Mental illness being called neurodivergence

Post Reply New Topic

I don't want one. There's nothing wrong with me that curing sensory sensitivity, dyspraxia, poor eyesight and social anxiety wouldn't fix. At least no more than other people's personality flaws.

neuro- (prefix): Combining form meaning nerve, nerve tissue, the nervous system.

divergent (adj): (a) Moving or extending in different directions from a common point; (b) differing from each other or from a standard.

neurodivergent (n): Having an atypical neurological configuration.

So, in it's basic form, the word 'neurodivergent' encompasses an entire population of people who are not 'neuronormative'.  That is, people with autism, ADD/ADHD, bipolar disorder, and even schizophrenia can be lumped together under the label of 'neurodiversity', even if you cannot point to any specific spot on a brain NMR display and say, "Ah-HAH!  He's autistic!"

Whether you like it or not.

That's why the movements need different names. Nothing good ever came out of social anxiety.

The terms used also need to be clearly defined, understood, and used properly.

Also, if every special-interest group had its own name, I dare say that there would be as many named special-interest groups as there are people, maybe more.

People need to start understanding that Asperger's on its own is just a different way for a brain to be constructed. Not a problem to be fixed.

The issue is that some people with some conditions that you personally would like to be cured or eliminated think “my condition can be explained using the neurodiversity model”, while other people who have conditions that you think are valid parts of human neurodiversity wish that they were neurotypical. There are some autistic people who even say that if an autism cure effectively killed them (by causing them to instantly become a very different person) then they would still want the cure.

As I see it, you have four broad options:

1) strict neurosupremacy
2) accepting some but not all neurodiversity in a categorical fashion - for example, “autism” might be accepted but “borderline personality disorder” might be cured.
3) the autonomy position - let individuals decide for themselves whether they are happy with their neurotype and whether they would like to try to change it
4) strict naturalism i.e. no changes to neurotype are ever allowed (this could be combined with #1 in theory)

I think #1 is probably the default position of most Western societies but #2 is also quite a popular proposition. #4 is largely theoretical.

The big flaw with #2 is that it is impossible to determine “good” and “bad” neurotypes objectively. Indeed, central to the neurodiversity paradigm is that different neurotypes may be more beneficial in a mixture even if they are less biologically “fit” individually. You mention psychopaths - frankly it’s probably easier to make the positive case for psychopaths than for autism. We already see, very commonly, NTs saying “it’s alright that some autistics support neurodiversity, but other autistics should be cured”. Usually they’ll say “low functioning” or give invasive details of symptoms they want eradicated. Never mind that there is widespread support for the neurodiversity movement from across the autistic spectrum. There will always be someone prepared to declare you too low functioning and call for you to be cured.

I have depression and anxiety. I think they are negative influences on my life and would like them cured. But, while my experiences are pretty widespread, I know they are not universal. There are people who say, look, I’d like help dealing with some of my symptoms, but I am glad that I have this mental illness. I have heard the journalist Micha Frazer-Carroll express those thoughts quite tentatively, to give one example. Clearly some people holding those views was what caused this thread to be started in the first place.

So I think we should recognise that neurodiversity isn’t limited to 200 psychiatric diagnoses, or five diagnoses that are sufficiently socially acceptable, but to 7.6bn unique human brains. Everyone should have a right to individually determine whether their brain deserves to be accepted or seek changes to it. In some cases we’ll be able to use categories to propose policy solutions for e.g. autistic brains, but these should always bear in mind that every autistic brain is different and catch-all solutions won’t always work.

All this is way too cerebral for me . All I know is that feeling different from my peers has been the rule rather than the exception .That inadequate support over the years has greatly diminished what I've achieved, compared to what potential there was .

Instead of subjectively deciding who can stand under the neurodiverse umbrella I'm more for a society that seeks to bring out the best in a person irrespective of whether they're on the spectrum or not .

Perhaps we should be spending more time looking at the commonalities ,and less at the things that separate us . Irrespective of whether neurodivergent or not life is not a bowl of cherries for most of us .

There never will be a “cure” for autism.

agreed

In my opinion;


To without distinguishing mental illness, brain injuries, hormonal imbalances, any states of mind outside the norm from neurodivergence is like...

Putting all bullied kids and adults into one group -- nevermind why they're bullied, what their reactions are, who they are around with, which culture deems circumstances as 'bullying', how it affects them or if it's even relevant to one's life, functioning, experiences, outlook, identity, or memory -- they're bullied and that's all that matters.


And that's without the redundancy of pointing that humans are humans, and that without pointing that neurodiversity itself at it's most inclusive range includes NTs.