Comment by omnicognate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by omnicognate | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've heard the term before but not researched the thinking behind it. From Google/Wikipedia I'm getting a confused picture and one I'm not sure I like. According to wikipedia the word has its origins in the idea of "neurodiversity", which it describes in these terms:

> Neurodiversity is a framework for understanding human brain function and mental illness. It argues that diversity in human cognition is normal and that some conditions classified as mental disorders are differences and disabilities that are not necessarily pathological.

I absolutely agree with all of that, but the word "neurotypical" seems to suggest that there is a large, probably majority group that can all be lumped together and tagged with a single label, separate from those who are "neurodivergent". I don't think I'm comfortable with that at all.

Given I've been diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome, I am presumably considered "neurodivergent" in this world view. However I don't think there is some "normal" that I deviate from. Everyone I know has an entirely unique mind, and despite the diagnosis I don't see mine as deviating in a way that puts me in a group distinct from the mainstream. I know people who think in ways that are arguably more idiosyncratic than mine, but who haven't been diagnosed with anything and would presumably be judged "neurotypical".

Neurodiversity sounds like a great idea from what little I've just read: stop stigmatising particular "syndromes" and acknowledge the uniqueness and variation present in all human minds. But dividing the world into "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent" people seems like the exact opposite of that. Am I missing something?

It's absolutely a spectrum, just like the individual conditions that make it up are spectra. (Everything is spectra. Is my friend who has arthritis in his otherwise working legs "physically disabled"? It depends on whether he's walking around a store or trying to run a marathon.)

"Neurotypical" here, when used as a binary adjective, means something like "close enough to the average on all the relevant spectra to not particularly benefit from special consideration". The exact line for where that is is going to be blurry and situationally dependent, because it's a shorthand for an approximation.

My usage is generally towards those who refuse to accept that the spectrum largely exists, and you are either 'normal' or 'disabled'.

You'd think there were not that many folk, but unfortunately there are, especially within the older generation and many driven people who believe you're just not 'trying hard enough' or 'making excuses'.

The irony being that many of them are also likely further on the spectrum than average.

It's more about the attitude and approach to life, than the individuals. Many expectations are towards being 'Neurotypical' and do not cater for, or even acknowledge the challenges, of Neurodiversity.

> but the word "neurotypical" seems to suggest that there is a large, probably majority group that can all be lumped together and tagged with a single label, separate from those who are "neurodivergent". I don't think I'm comfortable with that at all.

I personally speculate that the vast majority of the population does have some form of cognitive diversity, it's just that most of it is undiagnosed (with little opportunity or no incentive or too low-intensity to get a formal diagnosis), not formally known to science for diagnosis, or not currently considered an illness/disability.

> Am I missing something?

Neurotypical has its origins in social media, as a (slightly) derogatory term for the group it describes.

> Am I missing something?

Nope, you've nailed it. Can't let those damn sex-having neurotyps in marketing get the leg up on us!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com