NTs or NAs?

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking about this as I was talking to a person who was bipolar, but not AS. As many of you probably know, many experts consider bipolar disorder to have its own spectrum - one interpretation is that the bipolar spectrum spans from unipolar depression to bipolar-like unipolar depression (this is simply unipolar depression that is treatable with mood stabilizers; and unipolar depression that, when treated with antidepressants, can cause mania or hypomania) to bipolar II to bipolar I.

There are other disorders as well (such as schizophrenia or psychopathy) which, while not directly or closely related to AS or autism, are definitely not <i>neurotypical</i>. So the term NT can be very misleading as someone who is not autistic but on another spectrum should not be called neurotypical. NA (or non-autistic) seems like a better term, but it looks a lot like N/A which may imply that non-autistics don't matter (are not applicable). Not really sure which term is better/more accurate ... perhaps we should just stick to NTs but say that those who are on other spectrums are not NTs (in which case we'd need an 'Have other spectrum disorder' in the profile options), or invent a new term altogether. Hmm....

I don't know

NA could be just as confusing because, while it could mean non-autistic. Some people might think it means neuro-atypical.

In fact, thats exactly what I assumed it would have meant before I read this thread

I use NT, but I think that NA (non-autistic) is a better term. NT can cause some confusion. What is actually considered neurotypical? Is a person with ADD or ADHD technically NT? Is a person with OCD technically NT? What about people who have speech problems that aren't caused by physical problems? What about people with any other neurological problems who definitely aren't on the autistic spectrum? There are neurological disorders that are completely different from autism/AS, and people with those disorders don't even have that same problems that we do. The term NA is more accurate and concrete, but I still probably won't stop saying NT.

neuropsychological diasbilites (or whatever one wishes to call them) aren't treatable with medication. ADHD and bipolar are, so they're not neuropsychological, they're chemical, neurochemical, if you will. perhaps that's another little piece of the jigsaw - similar to the difference between mental illness (treatable with medication, e.g. schizophrenia, depression, et al) and mental disability (Down's Syndrome, etc.).

not sure that this helps this discussion, particularly, but it felt relevant.

Considering there is no real 'neurotypical' out there as many people have quirks/traits that could be isolated from several different neurological conditions, NT is pretty much an irrelevant term. Non-autistic is much better as it encompasses everyone that is not autistic but not always neurotypical either.

Non-autistic would be more accurate, except of course for the inconvenience of the NA abbreviation being confused with neuro-atypical or not applicable. But then, "NT" can be confusing for people into the Myers-Briggs personality system, where it stands for Intuitive Thinker. Both meanings of "NT" apply to me (so I can call myself a "double NT" which is kinda fun) but there's an Aspie on a personality board I post on who specifies in her signature that she is NT in the MBTI but not neurotypical. There probably aren't enough people who are interested in both autism/neuropsychology and the Myers-Briggs for the NT confusion to be a general problem, though. And if NA were used in the beginning, with nobody having come up with and started using NT first, then half of the NA confusion wouldn't be there.

If you don't want to use either NT or NA, then you can use "xenistic" or the "xenistic spectrum," with the ISNT criteria for Neurotypicality Disorder doing a pretty good job of summing up its chief features: hyposensitivity to details and sensory stuff, and often a hypersensitivity and/or obsession with social stuff, but like with autism, the social extremes need not be there in every case. Just as you can have fairly outgoing people with autistic neural features, you can have quiet or solitary people with xenistic neural features. Hell, my Aspie friend is more outgoing than I am...in person anyway. (I probably more than make up for it online.)

While the implication of obsession with others/strangers may not apply to every "xenist," not every "autist" can be said to be focused on or limited to the self either...even the most disconnected ones could be focused on their favorite routine or object, which technically isn't the self. I don't think ultimate precision is a realistic goal, tempting as it may be, especially when you're dealing with large groups of people in which some scatter is inevitable.

And then there's the whole thing about autism not being a "spectrum," but more of a "space," with variation occurring in many dimensions. Same with neurotypicality/xenism. So "autistic space" and "xenistic space" might be the better than "spectrum."

For a short form, you can call us Xenies.

I wouldn't say this term is better than NA, though.

Where did the term Xenies come from? Never heard of the Xenist spectrum before....

I made up the term "xenism," trying to imagine what non-autism could be called if it weren't "typical" but were a rare disorder instead. It's supposed to be a mirror-opposite to autism - obsession with others/strangers as opposed to obsession with self. Crude, yes, but not much cruder than the term autism to describe people with certain types of neurological quirks that tend to create similar manifest symptoms.

NA sounds like Non-Applicable.

I apologise in advance,if i've read this wrongly,but ADHD isn't mental/pysch. illness even though it is treatable albeit not always successful.


Re.NT,NA exetera.
I prefer to use NT/neuro typical purely based on the fact i'm used to it,i've never seen anyone get confused over it before even though it has the potential to.
NT has the tendency to be used as an insult to non autistics as well,perhaps NA is more suitable.


Re.NA=Non applicable.
Isn't there usually a forward slash between the letters?

*has deja vu from a Sophist thread long ago*

I prefer NA since it's more accurate and doesn't give the misimpression that NTs are actually neurologically typical, since NT would included every other disorder but the ASDs.

Non-Austistic is my preference, though I have sorta gotten outta the habit because I don't want to keep having to write to newer people "NA (which is my way of saying NT)..."

But thanks! I'll start using it again more.

And as for mental vs. disability and psychiatric vs. neurological, they're all talking about the same things. It's just categories which are quite old and the old fogeys are still too attached to. Plus, with ADHD it isn't necessarily solely chemical; there can be anatomical brain differences-- one of which I believe can include a smaller cortex, though I'm not really sure as to the percentage of Attention Deficits this includes.

Last edited by Sophist on 29 Dec 2005, 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stick with NT. It's what the aspie community has been using for years. So why fix what ain't broke?

I like NT, and it's pretty well established, but Xenism is really clever!

I don't really care that much.

But I don't like NA. Because it has too many potential meanings already, and I've already seen it used for both non-autistic and neuroatypical.

For the most part I don't like abbreviations at all. It seems every single community has their own little abbreviations. I find it rather annoying and dorky because it's like people are trying to construct some artificial sense of belonging or something (eg. a "secret language"; pfffft). Although sometimes I will use them when trying to fit in, I generally prefer to just write things out unless it's in very widespread use like "LOL" or similar.

NA is Not Applicable
NT is Windows NT

Since NA has other meanings (neuro atypical, not applicable, etc.), and NT isn't very accurate because there are other neurological disorders not on the autistic spectrum, maybe we should find another term to use.

I was thinking something like 'NASD' which could mean non-Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I also thought w/oASD (without Autistic Spectrum Disorder) and w/oASDers ( people without Autistic Spectrum Disorder) are good.