Modification: 'Neurotypical'

Post Reply New Topic

I am not bothered by the term Neurotypical. But for our purposes maybe we should just say Spectrum or Non Spectrum, So NS rather than NT. And then if we want to talk about Bipolar or ADHD or Schizophrenia or any other disorder, we just talk about that disorder by name. And maybe people who don't have a disorder can be ND, Non Disordered.

"neuromajority" and "neuromainstream" are more accurate in the sense that a lot of our problems a result of our neurolegies being neither. "Typical" has a negative connotation such as boring, unimaginative and so using "Neurotypical" stigmatizes that group.

The problem is that we have gotten used to "neurotypical" and change is hard for us.

I find myself using the term "Spectrumite" for people on the Spectrum. I use NT only as a point of reference. I wish I could draw a Venn diagram--but NT and Autistic frequently overlap in a lot of ways.

As I've stated frequently, there is no sharp demarcation between an NT person and an Spectrumite.

I am concerned with the actual meaning of the word, and how it is used and misinterpreted. The connotation is definitely part of that.

I love that you state that frequently. It turns me on.

(Sorry, had to lighten up the mood.)

-Even if the Extreme Male Brain Theory were true (which is in dispute, as others noted) this does not therefore mean that NTs have lesser logic skills than those on the spectrum.

>Being a systemiser is not the only way to be logical.
>Being autistic is not the only way to be a systemiser.
>Being an extreme systemiser does not inherently lead to being more logical than a non-extreme systemiser.

I think both neurotypical and allistic are words that make a lot of sense to use. There are reasons to think about autistic/not autistic, when discussing things, and yet there are also times to think about "these people are similar to the average when it comes to neuropsych"/"these people aren't".

In the first case, it'd be autistic/allistic. We're autistic, those who aren't are allistic.

In the second case, the people who are similar enough to average are those who are neurotypical. We can compare to those, as well as to those who are allistic, because allistic but not neurotypical is a meaningful state to be in and does have similarities that others don't.

As to how to define neurotypical; within two standard deviations of the average person when it comes to their neurology or neuropsychological traits would be my immediate response. Might need to change the number, but I've not actually thought it out clearly, I do a more intuitive thought process, and haven't refined the cutoff point. But, in general, its rather than a list of diagnoses, its being different enough than average in this manner.

For me its pretty simple, the term "Neurotypical" simply means someone who is not on the spectrum. They may have other conditions, or not.

And we don't know enough about the brain and the "circuits" in the brain, to know whether or not some people considered "neurotypical" actually have (or had, if they are deceased) "autistic circuits" or not. In other words we don't know how typical, or not typical, each person actually is, and whether or not a brain that would be "perfectly normal" would be able to think, focus on, or invent, etc, some things, or not. We don't even know if there is such a thing as a "perfectly normal brain", because we don't know what each circuit does individually, we merely and vaguely know what different areas of the brain are for, or react to. I would be surprised if there was a group of people who have the exact same "circuits", exactly the same "length", exactly in the same quantity, etc.

And I don't know if what I just said is understandable lol but I understand myself at least.

For example, Temple Grandin was able to do what she did because she is very intelligent, because her visual cortex is very elaborated/developed, and because she likes animals, and this allowed her to understand some things, to see some details, that a "neurotypical" person (or anyone with a much less developed visual cortex) could not see nor understand. And I have a LOT of admiration for her.

p.s. to Norny: I will try to use the term "non-autistic" tho, when I think about it, or "NA" or something lol.

Last edited by Shadi2 on 10 Jun 2014, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I totally agree with the OP. I'm halfway through the NT-bashing thread and I must say I agree with Ezra and littlebee, too.

I think the term 'NT' should be used more carefully and with more understanding (if ever). It will be hard to eliminate it, though, as there will be always people who will vent on NTs and who will always try to use it as a segregative term to differentiate 'bad' and 'good' in a rather delusional, mystical way, playing the 'us vs. them' card with every means you can dig up in the literature/history.

However, there will be always people who'll use the term 'NT' only to tentatively find their differences from the majority of people they live among.

People do use the term "neurotypical" in a variety of ways, but the only problem I see with it is people getting upset or reactionary every time they see the term being used at all. This is not a problem with the term itself, nor is it a problem with the way the word is used, or with the people who are using it. It is only a problem for the people who dislike seeing the term used.

It helps if you read what I wrote, as this feels very dismissive.

I know in the past you have posted that people with ADHD should not be considered NT, and others wrote the opposite. That alone shows just how flawed the term is.

The very fact that it is used to refer to 'normal' people is quite bizarre considering it is likely almost a majority of people that have 'atypical' wiring.

If someone uses the term 'autistic' as an insult on a video game, is that a problem just for the autistic that dislikes seeing the term used?

Last edited by Norny on 10 Jun 2014, 2:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I doubt it. Some people don't like to see it used (too much or in some particular ways) for good reason.

That's not a flaw with the term. It just shows that people use it in different ways, which is true of a tremendous number of words in the English language. Should every word that is used in multiple ways or with multiple meanings be eliminated? It's futile to even seek to do so. It borders on a desire for censorship and suppression.



I disagree that a majority of people have atypical wiring.



I haven't seen anyone ask for the term "autistic" to be eliminated for that reason, or any similar reason. Do you think it would be right to eliminate the term "autistic" just because some people misuse it?

For me It's how it's used that is the deeper measure. I have never used the term 'NT' because to me it smacks of 'us' & 'them' which I find unhelpful.

It seems to me that the extent to which someone in the spectrum feels isolated or marginalised, is the extent to which they revert to 'us' & 'them' 'NTisms'......it's very understandable, but unhelpful to us all in my experience.

Usually I use the term ''neurotypical'' as a quick way of saying ''non-disorder people''. When I say ''neurotypicals'', I am not referring to those with Down's Syndrome and Mental Retardation and ADHD and other conditions that can affect a person's behaviour, learning and/or functioning.

I think sometimes the term ''normal'' can be subjective too, and is often used as a quick way of explaining something without having to go all round the houses (literal meaning: having to explain everything else before getting to the point). Like once when I was looking up about Alzheimer's, it showed a picture of two brains. One brain was labelled as ''Alzheimer's brain'', and the other one was labelled as ''normal brain'', and it's no point writing up an argument about it saying ''but what about people with X, Y, Z, XX, YY, ZZ etc etc etc? Their brains are then different to these two brains...'' making the writers obliged to add loads more pictures of a brain from every single known disorder, which will then totally go off track from what they were originally trying to give information about; which was Alzheimer's disease. So, like in most things, people usually make things more easier by comparing things with the ''normal'' type, otherwise you could go on forever. So I don't feel it's accurate labelling 1% of the population non-NTs whilst the vast remaining 99% of the population are NTs no matter what, but it's just quick and easy to just compare ourselves to the ''NT'' population - unless it's a thread where we are specifically talking about other conditions.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Great thread, Norny...and good for you to enquiry deeply into a topic that is important to you...

re dianthus....: i wouldn't react to some of her material so much as these black and white comments such as her recent one is obviously intended to play into people's resistance as a form of gestalt....meaning this is not unconscious behavior (though there may be an unconscious motivation) but is being done deliberately...so not a game as in Games People Play but a psychological device....and it can jump start a conversation and insight can come out of it I am not denying....but still it is disingenuous...i suggest really looking deeply into the ideas and encouraging others to do that may be better....and to anyone using this kind of gestalt device and tgher are many personifications on wp, I suggest to really try to see the entire dynamic of oneself as one is doing that....

i do not have as much time to participate on wp right now....