Other Neurodiverse-- an untapped resource

Post Reply New Topic

Keep expanding the umbrella of "neurodiversity" and you're going to find out exactly how tricky a concept it is.

Could you please elaborate, Poke?

A person with Antisocial Personality Disorder isn't neurotypical.

I'm in.

Neurodiversity, like any form of diversity needs to be inclusive to be legitimate. How can a movement that is about inclusion exclude some and not others.

Our family is extremely neurodiverse. As far as I know I do not have an ASD, but then again I'm a woman so more likely to go undiagnosed. My children are all in the spectrum. Pretty much everybody in my family has ADHD. My husband has dyslexia and ADHD. My aunt had Downs, my parents have ADHD, my grandmother was a child prodigy but not a savant...and so on.

I think there should be a place in the movement for anybody who supports the idea of neurodiversity, not necessarily in the forefront of the movement but a respected role. Even NTs who are willing to be supportive and learn more should be included. Having spokes people with all kinds of neurology seems to make the most sense.

Otherwise, what is the point? If it's not inclusive it's an exclusive club not a diversity movement.

I have thought about sociopaths. I really don't know what to do about them, but that's no reason to ignore what might be our only hope of ever being recognized as fully human.

In the end... sociopaths are not NT. They have a different profile of strengths and weaknesses from any other group out there. That's what matters. We're good at obsessing and bad at making friends. NTs are good at connecting and bad at distancing themselves from their emotions. And sociopaths are good at chewing you up and spitting you out, but bad at basic human decency. Sounds to me like they belong.

Including them is like making a deal with the devil. (According to my particular religious beliefs, it's not just like making a deal with a devil; it is literally making a deal with the devil.) We have to either come up with an equally legitimate but slightly more exclusive definition of Neurodiversity or include them.

That's a hard choice to make. But we have to make it, because I don't think the law is smart enough to tell the difference between excluding us because we stim too much or make the wrong facial expression and excluding them because they're demon-possessed.

As I understand it, neurodiversity protects our rights to be ourselves, but also gives us the responsibility to protect the rights of others. How can we maintain a society that treats us as equals, if we're not willing to treat others that way?

Most sociopaths are not criminals. Those who are, should be treated as such, and we should distance ourselves from this behavior. To the extent that they're interested in neurodiversity, and for everyone else, not just themselves, I think they should be able to join. Even though, personally, sociopaths make me uncomfortable.

I think distancing ourselves from criminal behavior makes sense and is fair. A person can't help how they are born, but they can make choices. I think we should be held accountable for our choices.

I've tried to embrace the idea of a more inclusive definition of neurodiversity in my new book (out this week) Neurodiversity: Discovering the Extraordinary Gifts of Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and Other Brain Differences. I've focused on seven disorders, in addition to the three above, I've looked at intellectual disabilities (including Down and Williams syndromes), mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. This question of whether to include sociopaths is a very interesting one. I've suggested in my book that whether or not you are considered gifted or disabled may have more to do with when and where you are born, than anything intrinsic to yourself as an individual. Sociopaths might have been more "normal" in a warring society. For example, among the Vikings, the "beserkers" were the chief warriors, known for their violent natures. In our society, sociopathy is associated with almost uniformly negative value (and in my opinion, for good reason!). I agree that celebrating neurodiversity does falter when it comes to sociopaths. But I think part of the problem is a tacit belief that neurodiversity is all good. And it isn't. Depression is no fun (I have had it most of my life). A parent with a severely autistic child will likely say they have little to celebrate. So, the most inclusive definition of neurodiversity must involve the good, the bad, and the ugly. This doesn't mean that the concept of neurodiversity should be thrown out. We don't negate biodiversity because animals kill each other. We don't censure cultural diversity because some societies have created holocausts. We know that diversity in plants and animals, and among cultures, is basically a good thing. And I think the same applies to neurodiversity. It's not all great, but by and large it's better to have diversity among brains, than just one kind of brain (as Temple Grandin has said, if everyone was the same, we might end up having a culture of accountants!).

Half.com does not have it but Amazon does. There are even used copies available, which makes no sense because it came out this week.

Ohhhh, Dr. Armstrong also does work in multiple intelligences, one of my favorite topics ever. It's one of the most useful paradigms I've ever found to try to understand how people learn.

I'll read that as soon as feasible.

To what extent can we distance ourselves from the behavior of particular members of the movement if that behavior is at least strongly influenced by their particular neurological wiring, and at least probably would not have occurred, or occurred in the same way, if the person had been otherwise the same save for being NT?

It's influenced by neurology, sure. But is it determined?

By which I mean...let's say you have AS and you get sensory overload. That experience comes from neurology. But there's a lot of ways you can respond to sensory overload, some of which (like having a meltdown) are destructive to those around you, some of which (like taking yourself off somewhere to calm down, or doing some sort of yoga self-calming type thing if you can't leave) do not. Do you do nothing and have a meltdown, do deep breathing, put on headphones, or leave the room? That's a choice.

I don't see why the same wouldn't be true of sociopaths, or any other group. Just because neurology gives us a different, and maybe more limited, set of choices doesn't mean there aren't multiple options for how to behave. Just a thought.

Then we essentially say that we recognize that certain things are difficult and we want to have people taught (humanely) to do better, without condoning choices that are made freely with intent to harm?

Sounds good to me.