Attempting to prove neurotypicality

Post Reply New Topic

I know what you're saying, and from a certain point of view, it does make sense. If we're going back to the IQ example, look at it this way:

The average IQ is 100. Most people fall between 85 and 115, which isn't stupid, but it isn't smart either. But say your IQ is 160. If you say that most people are stupid, then it is true from your perspective, because almost everyone is going to be dumber than you. If your IQ is 40, you would probably view the average person as a genius. It's all relative.

Yes, most people are somewhere between introverted and extroverted, if you're looking at a graph of it. But say you're a point on the graph in the extreme introverted range. From that perspective, almost everyone can be viewed as more extroverted.

To me, everyone stands out as more extroverted, because almost everyone actually is more extroverted than me, even though the average person is somewhere between introversion and extroversion.

If you were to take a room full of 100 people, let's just say that 70 of them would fall within the middle of the bell curve. 20 more would probably be outside the curve on either end, but still not too far away. I would be one of the 10 people left, far outside of the bell curve on the introverted side, as with most of us here I can imagine. Although, in reality, to say that I would be in the top 95 percentile for introversion is probably a bit low. More like 98, maybe even 99. And I'm not calculating that based on how many people are more extroverted than me, but based on how many people are more introverted than me. Total count: 0.

Although, this isn't even all that important. Being extroverted has nothing to do with being NT. I know a guy in real life who is really extroverted, but he is without a doubt an aspie. At least once a day he would walk up to me and start monologueing about thermonuclear reactors, without any consideration of whether or not I'm interested.

I agree it's all relative, but the idea that someone is neurotypical is relative as well. Typical neurology would be the neurology that the majority of the population shares. The thirteen percent of the population that are extroverted are correlated with a different neurology than the thirteen percent of the population that are introverted and the continuum of that neurology changes among every individual, but there is really no way to tell how different the neurology is based on the external behavior of an individual, because that behavior can change on a day to day basis.

In my opinion we should toss the word neurotypical and replace it with neurodiverse, because it's more reflective of science than a broad sweeping generalization of the majority of the population that has no relevance other than it's people with a diagnosis and people without one.

The word neurotypical is used as a political tool as an us against them ideology. It can be potentially harmful if carried to the extreme.

It wasn't intended to be and "neurotypical" was meant to demonstrate that some people have brains that function well in society, while others have brains that do not function as expected in society, not to say there's a neurowar on. It functions in a manner similar to "straight. - that is, to mark the otherwise unmarked class deemed "normal" without calling them normal.

Neurodiversity covers everyone - NTs and various forms of neuroatypicalities.

I can't lie, though. I think a lot of people use it exactly as you describe.

I would like to think that neurodiversity covers everyone, but the commonly defined parameters I have seen are as follows from wiki:

from Wiki:






Science now is providing research that suggests that there is only a neurological spectrum within the whole human population, and neurotypical at best is a subjective judgement based on what we as individuals view as normal behavior. We have little idea of what someone's neurology is by observing them, and much of what we see is determined by our own preconceived notions.

Research shows that even chronic stress can rewire an individuals brain. Based on the number of people alone that are under chronic stress, that's a potential for a great number of individuals with atypical neurology in itself.

The core message from the neurodiverse movement within some autistic adovacy groups is that our society is neurotypical and autistic people along with some of the other diagnosed conditions are the atypical (neurodiverse) ones.

The results of this ideology, I agree not intended, can be fairly extreme. The Autism Supremacy thread that's going on right now is a good example of where the rhetoric can lead.

I don't see neurodiverse as particularly troublesome in the way it is used. But the usage of the term neurotypical is adverse in many ways from satires on "neurotypical disorder" to some of the more extreme ideas that NT society needs to be taken down. Most of it is an illusion, in that people as a whole are diverse in so many ways.

Both Neurodiversity and Neurotypical are recent terms, with what seem to be vague and changing definitions.

I see neurotypical as an ancient idea, almost like the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, that is no longer as relevant, now that science is providing information on the number of differences in neurology among the general population. Now that ASD's may be combined into one large Autistic category, perhaps we could just refer to the non-autistic population as the non-autistic population, rather than neurotypical, since it's evident that the non-autistic population is not typical as a group.

We really don't have any idea whose brain is functioning well in society and whose brain isn't. The person smiling behind the counter at Walmart might snap and no longer be able to work, when the next customer comes up to the counter.

I'm convinced that our culture is more of a problem now for people in general, not just the people with diagnoses of somekind.

I've got nothing to prove.

I have found Wikipedia's definitions on neurodiversity to be maddeningly vague and incomplete - but even so, I don't see where it says that the only kinds of neurology that are diverse are neuroatypical neurologies. It points out an expansion of the idea that there is more than one way to be.



Speaking as someone who has been described as neurotypical by others since 2004, and of course turned out to not be, I wasn't really fussed by the experience. It's not what held me back from working out that I was autistic, and I didn't find it insulting - and the people who used it were people who had never met me. They also didn't mean it as an insult or a gesture of their own superiority, but as a point of distinction.

You're getting caught up on a red herring here, though. The majority of people who can function within society as expected fall into a range of neurology that would be considered neurotypical. You seem to look at this as a single kind of brain from which no variations are allowed, whereas that was never the intent at all. Originally, the intent was "not autistic" but this evolved over time.



Yes, neuroplasticity is known. I would argue that an NT who has PTSD is still an NT. Said person with PTSD would benefit from therapy and medication intended for NTs who have PTSD, and would still have a basis for social understanding, an ability to reconnect with their own emotions (if they developed alexithymia). In short, they have a pre-PTSD baseline that can serve as a point of comparison. People who have autism, dyspraxia, ADHD, dyslexia, and other lifelong neuroatypical conditions have a starting point that is outside these expected parameters (a range of acceptable neurologies, not a single specific neurology), and this does not have an NT starting point to return to.

Another element of being neuroatypical is often trying very hard to fit into NT expectations to one's own detriment. I'm not going to argue that an NT with PTSD never experiences this (I am sure they do), but they already understand those expectations.

Further, all of those things that NTs can experience - PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc - are also possible for neuroatypicals to experience. And for some of us, things like therapy geared toward NTs with PTSD doesn't really work. I have issues my therapist's attempts to treat me as if I am NT while discussing depression or anxiety because they make no sense to me.



The satire is harmless and funny. It doesn't mean anything more than "turn the tables for humor" which is a pretty common form of humor.

To some extent it is an illusion in that it is used to construct hierarchies by not naming the people placed at the top of the hierachy (NTs) and then naming those who don't fit into the hierarchy as defective (such as autistic people).



I think they are used in changing ways - I know different people have different usages that I simply will never agree with (that is, I do not care how many people say this, I do not agree that simply having a mental illness is enough to be neuroatypical).



The point of "neurotypical" was:

* To point out that "normal people" have their own variety of neurology
* To avoid calling them terms like "normal" (which defines them as the default) or describing them as something they are not (for example, "non-autistic"). Yes, the term was created partially to avoid calling people "non-autistic," so your suggestion is actually retrograde.

The term is equivalent to other labels that identify the more privileged part of society vs. the less privileged part. It's equivalent to naming straight people as straight, for example.

What the point of the term was not to do was:

* Describe neurotypicals as a homogenous group.



Perhaps, but sometimes uncertainty is necessary to live with. As I said above, I was incorrectly categorized as NT by others in the past, and I don't particularly mind now because I understand that they could not have known that I actually was not neurotypical.

I think you will find that a lot of neurodiversity advocates do agree that there is no such thing as a single typical neurology and that understanding of this fact is pretty crucial, and have never claimed otherwise. A lot of people are misusing the term and trying to argue autistic supremacy or otherwise define a new hierarchy that places us at the top when the answer is no hierarchy at all.



This is certainly true.

I guess I should have clarified that, in this context, I was using the word neurotypicality to indicate a typical neurological wiring, which does not include any sort of mental disorder. While I agree with the statements mentioned by both aghogday and Verdandi, the other meanings of neurotypical seem rather irrelevant to my use of that word in this thread.

The statement suggests that some groups apply the concept of neurodiversity only to autism, in suggesting that some groups apply the concept of neurodiversity to conditions potentially unrelated to autism. I see where it's not the best of wording. I disagree that neurodiversity is limited to autism itself or autism and these other disorders as Wiki indicates some groups suggest.

There is scientific research that indicates there are real neurological differences between extroverts and introverts; they don't hold any psychiatric diagnoses. Some of these people don't fit in to society the way that others do, so I would suggest that they may be neuroatypical also, even though they lack a diagnosis of any kind. I completely agree with those like you who believe the term neurodiversity encompasses everyone.

People still commonly use Neurotypical as a generalization of all people who don't have Autism, that's the part I most strongly disagree with, see as the major issue, and at the core of some of the Autism Supremacy ideology.

I can relate to therapies not working for a person with autism. I'm not so sure that everyone that get's diagnosed with PTSD, that didn't have a previous diagnosis, started out with the kind of normal range of neurology, that one might consider neurotypical. Combat studies show specific traits of individuals more likely to succumb to PTSD, than others, not related to a specific diagnosis of any kind.

If 30% of the population has symptoms that match some of the criteria of Autism, do they have typical neurology? Which criteria is it that gives a person atypical neurology? I don't think anyone really knows at this point. When I hear about information like the combat studies, it makes me wonder if they started off with typical neurology

I see the satire too in "neurotypical syndrome" and the like, and only see it as a problem when people take it seriously and resort to verbal abuse, and threatening behavior. That's not the fault of people who create satire, some of us just get a laugh out of it and that's it.

I'm thinking you mean some mental illnesses, but not all mental illnesses like schizophrenia that have genetics related neurological causes, as autism does. I can see where the people we may consider as neurotypical are subject to mental illnesses like anxiety and depression, but sometimes in the severe cases the real neurological changes like the shrinkage of the memory centers in the brain are not always reversible; if their brains are beyond recovery they no longer have typical neurology, they often become disabled and no longer can function well in society. Once they are in a state of organic brain dysfunction they no longer have a starting place to go back to. I'm curious, if you would agree these more serious mental health issues constitute atypical neurology.

The original intention of the term Neurotypical that I believe is most commonly understood, was to give a label to those people that are not autistic; I can see the other related considerations you present taken into account, I hadn't come across them; thanks for that information.

People who are not autistic are non-autistic, it's not really a label just a descriptor that someone doesn't have a particular condition like the word non-schizophrenic. I really can't imagine why someone would use the term non-schizophrenic, so I can see why they searched for another term.

Stating the population that does not share the traits of autism would be cumbersome if stated over and over. I think sociotypical might be a better term. Then we could have had sociodiverse instead of neurodiverse. The words aren't taken yet in the dictionary. But, I guess it is too late, we are already use to NT. They could have been ST.

I think it is reasonable to suggest there is a range of neurology that is typical, but it is a subjective judgement at most on who those people are and what their numbers are. I don't see where it was ever reasonable to suggest the whole population other than autistics are neurotypical; for those that intend it now as a subjective behavior based judgement on a limited group of people in the population outside of the autistic population, I don't see that as unreasonable.

I'm glad to hear that some within the neurodiversity movement suggest there is no typical neurology. This seems like the most reasonable understanding, in light of all the information available at this point on differing neurologies among the population, regardless of what terms we use for generalities.

The reason I started this segment of the discussion was the ambiguity some see in the diagnoses criteria as making them either autistic or neurotypical and to provide evidence that missing one criteria, like these symptoms do not significantly impair one's life, doesn't necessarily indicate they have typical neurology, but they may function well enough with their atypical neurology to get by in life.

Some years ago, as post grad student, I sat in at meetings between clinicians and nurses in a mental hospital. I found it disturbing they would have in-jokes about different patients and categories of mental illness. It was large part of their culture Some of the humor I thought was cruel and went beyond harmless satire. I don't think they got I was AS straight away so I was in there observing figuring out exactly how this helped support- construct their notion of them an us identity, which may be necessary for them to do their job and work as a team. They figured me out after about nine months which is not bad going for me in such an environment. Then it got a bit too rough on me on a daily basis which is a shame because I would have made a good researcher and contributed to the team . I still do a bit of model design/evaluation for free for an NT friend when she needs help. She's not like these guys at all.

So turning that approach around I think sometimes people on the other side of this clinical fence need to let off a bit of steam, apply the label NT and have a laugh and find a bit of in group solidarity. As long as it's not cruel.

The other thing I saw was, some staff couldn't help letting their zany satire and humor spill over into the wards. So they would talk tongue in cheek and patronizingly down to a patient whilst the other members of staff gathered around trying not to grin because they knew the in joke about this patient. The trick was to pull it off without laughing in the patient's face on the ward.

I didn't find this a worthwhile thing to do or funny I might hasten to add, but if you don't do it
and haven't got the life-skills I've got now, there wasn't much choice back then.


Meme.

Thanks for the work, I suppose I could have looked it up myself, but I like to hear perspectives.

Some of my experiences:

Taken at face value, the introversion type of myself is INTJ with 66/75/62/22 as percentages.

The introversion that I experience would seem to be worse than this scale would indicate. Quantitatively, I believe I have heard too many comments, and most with criticisms about this to be a near "normal."

Recently, my wife's friend said to me: " You are hard to read, and in fact I can't read you at all; you're so self-contained." Indeed, I thought, "self contained," it's as if I'm temporarily reaching out of a container when "connecting" to someone , and then recoiling back inside the "container" to my thinking-detailed-analytical-self.

I remember something my cousin said to me right before my wedding ( some years ago), as: "Do you actually talk to people?" I thought here we go again, and where do these notions come from? Of course I talk to people, I thought. She at the time was in college to become a psychologist and was also married to a "schizotypal," so maybe my introversion and her interest in this field prompted 'a probing question.'

In a similar vein a lady said I stick out like a sore thumb. This was intended as a compliment though, and she read the mix this way. She said "you are brilliant" at the end of it.

In my best form, I do give enough in conversation and can made as deep as needed, or I can banter around with jokes, as in fact someone recently said that I'm "quite witty." I've made the room laugh with stand up comedy on several occasions.

I'm sure my ADD hyperfocus, probably makes this kind of thing too complicated to gauge in a hierarchy. It's multi dimensional. I'm way too shy to be like I am as an adult.

There is enough of this neurology here, though, to prevent or restrict bonding, as I notice that people cannot emote to myself overall. The irony seems to be a lack of reciprocal empathy.

I haven't read all the replies to this but the first thing that came to mind when I read the original post is that differences show up more as age increases. Children can blend in easier but as people grow up, the differences are more visible.