Who would you say is or isn't NT

Post Reply New Topic

I wasn't sure who all would be technically considered NT, so I googled it, read a few definitions, and yeah the main point they all seem to share is not on the autism spectrum. But not NT, could also include things like; having epilepsy, a brain tumor, intellectual/developmental differences, and more things that seemed vague to me like, showing non typical behavior and development.

So what I'm getting is that the definition is not set in stone since it's not really a clinical definition and because of that different people might have different ideas about who is neurotypical and who is not.

I always figured, obviously, autistic people were not NTs, but I also tend to think that people who have other diagnoses were not NT either. I don't think I'd call someone with bipolar or OCD a neurotypical. I'm also not sure I'd say that a person with a really high IQ is NT. I'm sure there are more people I wouldn't say are NT, but I'm only on my second cup of coffee and my brain is still all sluggish

So what about you, who would you say is or isn't a neurotypical? To you, is NT only used to say 'not autistic' or does it include more people than that, and if so, who does it include?

NT means NeuroTypical.
It's not equals to mentally healthy or strong or not dysfunctional.

NOT Autistics are called Allistics.
Technically all NTs are Allistics, yet not all Allistics are NTs.


That's my basic definition at least...

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

There is only one NT in the world, that person in the middle of all mental diversity . And if the autistic epidemic and/or "next stage of human evolution" ideas are correct, that person keeps getting more autistic all the time .

But seriously, we could look at a test like the AQ and set a limit for NT. I had someone take the AQ whom claimed he might be ASD and I suspected was introverted. He scored a 24, so he's certainly a distance from that person in the middle. They say an AQ control group averaged 16.4. I would think NT would be diagnosed as some group around that number, like 10-20 maybe. Of course I am abusing the AQ by using it as a NT test, when it is really just measuring allistic/autistic traits. However, a quick google search didn't show a test for NTness .

I'd like to explore how/if the AQ could be used to ID NTs. If it does a poor job, maybe someone should come up with a NT-Q.

NTs are statistically determined behavior.

Here's the distribution:

NT is based on a belief that autistic brains are somehow different than so-called "typical" brains. While studies have found a slight difference between the average size of a large group of autistic versus non-autistic brains, studies have found that it's less than the normal variation between individuals. The brain differences found are similar to depression and anxiety so to be consistent you'd have to say everyone who is depressed or suffers from anxiety is neurodiverse except chronic feelings aren't genetic. The reality is there is no such thing as a typical brain. I see it as a made up term by people who refuse to accept that they have any problems.

I think Edna must be correct.
Professionals who studied the field would be ideal to answer this.

Thanks to all of you for your responses. and thank you Edna for bringing the word allistic to my attention. I had never heard that before I have learned something new. Awesome.

It's a good question. I wonder what a person who scores 0 on these ASD-tests really look like. How could you live with yourself like that? Is it possible to be severely NT? Do they need to mask their need of having social time?

I avoid using this term. Not only is the definition ambiguous, I've found that the term doesn't suit my purposes. I don't really know who is or isn't neurotypical, and I've started to suspect that several of the kinds of "neuroatypicality" (such as ADHD) don't produce any pervasive difficulties in life, so they are not something I want to include when I'm talking about what it's like to be neuroatypical (or neurodivergent); they may seem like "neurotypicals" to me even though they technically are not. Even people who have the same diagnoses as me don't necessarily have the same traits.

I'd been under the impression that "neurotypical" was a term to describe people who do not have a neurological condition that makes them significantly different from most other people. But there are neurological conditions that seem to affect only movement...do they make a person's mind, personality, sensory processing significantly different from the norm? I doubt it. I have nothing important in common with such people, so us being grouped together in contrast to the "neurotypicals" makes no sense. The concept of "neuro-" can refer to just the brain or it can refer to the whole nervous system. In the latter case it implicates both medical and psychological differences, and that creates a huge range of different and dissimilar kinds of conditions and people who have them.

I think neurotypical generally means people who are born with no neurological disorder what can affect the social or intellectual development in a way that qualifies a diagnosis, even if it's not recognised or not diagnosed, the disorder is still there and that child may not have the neurotypical brain wiring that their peers have.

I don't know if mental health disorders like depression or OCD classify as not NT. Mostly these aren't disorders people are born with, and because anxiety and depression and even OCD are rather common among humans and a lot of people have these for all different reasons, they're probably too common to classify as non-NT.

Disorders that make you a minority, like autism or downs syndrome, supposedly make you non-NT.

Some guys had weird ideas of what makes an NT.
By giving it too much credit, by romantizing it, by putting it in a pedestal as this so-called 'non-sufferer'.

It seems, people forgot what typical means. And people also forgot what diversity meant either.


Perhaps it's just me.
I've seen the best and worst of NTs than just seeing some weird one-sided stuff.
And I've seen how NTs have the potentials (both attained and wasted) and limits (natural and unnatural) of their own as a human.


Here's a teaser for those who bothered:

If NT means also not having any sort of psychiatric conditions or disorder...

Does that mean NTs don't get stressed? Don't become vulnerable? Don't get traumatized? Don't become dysfunctional, don't get hormonal issues, don't get frustrated, don't get affected by any form of deprivation/excess, and don't develop personality or identity issues???

If that's the definition of 'NT', then at least 80% of all women are not NTs. 99% of crime victims and prepetrators are not NTs.
All those who go to therapy are not NTs. Every hotheads and cry babies are not NTs.

It would that even mean that neurotypicality does not exist in a sense normal never truly exists. 'Normal' is a charade as much as the most idea of what NT is.

But sure, why not there was a time where menstruations are considered a form of disability...

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.