izzy

During the middle ages, the economic and political system of Europe was feudalism. In this system, the results of your labor were usually owned by whoever owned the land you were working on (very overgeneralized). Starting in the 16th century, most elements of feudalism slowly began to change.

Before the 19th century, most labor was agricultural labor. But with the industrial revolution, land ownership became less and less important in regards to labor. So the economy changed: Before, the results of your labor were owned by the ones owning the land you were working on. Now, the results of your labor belonged to the ones owning the machines you were working with – Capitalism was born.

This did have positive results: It was now technically possible to choose which boss you worked for (while you could not at all have chosen which feudal landlord you lived under)

But this was far from enough for many people. Because whether the fruits of your labor belong to a feudal landlord or your boss – they still don't belong to you.

One person with this view was Karl Marx. He described capitalism as a system with two classes: The “bourgeoisie”, the people who owned property that others worked with, and the results of their labor. And the “proletariat”, the people who worked for the bourgeoisie.

(Note: you should google the correct spelling of “bourgeoisie” bc im not guaranteeing anything)

Out of this emerged the movement of communism, an ideology that rejects money, the state, and class (or, to be specific, the two classes of capitalism)

Socialism was seen as a transitioning period between capitalism and communism.

As communism and socialism became more popular, it began to divide into different beliefs.

The main idea behind socialism: The results of my labor – i.e. the products I make – are owned and controlled by the person owning the machines I use. But since I'm the one doing the work, I should get to own and control the results of that work.

Authoritarian Socialism: Our biggest problem is that the bourgeoisie isn't on its own – the government is on their side too. The proletariat is powerless against both, so we (the workers) need to take over the government. That way, both “sides” will have equal amounts of power. The state can only be abolished once it's not needed as a force against the beourgeoisie anymore

Libertarian Socialism: Our biggest problem is that power corrupts – the ones in power will always use it for their own advantage, no matter if they're actually “good people”. Because of this, we need to get rid of all positions of power – including the state

In many socialist revolutions, libertarian and authoritarian socialists fought side by side – until the authoritarian socialists came to power. Then, libertarian socialists were persecuted just like any other political opposition

Those two are probably the most “radical” forms of socialism. A less radical one would be democratic socialism.

And this is the point when the distinction between socialism and communism becomes relevant. Because as I said, socialism was originally thought of as a transitioning period between capitalism and communism. Therefore, any socialist would also be a communist.

But there are people who agree with the “main idea behind socialism” I described – but who do not agree that money and the state should be abolished. This often applies to democratic socialists.

Democratic Socialism: Revolution is too much. Instead, we as workers should gain more rights through gradual democratic reform. The more rights we get, the smaller the difference between the two classes – until at some point, it only takes one vote to control the results of our labor ourselves.

However, democratic socialism rarely stays socialism for a long time. Democratic socialist candidates/parties who gained more power often adopted social democratic views after some time.

Social Democracy: We don't need socialism; the people who own the machines should also be able to own everything created with them. BUT, the state should ensure that everyone's basic needs – food, healthcare, education, etc – are met.

Now, there isn't a way to clearly distinguish social democratic states from other capitalist states. It's more like a scale from less to more welfare. In addition to that, people tend to confuse social democracy with democratic socialism (similar names, and democratic socialism tends to turn into social democracy, so it's an easy mistake to make)

That's why people tend to make the mistake of saying “every country is a bit socialist”. What they actually mean is “every country has some policies meant to benefit the workers” – and that idea definitely originated from socialism, but it's far from the same.

Scandinavian countries are prime examples of social democracy, not socialism

The Autism Spectrum in the DSM-V

#neurodiversity #autism #dsmasd

What The DSM says

A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple con­texts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text): 1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.”

What it can mean

• I have trouble processing social cues or hints, like understanding when somebody is flirting with me or doesn't want to talk to me
• I can't spontaneously react to what people say; I have to “script” interactions before they happen. Because of this, I might be better at interactions that don't require me to respond immediately, like e-mailing.
• I often do not know how to start a conversation, especially when I don't have a “script” for the specific situation
• I usually only interact with people when I need them for something. For example, I wouldn't play a card game with a person because I want to play a game with that person, but because I want to play the game and I need a second person for it.
• It's difficult for me to let people know when I haven't understood them. It disrupts the “flow” of the conversation, making it more difficult
• I don't know how to rephrase things when others don't understand me
• I don't know how to phrase things on my own, so I usually communicate through things I have heard before. This might be quotes from movies, or things I have heard other people say
• To communicate, I sometimes repeat what the other person just said
• In a conversation, it's often just the other person talking. I might respond, but not “add new things”. For example, when other people ask me how I'm doing, they expect me to ask the same question back, or otherwise keep the conversation going. I don't do that, or I have had to practise it
• In a conversation, it's often only me talking. I don't instinctively do things like taking breaks to let the other person respond.
• I might not notice, or pay attention to, whether the other person is uninterested in what I am talking about.
• In a conversation, I usually feel like I am the “object”, like the conversation is something done to me, rather than with me
• If people don't notice my difficulties in conversations, it's because I've spend my whole life practicing how they work
• I have a strong need for privacy. It often feels invasive when people ask me about my thoughts, feelings, or interests, as those things feel very private to me
• I don't feel a need to share my interests with others; when someone else is interested in the same things as me, it might even feel like they're invading a personal space
• Or: I am only interested in a conversation when it's about a topic that interests me
• When I see something interesting, I don't instinctively point it out to others. That might only come to my mind much later
• When I succeed at something, I prefer enjoying it on my own rather than by telling others about it. “Sharing” joy about something doesn't make me feel happier than enjoying it alone
• I don't know how to react to other people's feelings, like how to comfort them when they're sad
• I am uncomfortable with or indifferent to displays of affection (like hugs, or saying “I love you”)
• There are some feelings I can't show in a way others notice. For example, people sometimes tell me to “be more enthusiastic” but I don't know how to express that
• Sometimes my mouth is better at wording things than my brain is. It's like my brain mixes things I have heard before, to create a response that fit the context. It's usually unrelated to what I actually believe, but my actual thoughts take a much longer time to express. So I often rely on this “automatic” process. (To me, this often feels like my mouth “generates” appropriate responses)
• “Simple” questions like “what do you mean?” or “how do you feel?” sometimes catch me off-guard. I don't know how to answer them
• I don't know how to signal things like when I'm uncomfortable with or disinterested in a conversation
• Other people often tell me that I was rude, when I thought I was being friendly
• To cope with or hide my social difficulties, I might use multiple techniques mentioned here, like: scripting, delayed echolalia, or automatic speech
• Even when I understand that something is meant to be humorous or sarcastic, I don't know how to respond to it. So I just reply as if the person had been serious
• sometimes in conversations, i don't know what people expect from me / don't understand the rules or expectations of our conversation, and that tends to make me feel very anxious and confused and disoriented
• one of the primary reasons i struggle with conversation is because it feels like there's an unwritten set of rules/expectations that i'm unfamiliar with and so i get anxious and freeze up
• if I want to initiate conversation with someone, I jump right in with my question or comment, rather than doing small talk first. Sometimes this means people don't realise I'm talking to them specifically
• I am often surprised when people tell me I have been rude, which happens quite often
• Sometimes I offend others by saying what I am thinking, even if I don't mean to.

Continue to: Part 0 – Sources Part 1 – Introduction Part 2 – Social-emotional reciprocity Part 3 – Nonverbal communication Part 4 – Relationships Part 5 – Repetitive Behaviors

The Autism Spectrum In The DSM-V

#neurodiversity #autism #dsmasd

The series is a work-in-progress. Other sources might be added anytime.

So far, 3 autistic people have contributed to this list. Other sources include:

Books

• The Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, 5th Revision
• “Aspergirls” by Rudy Simone
• “Twirling Naked In The Streets And No One Noticed” by Jeannie Davide-Rivera

Papers and Screening Tools

• DSM-V Autism Spectrum Disorders, Laura Carpenter, 2013
• The Ritvo Autism Asperger Diagnostic Scale – Revised (RAADS-R)

---

Continue to Part 0 – Sources Part 1 – Introduction Part 2 – Social-emotional reciprocity Part 3 – Nonverbal communication Part 4 – Relationships Part 5 – Repetitive Behaviors

The Autism Spectrum in the DSM-V:

#neurodiversity #autism #dsmasd

The diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder often seems vague – Many autistic people, including myself, have had the experience of reading it for the first time and immediately going “no, that's not me”. The autism spectrum is so broad, that any list of criteria will either exclude some people or be so vague that at first glance, we don't really know what to do with it.

So I want to do my best at giving examples to explain what the different parts of the criteria actually mean. In a multiple-part series, I will take different quotes from the DSM and give you examples of the traits described in them. The examples are based partly on scientific papers about autism, but mainly on the experiences of autistic people who have contributed to the list

Issues:

1. The DSM-V criteria is written based on what autism looks like to an outside observer. That's probably one of the main reasons we don't relate to it. It also means that the categories don't always make sense from an autistic person's perspective. For example, category B1 mostly covers self-stimulating behavior (stimming), but also some forms of communication. This is because they can look similar to an outside observer
2. Also, the DSM-V is written for professionals who are qualified to diagnose the conditions classified in it. It is not directed at us, nor does it have an interest in us understanding it. However, I think that, as autistic people, we have a right to understand how our minds are described.

For reference, here is the full DSM-V diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Note that the chapter does not only include this criteria, but also other sections such as specifiers, prevalence, differential diagnosis, and others.

“A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple con­texts, as manifested by the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaustive; see text): 1. Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions. 2. Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnor­malities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures: to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. 3. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for ex­ample, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers. [...] B. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history (examples are illustrative, not exhaus­tive; see text): 1. Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases). 2. Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day). 3. Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circum­ scribed or perseverative interests). 4. Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse re­ sponse to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement). Specify current severity: Severity is based on social communication impairments and restricted, re­ petitive patterns of behavior (see Table 2). C. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life). D. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other im­ portant areas of current functioning. E. These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual devel­ opmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spec­trum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that ex­ pected for general developmental level.”

This is going to be a list of experiences by autistic people as they relate to the DSM-V diagnostic criteria. I have been working on the list for a few weeks now and will publish them over time.

Continue to: Part 0 – Sources Part 1 – Introduction Part 2 – Social-emotional reciprocity Part 3 – Nonverbal communication Part 4 – Relationships Part 5 – Repetitive Behaviors

#politics

First of all, the “extreme” left has nothing to do with high government control. At all.

You can look up some more in-depth definitions if you want, but for starters, let's look at the wikipedia article for anarchism:

“Anarchism is usually placed on the far-left of the political spectrum. Much of its economics and legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian, anti-statist, and libertarian interpretations of the radical left-wing and socialist politics of collectivism, communism, individualism, mutualism, and syndicalism, among other libertarian socialist economic theories”

This is a bit easier to understand once you look at the history of the terms:

“Left” and “right” politics originated in the french revolution; generally, the monarchists were right, and the democrats/republicans (political systems, not US-parties) were left.

Eventually that evolved to “left = less hierarchy” and “right = more hierarchy”

That idea also translated into economics: “right = more power to the employer/boss” and “left = more power to the employee/worker”

...and that's how communism emerged: Communism was aiming to give power to the working class by

1. abolishing the class system (i.e. there's no employer. under capitalism, one guy might own a sewing machine and pay you for sewing the shirts he then sells. He makes the rules. In a communist society, nobody owns the sewing machine – but anyone can use it)
2. abolishing money (i.e. there's no direct exchange. you give what you can and take what you need. You're good at gardening? Then you do that, and share what you don't need with the commune. You need a shirt? Someone who enjoys sewing will share what they made with you, just like you shared your produce)
3. abolishing the state (i.e. all decisions are made democratically within the community or between the communities. There's no government dictating the lives of millions. If there's a government at all, it's only on a local level)

So much for the theory. But it doesn't take a history expert to notice that China, the USSR, and other countries that are or have been ruled by a “communist party”, didn't succeed in building a communist society. Actually, they pretty much did the opposite: forming an authoritarian state where class mattered a lot.

So, in regards to the “left = less hierarchy” and “right = more hierarchy” dichotomy, there are two options:

1. You argue that, because left means less hierarchy, the authoritarian “communist” states can not possibly be left-wing. They're instead far-right. However, both the “communist” regimes and their supporters, as well as right-wing politicians, call these states radically left. So saying otherwise would only result in a semantic discussion that leads nowhere
2. You need to adapt the definition of left vs right somehow. One attempt at doing this is the political compass, which distinguishes between left vs right economics and authoritarianism vs libertarianism, resulting in four categories: left libertarianism, right libertarianism, left authoritarianism and right authoritarianism

I think authoritarianism vs libertarianism is self-explanatory

Left wing economics (socialism) = the means of production are owned by the workers

Right wing economics (capitalism) = the means of production are owned by private corporations

Now, these categories work on a global level (e.g. when describing political systems). However, most modern societies are capitalist states, falling into the “authoritarian right” category. So most political parties of most modern countries will also fall into the “authoritarian right” category. As an example, take a look at where the 2020 American presidential candidates fall on the political compass

So, the political compass is useful for describing systems but doesn't give a lot of nuance when describing ideologies within a system

So, the furthest left you really get in mainstream American politics is social democracy. Social democracy = capitalism + democracy + welfare state. But because americans often confuse “social democracy” with “socialism” (like Bernie Sanders thinking scandinavian countries are socialist), the idea many americans have of economics is this:

Socialism = welfare state Capitalism = little to no government regulation on economics

And that's pretty much where the misconception of left = big government comes from. Within American (and not only american – that's just the most well-known and perhaps most extreme example) politics, left-wing politicians often advocate for more regulation, higher taxes, and more welfare.

But when it comes to systems, anarchism (not to be confused with anarcho-capitalism, which, despite the name, is not considered a form of anarchism) is the most left you can get

#politics

Progressivism:

You want the world to change in a direction you view as positive. The opposite is conservatism – wanting things to stay as they are. You can be progressive on some issues, conservative on others

Liberalism:

a political view based on individual freedom. Very broad term, but it usually refers to freedom within capitalism – concepts like the free market. This places it on the economically right side of the political compass

Libertarian left square of the political compass:

“Libertarian” refers to a limited government. The further down you are, the more limited you want the government to be. At the bottom of the political compass are people who oppose the whole concept of a government or state. “Left” refers to common ownership over the means of production (socialism)

The biggest difference between the two systems is economics. Here's a (strongly simplified) example of how an economy works in liberalism vs how it works in left/social libertarianism:

Liberalism: Somebody owns sewing machines and fabric. They hire people to sew shirts, sell them, buy new fabric, advertise the shirts etc. After removing cost, each shirt still generates $30. They keep $25 and distribute $5 to the workers. The company can sell shirts wherever and however they want – the government can't tell them things like how many shirts to produce, or what to print on them.

Left libertarianism: A commune owns sewing machines and fabric. They need shirts, so they make them. Some people don't enjoy sewing, so they do something else instead (e.g. farming, teaching, building etc). They still get the clothing they need, and share what they produce and don't need.

A left libertarian society may or may not have a currency and a market. If they do, that scenario above might look different, like this:

A commune owns sewing machines. Someone makes shirts and sells them. When someone wants clothing, they have a choice between buying it or using the commune's (commonly owned) sewing machines and making their own.

Liberals tend to see left libertarianism as utopian and unrealistic. Left libertarians tend to see liberalism as exploitative.

The biggest similarity between liberalism and left libertarianism is social issues. Normally, they're both progressive on these. Both are for democracy and equality, but they tend to interpret these things very differently:

For a liberal, equality may be defined by having more minorities (women, LGBTQ+ people, people of color etc) in positions of power, like as politicians or CEOs. Democracy in liberalism is more associated with electoral politics and majority rule

For a left libertarian, “positions of power” and “equality” are inherently contradictory. They don't think minorities can be liberated while those hierarchies still exist. Democracy in left libertarianism is more associated with direct democracy and consensus decision-making

Quick clarification of terms

Capitalism: private corporations own the means of production (–>liberalism)

Socialism: workers own the means of production (–> left libertarianism)

Electoral politics: You vote for a politician or a party. The politicians then vote on important decisions (–> liberalism)

Direct democracy: Everyone (that is affected by the decision) votes directly on important decisions (–> left libertarianism)

Majority rule: You vote on an issue. You go with the choice with the most votes (–> liberalism)

Consensus decision-making: You discuss an issue. You go with the choice that everyone approves of (–> left libertarianism)

Both liberalism and left-libertarianism are incredibly broad terms, and not all examples will perfectly fit into what I described.

#MBTI #typology

Note: If you're new to MBTI, or the word “cognitive function” doesn't mean anything to you, I recommend reading this Cognitive Functions 101

As a quick recap, you use four functions: Two perceiving functions and two judging functions. The most healthy way to use these functions is this: You use your dominant first, your auxiliary to support your dominant, your tertiary to balance your auxiliary, and your inferior to balance your dominant

Now, there are a few problems you can have with that: 1. Your tertiary function has the same E/I orientation as your dominant – your auxiliary function doesn't. So your tertiary might be more within your comfort zone 2. Sometimes your auxiliary function doesn't work in a given context. Usually your tertiary function is there for exactly that: to help your auxiliary function. But there's a possibility you stop using your auxiliary function completely

...And that's what is called a loop

Here's how it works: You use your dominant first, skip your auxiliary, and use your tertiary instead

The problems: 1. You can't use your tertiary as well as you use your auxiliary. It's usually more of a double-checking-function or a “backup” to your auxiliary; you can't use it well without it 2. It means that you either only use extroverted functions or only introverted functions. You need both – since you cant only live in your head or only live outside your head 3. A function axis is supposed to work together. But in a loop, there's nothing to balance out your tertiary function

Example of a loop

A healthy INTP uses Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, in that order. An INTP in a loop uses Ti-Si. An ISxJ has Si as a dominant function, and Ne as an inferior function. Si prefers structure, routine, and repetition. However, a healthy ISxJ will be able to balance that with their Ne – that's how they're able to deal with new situations, even if they don't enjoy them

An INTP in a loop, on the other hand, doesn't use Ne – Their Si is completely unbalanced. They will convince themselves that they're alright with the situation they're in, and avoid anything that might change it. At the same time they'll get more and more stressed; they'll ruminate about past mistakes they've made when they were in the situation they try to avoid. At the same time, they'll get anxious about any indication of change.

Social isolation is a great (and for an INTP, common) example for that. An introvert who is isolated for a long time is prone to looping, as their extroverted auxiliary function isn't necessarily needed:

-INTP gets isolated and stops using Ne –> gets comfortable with the isolation –> stresses out over any indication that the isolation might end, e.g. gets annoyed or angry at people trying to talk to them –> possibly ruminates about embarassing things they have done in the past, further convinving them to stay isolated

Solution: Overcome the initial distress and start socializing again. However, the longer someone has been in a loop, the less likely they are to do that.

So, skipping your auxiliary function in favor of your tertiary function is called a loop.

You can also skip your dominant function in favor of your inferior function. That is called a grip

Let's use another example: An IxFP has dominant Fi and inferior Te. ExTJs, who have dominant Te, are often good at organizing and efficiency. They make good leaders. They see their goals first, but their Fi can help them consider moral values as well.

An IxFP in a grip has two disadvantages: 1. They're not good at using Te; they're not good at being efficient 2. They skip their Fi – so their inferior Te stays unbalanced

A good example would be an IxFP who don't see any results regarding their values. IxFPs have a strong moral compass, but due to low Te, they're not the best at acting towards what they consider “right” in an organized way. So what happens is:

-IxFP feels strong about something –> gets impatient when they don't see quick results, or when their values are violated –> starts micromanaging people, tunnel vision (the only thing they see is their goal), wants things to be done their way –> Because they don't double-check with their Fi-values, is likely to lash out at people. Yells at others for doing things “wrong”, blames other people for inefficiency

Both a loop and a grip are vicious cycles – the problems caused by the loop/grip reinforce the avoidance of your higher functions

#MBTI #typology

Cognitive what?

If you're new to MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), chances are you have never heard of cognitive functions. However, you may be familiar with personality types like “ISFP” or “ENTJ” – those are MBTI types (not to be confused with the 16personalities online test, which can be distinguished by a fifth letter – T or A – which doesn't exist in MBTI).

Note: MBTI is not a science. It's merely a set of descriptors of how you think.

Now, you may also have seen statements like this: “MBTI can't describe me because I'm neither an introvert nor an extrovert! I'm an ambivert – ANTP!” This is based on a misunderstanding on what MBTI is and how it works.

MBTI is an attempt at describing and categorizing mental processes. This is done in the form of the so-called “cognitive functions” developed by psychoanalyst Carl Jung. One way to categorize these functions is by whether they are focused outwardly (“extroverted functions”) or inwardly (“introverted functions”). The first letter of your MBTI type – E or I – does not describe if you are introverted or extroverted, but your preferred Cognitive Function.

Overview

The cognitive functions are sensing, intuiting, feeling, and thinking. The first two are considered “perceiving” functions, the last two are “judging functions”

According to Jung, each of those functions can be either extroverted (focused on the outside world) or introverted (focused on yourself/ your inside world)

Extroverted perceiving functions:

How you “take in” and experience information. Extroverted sensing (Se) is more stimulated by tangible information (e.g. the things you can see and hear) while extroverted intuition (Ne) is more stimulated by abstract information (e.g. theoretical concepts and possibilities)

Introverted perceiving functions:

How you process and store information to “guide” you/ compare new information to. Introverted sensing (Si) compares tangible information (e.g. sensory memory) while introverted intuition (Ni) compares abstract information (e.g. “deeper meaning”)

Introverted judging functions:

How you subjectively judge things and form personal opinions: Introverted feeling (Fi) judges things based on how you feel about them (e.g. “do i feel like this is a right or a wrong thing to do?”) while introverted thinking (Ti) judges things based on internal logical consistency (e.g. “does this make sense to me?”)

Extroverted judging functions:

How you judge and react to the external environment. They're goal-oriented. Extroverted feeling (Fe) focuses on other people's feelings and acts towards group consensus while extroverted thinking (Te) focuses on external facts and knowledge and acts towards efficiency (e.g. “how can i use this knowledge to my advantage”)

Stacks

The function that comes most naturally to you is called your dominant function. It's the function you usually resort to, the one that's the most energizing (while others may be draining).

However, you can never only use one function. If you only ever used perceiving functions, you would never form an opinion on or act on what you see. If you only used judging functions, you wouldn't have any information to judge in the first place. If you only used introverted functions, you'd never interact with the outside world. If you only used extroverted functions, you'd never interact with your inner world.

So your dominant function needs to “work together” with another function, called your auxiliary function. If your dominant function is introverted, your auxiliary will be extroverted (and vice versa). If your dominant function is a perceiving function, you auxiliary will be a judging function (and vice versa)

Next problem: the support of your auxiliary function isn't always right for any given situation. For example, let's assume someone's auxiliary function is Si: Si compares new information to what it already knows. This can best be done in a structured environment with a routine you know well; so people who prefer to use Si thrive in that kind of environment. When confronted with something new, Si will try to cope with it by comparing it to similar changes that have happened in the past. Naturally that doesn't always work (for example when you haven't been a in similar situation you can compare the new one to)

Ne, on the other hand, thrives in new situations: it's stimulated by abstract information, and the same abstract information is never as stimulating twice. So Ne looks for new situations and possibilities left and right

When someone who prefers to use Si lands in a situation where using Si doesn't work, they have to resort to using its opposite: Ne

The opposite of your auxiliary function is called your tertiary function. The opposite of your dominant function is called your inferior function. These two are there two “balance” the first two out. The lower a function is in your stack, the more difficult it is for you to use. The opposite of a perceiving function will be the perceiving function where both letters are different – so Se is the opposite of Ni and Ne is the opposite of Si. Same goes for the judging functions (Te-Fi and Fe-Ti). The two opposite functions combined are called a “function axis”

Many people don't have big issues resorting to their tertiary function when needed (though they wouldn't be able to use it as well as someone who uses that function as a dominant one). It might even be more within your comfort zone than your auxiliary function, but that can lead to the problems I mentioned earlier – using only introverted or only extroverted functions. The inferior function is much more difficult because it goes against your “natural instinct” of your dominant function. But over time you learn to use your lower functions too. This is called function development

So, in summary, you use four functions – one perceiving axis and one judging axis. There is currently no consensus among MBTI experts on whether or not you use the other four functions – called “Shadow Functions”

From the outside

Functions are mental processes, so you can't directly observe them in others (some people think you can observe the functions through visual typing, but that's another discussion)

However, there are a few things you can observe:

1. Our dominant function is our comfort zone, the most energizing function, and often the one we're best at. This means that we gravitate towards situations where our dominant function can be used best. For example, Se can best be used in stimulating (sensory-wise) environments, so dominant Se* might be observable as sensory-seeking behavior. Ne is responsible for taking in abstract information – it sees patterns everywhere, and when it finds new information, it connects it to what it already knows. This can only be done when you get new information – which is why Ne-doms are often novelty-seeking and don't enjoy repetition and routine

2. On the other hand, our inferior function is uncomfortable and often difficult to use, so we might avoid situations that would force us to use it. When we do use it, it might quickly become apparent that we're not good at it (Note: the more developed your inferior function is, the less obvious this point will be, and the less avoidant you'll be of using it) For example, someone with inferior Fe may not feel comfortable in situations where they would be responsible for other people's feelings in some way; They're usually not good at comforting others or apologizing to them. Someone with inferior Se, as another example, might quickly become overstimulated by too much sensory information.