Modification: 'Neurotypical'

Post Reply New Topic

People do use it in different ways, but why would you refer to a computer as a bible?





You disagree, but that's based on your definitions for each term. ADHD affects 8-10% of children alone. I fail to see how it is not plausible that almost (if not a majority, again depending on definitions) a majority would have atypical wiring. If you sharpen the definition of neurotypical, it gets to the point where 'normal' is incredibly unclear.





It is not a question whether it should be eliminated or not, it clearly is not just a problem with the autistic individual. You say it is not a problem with the term itself, nor a problem with the way it is used, or with the people that are using it. Perhaps in this case it is not a problem with the term itself (as they literally mean autistic), but how it is being used is, and the people that use it in such a way. The term 'neurotypical' is used in a way that completely defies its meaning, to the point where even gifted people are considered not to be NT. The connotations of the word are also highly inappropriate, and blatantly ignore the large amount of differences between individuals. Why is a person with ADHD not NT yet a psychopath is?

Agreed.

"Neurologically atypical" represents a significance difference in the brain. The majority of people don't have atypical wiring such that they qualify for a diagnosis of a "disorder", and are viewed by the majority as different, viewed as "something wrong", and merit special services.

There is widespread abuse by the non-neurologically atypical ("neurotypical") people against the neurologically atypical, solely because of these neurological differences.

This thread seems like a political correctness statement, and not acknowledgment of the real world.

It is only from your point of view that you are considering the meaning of 'Neurologically atypical'.

There is abuse by neurotypicals against other neurotypicals. More importantly, there is also widespread abuse by the neurologically atypical against those that are also atypical, and those that are atypical against those that are typical. There have been threads about that recently. You are blaming what are human traits/mistakes on 'neurotypical' individuals, and misunderstanding my point completely.

Your 'real world' is only your subjective world, and that is shown by your first sentence. If you consider that others claim 'neurotypical' to not include things like giftedness, personality disorders, depression etc then it becomes very, very clear that the term NT is highly variable/unreliable when used by most people. In other words, it has no inherent meaning.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp6097152.html#6097152
This thread is imo a blatant example of this kind of gestalt which is very rampant on wp....and someone or many 'someones' of 'someone' is trying to help people sort out their thinking. I can give lots of examples of these kinds of threads....they are really quite recognizable as intended to be a form of gestalt or psychological theater where people can work some of their issues out...basically in some ways it is actually an effective technique but in other ways it is insidious and corrupting of integrity...and I would watch out for it....personally i am 100% against it...It is against my conscience, and I would be fighting it actively on wp except it is really not possible to do that much about it so therefore just a waste of time and energy...like hitting ones head against the wall. However, i do think that people should know what it is, that it IS happening here and become more able to recognize it...

The term neurotypical is problematic, IMO, because it depicts a complete state of separation between ASD and NT states. I am going to suggest that a better conceptualisation is the Bell curve (for those of you who know rudimentary statistics). The Bell curve (for those who don't know) describes whole populations in terms of where they fall on a continuous curve in terms of a characteristic.

So someone with no ASD features whatsoever (not so many perhaps, as anxiety for example is widespread in the population) would fall on the extreme right tail of the Bell Curve. The most autie of autists would fall on the extreme left tail. And the rest would be distributed along the standard deviations. (I would draw a Bell curve here to depict that but for the fact that I have the computer skills of an idiot!)

Often I suspect many of us here havea few or more "NT" traits (as well as our ASD traits) than we realise, and I strongly believe that many NT's have more ASD traits than they realise.

The "dominant discourse" is totally separative - basically inferring that NT is superior/normal and ASD is defective/abnormal. It has been unhelpful. I know lots of people will disagree, but that's ok. This is just my view. It's idealistic in today's political culture and its entrenched oppression of minorities.

I agree with the first point, and I believe that is a realm of extreme confusion when subjects like stimming are discussed. It is rather difficult (without insight) to distinguish between autistic and allistic forms of stimming, purposes of such stimming etc.

As for the second point, though my posts may seem to imply otherwise (I hope they don't), I completely and utterly agree. Being 'NT' is far from superior, and having a disability/ASD does not make you inferior.

Sometimes I feel bad when I post, as a lot of the time it can appear that I'm taking a stab at autistics, when really, that is never my intention. Autistic individuals can and do contribute to the world just as much as an NT counterpart, and many have special abilities that have inspired overwhelming amounts of people due to awe or worldly progress (such as Grandin's inventions). I cannot stress enough how unfair, and how disgustingly inaccurate it is to label anyone with ASD as being 'inferior'. It is my opinion that ASD is still a disability. A disability, not an inability, and certainly not something that takes away worth/value of a being. There is nothing that inherently reduces the value of an autistic's life, if anything it takes strength to fight through disabling traits (e.g. sensory issues).

am resentful of this mindset that those of us with intelectual disability have the minds of children.
that guy doesnt have the mind of a one year old baby, he has a limited mental capacity which doesnt allow him to develop like a regular run of the mill person,we earned the right to be called adults like anyone else though, he specificaly sounds like he has PMLD; profound multiple learning disability.

I liked your choice of words.
I am going to use NS instead of NT from now on. I think it's simpler to write than allistic and allistic gets confused (for me) as autistic when I am reading, they are similar words and don't stand out.

I don't have any reason to refer to a computer as a bible, but I would do so if it served my purposes to use that as a metaphor, or to otherwise explain something or make a point. And I like being free to do that without having someone dictate to me how I'm supposed to use a word. Language is dynamic. It's not a set of terms that have absolute, unchanging definitions.

And as far as dictionary definitions go, it is completely valid to use the word "typical" to make a generalization. That's a valid informal use of the word.



8-10% is nowhere close to a majority.



It's also valid to use a broad or general definition.



The situations you are trying to compare here are not equivalent. You are calling for the word "neurotypical" to be eliminated completely for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with seeing it used as an insult or personal attack.

It becomes a problem with an individual if they begin to react negatively to the use of the word in any context, or if the individual seeks to eliminate use of the word.



I don't think a psychopath is NT. But if others disagree, and consider psychopaths to be NTs, I am not going to go around on a forum trying to get others to stop using the word that way.

The problem is individuals on the autism spectrum tend to be discriminated against. This is problem a that has always existed in any society or culture.

This discrimination that occurs to individuals on the autism spectrum is one of the reasons why individuals use the label "neurotypical". Discrimination has a lot of negative consequences such as some individuals having difficulties getting a job. Discrimination can cause individuals to feel hurt, depressed and often feelings or worthlessness. Others are just bitter and "hate" others that are unlike them and are angry they are treated less than equals.

There's lots of proof of this discrimination. Lots of 'aspies' complain about being left out, belittled, 'treated as children' etc. Individuals not on the autism spectrum have labeled as well calling some people ret*ds, a**holes and just lazy.

The problem is people that are not autistic often treat individuals that are on the autism spectrum as less than or not equals. People with autism are equal, but people with autism are also different and misunderstood. It's no different than men and women but there are a lot men that treat women as less than too.

Actually the majority of people would likely be neurotypical because the majority of people do not have neurological conditions, developmental disabilities, personality disorders, psychotic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders ect.

I say a neurotypical is simply someone with a typical functioning brain and lack of mental problems essentially, though a neurotypical could potentially become non-neurotypical by developing a mental illness as that will change brain functioning and therefore neurology.

I agree with what you say about not generalizing them all as the same, and thinking they all are obsessed with socializing and all that...I don't think people with autism are superior or more logical than neurotypicals but I still don't see the point in getting rid of the term neurotypical.

Also I have met plenty of people who have never expressed feeling significantly 'different' from others...so not sure everyone really experiences that, though everyone likes to be an individual and unique in some way but thats not the same as that lonely feeling of 'not getting it' and wondering why you are always rejected no matter how much you try to hide your being 'different'.

And finally it makes no sense for the term to refer to anyone without autism, since autism is not the only different 'neurology' .

I think it is difficult to say, because science is not advanced enough to sort it all out precisely. I think many of them can "play" NT well, they also seem to understand social cues and rules well, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually NT. There is definitely something that is not "typical" about them.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, honestly. Typing in a way that heavily idealizes a single idea (i.e. language is dynamic) does not make your point stronger, as I am not dictating you on how to use words, but you're suggesting that everyone out there who uses terms like 'autistic' and other (censored) terms as serious insults are not in the wrong - that it is only a problem for the individual who feels there is a problem. In science, the term 'neurotypical' can be used appropriately, though by the majority it really does have no inherent meaning. Loose terms should not be used, especially when not carefully considered when discussing topics such as the identity of others.

It is not valid to use the term 'neurotypical' to make the sweeping generalizations sometimes seen on this forum of others. It is especially less viable when individuals they had strife with may have had ADHD, being bipolar, had a personality disorder etc. I'm not going to bother elaborating on this any more.



8-10% is a LOT for ADHD alone. When you factor in the prevalence of autism and other conditions, and consider that people include things like homosexuality, personality disorders, giftedness and everything else I have mentioned to be 'non-NT' I don't see how it can't be possible from certain viewpoints.



I still feel as if you have not read my original post, or at least understood what I was trying to convey.



I don't understand this at all. They can easily be equivalent. By elimination, obviously there would need to be a better way to replace the term. They could even keep the term if it were not so distorted and without actual definition. 'Reacting negatively to the use of the word in any context'? - that sure sounds like the analogies I provide. Why does racism and all that exist anyway, right?



If you don't classify psychopaths as NT, then your definition for NT must be incredibly broad.

That's pretty obvious.



No, I'm not suggesting that. I am saying that if a person wanted to eliminate the use of the word "autistic" simply because it could be used as an insult, it would indicate having a serious personal issue that far outweighs the ignorance of someone using the word "autistic" as an insult.



I don't factor in homosexuality or giftedness because I don't consider these things to be "non-NT."

The prevalence of personality disorders may be as high as 15%. I am not sure if all personality disorders should be considered non-NT, but even if you do, that is still not approaching anything like a majority.

Bipolar prevalence has been rated as high as 4.4%. Schizophrenia, 1.1%. Autism, even at the current rate of 1 in 68 children, is still only 1.5%.

You could add up the rates of prevalence of the most common mental disorders as if they are all mutually exclusive, with the highest and most generous estimates of prevalence, and still arrive well below a majority percentage. But that is not taking into consideration that many of these disorders tend to be comorbid.

The prevalence of mental disorders in the US is around 26%. Still nowhere near a majority.

However the purpose of "typing" or referring to what is "typical" is not necessarily a matter of what is a majority. A type does not have to be a majority.

You have this backwards. If I did classify psychopaths as NT, my definition of NT would be more broad and inclusive than it is.

10/10 troll.



That is not anything like what I was saying/suggesting at all. It's as if you selectively ignored what I wrote. I'm assuming one would want to eliminate the use of 'autistic' as an insult however.



Yes, you don't. What happens when you broaden your view of 'atypical' wiring? What even is atypical wiring? How can you be sure that things like lazyness aren't caused by an undiagnosed/unknown disorder? What if things like executive dysfunction are actually just one example of the differences that can present within people? It is an entirely different perspective. I am very aware that you can also view 'atypical' brains as extreme minorities, if you choose. My view is partially explained in point 1 of my original post.



It was my attempt at irony/sarcasm, in that you had previously insta-dismissed the possibility that from some perspectives, 'atypical' may be somewhat close to a majority.