine all the great things that can happen
-Surround yourself with creativity e.g. art, music, movies and culture
-Look at the future as a place of exciting opportunities and not of possible stress and anxieties
-Make a bucket list of things that excite you
-Dream about changes you wish to make in your life and brainstorm ways to achieve them
-Trying lots of different things and look at things with new perspectives! Invite variety of activities and ways of thinking into your life
-Avoid routines or jig up your routine
THEME: EMBRACING NEWNESS AND VARIETY

@OOTB - My therapy was not based on Jungian theories but looking back at my sessions, my therapist was definitely onto something when she gave me homework to increase my awareness of, and to give in to, the slightest of desires. (I struggle with intrinsic desires.) I thought it was so “airy fairy” then but it seems she was trying to help me develop my Fi function! Haha if she’d presented the CAR model theory, it would have been a lot simpler for me to understand that I’m weak in my children functions and that it would benefit me to work on developing them. Thanks also for recommending the James Hollis’ Finding Meaning in the Second Half of Life. I’ve read some reviews and it sure looks deep and interesting. Now if only I can find some time for to pick up the book. (I'm in one of those ISTJ careers which involves a lot of unpleasurable reading and since getting into my career, I have more of less stopped long-form/book reading as a hobby... to my own disadvantage.)

I know this discussion is a few months old, but do you guys really believe in Jungian psychology and MTBI? They don't really seem that valid - OCEAN seems to be the main valid "personality typing" system that has validity and I don't even really believe in personality typing at all...

My MTBI consistently came up INTJ all throughout my teens and now I get ESTJ - isn't the whole idea of MTBI that you have some kind of "inborn" personality type that stays consistent? And Jungian analysis just seems like some thing a guy made up - I could make something up too.

For me it seems like for therapy, best in business is David Burns and for personality types - I don't believe in them. It sounds like people being choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic and sanguine to me - really old fashioned and random.

Russian novelists seem to categorize people better - by their station in life and their flaws, and so does Kurt Vonnegut, where people are just going through it and making decisions based on what happens to them, the information they know, and the information they are missing.

[jacob]

I know this discussion is a few months old, but do you guys really believe in Jungian psychology and MTBI? They don't really seem that valid - OCEAN seems to be the main valid "personality typing" system that has validity and I don't even really believe in personality typing at all...

See viewtopic.php?t=12759 and continue there if you have anything to add.

[OutOfTheBlue]

I've been digging into Jung and Jungian or Jung-influenced authors in the past year or so, and what I'm reading or finding from related own experiences is incredibly rich, and very different from what I have been exposed to before.

Depth (Jungian) psychology seems very relevant (as opposed to old fashioned) to me and I would definitely not dismiss it as something just made up.

There's a lot more to say, stopping here to avoid further hijicking lightfruit55's journal.

[ertyu]

I almost feel like, if controlling your pet's temperament is so important to you, get a dog? People have this idea of cats as the less demanding pets, but they're only less demanding if you let them be who they are and you respect that. Online, you often encounter posts like, "OMG please help im at my wit's end how do i make my cat not be a cat" [shed, climb places, sharpen their claws where you think they should rather than where they think they should, cuddle more, cuddle less, bla bla bla]. And cat people show up in the comments and say, lmao it's a cat, you have a cat, hello? It's not a self-moving toy it's a living being with its own personality and interiority.

It worries me how important it is to you to control your cat's temperament. I almost feel like by getting a cat, you'll be setting yourself up for more neurosis, because you'll want to control it, you won't be able to control it, and you'll go off the rails about how you aren't able to control it.

Dogs, on the other hand, are trainable -- which is very similar to humans. You provide a dog with a set of structured interactions, and it will do what pleases you and gets him called a good boy. Having a dog is more similar to parenting in the sense that just how you read books on how you parent, you can read up on how you train a dog.

To me it's not even about the money, screw whether this is or isn't "ERE enough", the question is, is it a course of action that's going to help you get what you want. I'd almost say it'd be more important to figure out why you have such an intense need to be in control of a pet or a future child's temperament (therapy for this) rather than try to "ease up" into a child by getting a pet you deem will be the least possible incursion into your existence. Also, if you really don't want a child, you'd sabotage the pet thing cause "look, until a pet works out, i can't possibly consider a child"

Might be just letting go of the pressure to have a child would be best. Let your husband go if it's important to him to be a father and remain child-free

[lightfruit55]

We went down for our second consultation yesterday - paid for the cat and will collect soon.

Thanks all for your replies. While I do feel slightly attacked, I more than appreciate your comments and observations all the same. Adoption was never really a consideration for the reasons below. And I'm pretty sure there's some sort of a cultural difference also. It's not uncommon where I live for people to buy pets - many people I know buy pedigree dogs and cats. Of course I understand that "adopt not shop" is generally preferred, but buying is also not heresy. In terms of controlling temperament, @ertyu, I hope I did not sound psychotic to you. If I were to elaborate my point about controlling breed/type/temperament:
Breed/type - the cat should be of a breed that is generally easy to care for, shorthair, smallish in size (even at adulthood) due to small apartment size, less active/jumpy type
Temperament - the cat should be without past trauma (it seems like many in shelters have past trauma e.g. abuse/abandonment), mild in temperament and sociable (growing up in litters in registered breeding environment helps with their early-on socialisation). A big why we wanted a kitten is also because we want to watch it develop its temperament and routine overtime alongside us from young.
Appearance - I'd be lying if I excluded this as a factor. We want a cat that looks cute to us (no doubt influenced by the never-ending instagram cat videos).

I'm really worried that I won't do a good job, that I'm not capable enough of having responsibilities and commitment towards another living thing. But I will try my very best to make our new family member feel safe and loved.

[lightfruit55]

Might be just letting go of the pressure to have a child would be best. Let your husband go if it's important to him to be a father and remain child-free

That has always been my position. I've been crystal clear about my thoughts/fears about having a child throughout our relationship (from early on while dating, before marriage, during marriage). I'm not having the cat to "keep him". In fact, the cat was his idea, not mine - he is the one constantly pushing for and encouraging me to have a cat. Without him, I would never have considered keeping any pet. And I've also done a lot of personal development work to understand my feelings towards having a cat (counselling sessions over a few months, etc). I have reasoned to myself that (1) this is a couple project that I would like to embark on together with my partner and (2) on an individual level, this will be a personal challenge for me to expand my world, heart and it is also a unique life experience to form a bond with another species.

Apologies if all of this comes across as somewhat defensive. I think my point is that I would like to think that I'm not buying a cat on a whim, out of fear or losing my partner etc, but that I've put in a lot of thought (and I hope enough) about this decision to care for another living creature.