stress reduction

Since the 1960s, pet ownership in the United States has quadrupled, a growth rate much faster than the human population. About 67 million American homes count pets among their family members. Households with pets account for about 62 percent of the households in the United States, nearly twice the number of households with children.

If you’re a pet owner or pet parent, you can probably rattle off a long list of the benefits your furry friend brings to your life. For many people, cats and dogs offer companionship and unconditional love. For others, pets provide stimulation for mind, body, and spirit. More and more, science is showing that pet owners reap significant rewards, including boosts to health and happiness. Below are four ways pets improve our physical and mental health.

#1 Pets can improve your heart health. Cats and dogs not only hold a special place in our hearts, but they may actually help improve the health of this vital organ. Various studies show that pet owners experience lower blood pressure, cholesterol, and triglyceride levels, which decrease the risk for heart attack and heart disease. Pets also improve the chances of survival among heart patients. Additionally, because dog owners tend to spend more time outside exercising, they may experience a lower incidence of obesity and of vitamin D deficiency, both of which can improve heart health.

#2 Cats and dogs reduce stress and loneliness. For many pet owners, the claim that a cat or dog can make them happier seems like an easy conclusion. But research shows that pets can improve mental health in more ways than one. Your furry (or non-furry depending upon the animal) companion may help reduce depression rates and diminish loneliness. Dogs encourage owners to get outside, which decreases social isolation. Pets can also help people reduce stress. In fact, one study found that spending a few minutes along with a pet can reduce stress even more that spending time with a spouse or a close friend! The exercise, companionship, and connectedness are all natural ways dogs (and often cats) can keep us emotionally healthy.

#3 Service animals help the sick and disabled. Guide dogs have been helping people with visual impairments for decades. But increasingly, animals are trained to help individuals with other disabilities as well. Dogs, for example, can be trained to detect seizures in neurological patients and blood sugar drops in diabetics. Dogs and other pets are also trained to provide comfort and companionship to psychiatric patients, hospital inpatients, and children with autism.

#4 Pets may actually decrease allergy risks. While many people cannot have pets due to allergies, one study suggests that having an animal in the house may reduce a child’s risk of developing allergies. The research showed that infants who had dogs in their homes were as much as 33 percent less likely to develop allergies and also developed stronger immune systems. While this provides little comfort to current allergy sufferers, it may be enough to persuade new or prospective parents to adopt an animal companion.

Research has documented myriad ways in which pet owners may benefit. But pet ownership should not be taken lightly. In many cases, adopting an animal is a decades-long commitment that requires financial and emotional investment. If, after careful consideration, you’ve decided to bring a furry, feathered, or scaled friend into your household, visit the American Kennel Club to find a breeder, shelter, or rescue pound near you.

In Part 1, we introduced the Myers–Briggs Personality Indicator^® and the first pair of characteristics, Introversion and Extroversion. In Part 2 we explored the second pair, Intuition and Sensation, and here in Part 3, we take a look at the third pair, Thinking and Feeling. Remember that everyone has, to varying degrees, both of the characteristics described in each of the pairs of attributes. The descriptions here are of extremes that rarely apply to real individuals, but rather indicate tendencies we all can recognize in ourselves and in others.

The third pair: Thinking versus Feeling

Here we have another instance where Jung chose fairly imprecise words to describe the types he’d identified: in MBTI, thinking doesn’t mean thinking, and feeling doesn’t mean feeling! Instead, MBTI Thinker types tend to evaluate situations based on a set of rules. This rule-based view means that, to a Thinker, there are established rights and wrongs, norms, and hierarchies that are true and that determine the correct and best way to behave and proceed in a given situation. To a Thinker, these rules can lend structure to areas of life that might otherwise seem chaotic and difficult to navigate. The Thinker’s rules could be, but aren’t always, moral or religious; they could simply be “the way things should be done”—at least, from their perspective.

Feeling types, on the other hand, are more likely to view relationships as the essential guiding factor in evaluating a situation. In other words, how will this situation impact the people involved, and the relationships of the people involved? You can imagine that this might be a much more fluid and “hard to nail down” approach to life’s situations. People and relationships are constantly shifting and evolving, each individual is in relationships with many others, and every relationship holds a web-like connection to innumerable factors such as family, work, religion, culture, and so forth. Naturally, a Feeling type cannot possibly consider every permutation of these relationships; the main point is that Feeling is an entirely different way of relating to the world, and navigating life, than that of the rule-based Thinker.

At its best, the Thinking modality can be a great asset to organizations and to making life’s inevitable chaos manageable. At the extreme end, Thinkers can seem somewhat heartless, always sticking to a predetermined set of rules that they consider right and true, while appearing to ignore the impact of decisions and actions on people and relationships. Feelers would say—and from a certain perspective it’s hard to dispute the point—that any given situation is nothing more than the people and relationships that comprise it. Feelers, at their best, bring “heart” to their evaluations, and realize that fostering the best in people and relationships very often brings out the best in any situation. At the extreme end, Feeling types can end up making organizational and procedural objectives more difficult to attain than they might otherwise be. An F-type’s focus on people and relationships could interfere with important and necessary goals that might best be served by some degree of adherence to the rules, procedures, and established norms that a T takes to naturally.

Learn More

Visit the website of the Myers–Briggs Foundation »

Of the many excellent books and articles that explore MBTI to varying degree, What Type Am I? Discover Who You Really Are does a great job of simplifying the Myers-Briggs tool, making it easy to understand and apply to your own life »

In Part 1, we introduced the Myers–Briggs Personality Indicator® and the first pair of characteristics, Introversion and Extroversion. In Part 2 we explored the second pair, Intuition and Sensation, and here in Part 3, we take a look at the third pair, Thinking and Feeling. Remember that everyone has, to varying degrees, both of the characteristics described in each of the pairs of attributes. The descriptions here are of extremes that rarely apply to real individuals, but rather indicate tendencies we all can recognize in ourselves and in others.

The third pair: Thinking versus Feeling

Here we have another instance where Jung chose fairly imprecise words to describe the types he’d identified: in MBTI, thinking doesn’t mean thinking, and feeling doesn’t mean feeling! Instead, MBTI Thinker types tend to evaluate situations based on a set of rules. This rule-based view means that, to a Thinker, there are established rights and wrongs, norms, and hierarchies that are true and that determine the correct and best way to behave and proceed in a given situation. To a Thinker, these rules can lend structure to areas of life that might otherwise seem chaotic and difficult to navigate. The Thinker’s rules could be, but aren’t always, moral or religious; they could simply be “the way things should be done”—at least, from their perspective.

Feeling types, on the other hand, are more likely to view relationships as the essential guiding factor in evaluating a situation. In other words, how will this situation impact the people involved, and the relationships of the people involved? You can imagine that this might be a much more fluid and “hard to nail down” approach to life’s situations. People and relationships are constantly shifting and evolving, each individual is in relationships with many others, and every relationship holds a web-like connection to innumerable factors such as family, work, religion, culture, and so forth. Naturally, a Feeling type cannot possibly consider every permutation of these relationships; the main point is that Feeling is an entirely different way of relating to the world, and navigating life, than that of the rule-based Thinker.

At its best, the Thinking modality can be a great asset to organizations and to making life’s inevitable chaos manageable. At the extreme end, Thinkers can seem somewhat heartless, always sticking to a predetermined set of rules that they consider right and true, while appearing to ignore the impact of decisions and actions on people and relationships. Feelers would say—and from a certain perspective it’s hard to dispute the point—that any given situation is nothing more than the people and relationships that comprise it. Feelers, at their best, bring “heart” to their evaluations, and realize that fostering the best in people and relationships very often brings out the best in any situation. At the extreme end, Feeling types can end up making organizational and procedural objectives more difficult to attain than they might otherwise be. An F-type’s focus on people and relationships could interfere with important and necessary goals that might best be served by some degree of adherence to the rules, procedures, and established norms that a T takes to naturally.

Learn More

Visit the website of the Myers–Briggs Foundation »

Of the many excellent books and articles that explore MBTI to varying degree, What Type Am I? Discover Who You Really Are does a great job of simplifying the Myers-Briggs tool, making it easy to understand and apply to your own life »