Words for neurodiversity

Post Reply New Topic

Is there a word for "neurodiverse" that doesn't sound so politically correct? Excluding potentially offensive terms like "crazy".

(I use "crazy" sometimes to describe myself, but I wouldn't use it to describe someone else who may be sensitive about it.)

I would love another term for neurodiverse people aswell, one better then "nujobs".s

I usually just say "people on the spectrum".

But that's just autistics. Neurodiversity is so much more than just autism.

I use 'atypical people', myself.

What groups fall under the label "neurodiverse" (or "atypical", as Ettina suggested)? I know of aspies, auties, schizophrenics, schizoids, schizotypals, and people with mood disorders off the top of my head. I've heard of multiple personalities being considered normal human variation, but the way it is spun makes it sound like more of a spiritually based difference than a neurological difference.

I wouldn't mind seeing some discussion on this topic.

I'm not on the spectrum. I suppose that makes me neurotypical, the way the term is often used here. But I have TS and OCD. The last two days I've had full upper-body tics, and this morning I was ticcing so bad I ran into the door frame while walking out of my office. Is this what's considered neurotypical? If so, I'd like to see a good working definition of "typical" that explains it.

I like the idea behind the term neurodiverse because it's so broadly inclusive. But again, the way I see it used here makes me think I fall outside the definition about half the time because I'm not on the autism spectrum. So is it not as broadly inclusive as I thought?

As for a less politically correct term than neurodiverse, I really can't say. Most of the ones that come to mind are simply too cumbersome to use, and sound even more like a medical term or IT jargon. (I'd rather use "neurodiverse" in a sentence than "wired up different" or "falls outside the norms of human neurochemistry".) Most of the time it's easier to be more specific and just say, "I have TS and OCD."

I'd consider neurodiversity to cover any condition that a) primarily affects the mind, and b) appears to be mostly or completely biologically caused.

I wouldn't call MPD neurodiversity, for example, because the best evidence suggests that it's caused by severe childhood abuse. However, the underlying genetic tendemcy to dissociate easily that must be present for MPD to develop is part of neurodiversity. And saying MPD isn't part of neurodiversity doesn't indicate anything about how I think the condition should be dealt with, or whether there are good parts to being a multiple. It's part of diversity, but it's not 'neuro'.

Depending on symptoms of what I observe, I use the least disparaging words I can think of like eccentric, troubled, or different. Neurodiverse is jargon, mostly in use by the Autistic Community of which opinions vary among what source you use or who you ask.

Some of the opinion in the neurodiversity movement, believe there is no typical only atypical. I think that is the case, but one category doesn't fit the common descriptions we inherently use to describe behavior that we see unusual in people.

Neurodiverse, Neurotypical, Neuroatypical, are conversation pieces more than words that people commonly understand, unless someone elaborates on what definition(s) they believe should apply.

Of course, this website is part of the autistic community, so we are the ones that use the jargon. Neuroatypical, at least describes some kind of subset, where neurodiverse can easily mean every human being.

Mental illnesses don't have to be and are often not neurological in basis and therefore, schizophrenics, schizoids, schizotypals and those with mood disorders wouldn't be classed as being 'neurodiverse'. That would apply to 'Aspies and auties' only, no?

My brain is wired in an alternative way is my usual description.

Schizophrenia has many of the same genetic markers that Autism has, along with ADHD, and Bi-Polar Disorder. Environment is thought to play a big part along with genetics in all these conditions. Schizophrenia is listed on the Neurodiversity.com site along with these other disorders and many more.

There are hundreds of Neurological disorders, some of genetic origin and some developed during a lifetime.

I don't think there are many people that limit neurodiverse to Autism anymore, if you check out the neurodiverse.com site there is definitely a diverse list there, but not everyone agrees with that source of information on the subject.

Depending on which condition I'm talking about, I'll say I'm on the autistic spectrum, or the schizophrenic spectrum. The auty side of things has caused problems in the past, but not nearly so much as the schizoaffective, which I'm more reluctant to talk about. Once you drop "schizo" into the conversation things become so much harder. My son's school know I'm auty, but I'd never tell them I'm "schizo" because then they would never take seriously anything I ever said. It's hard enough as it is...

I think "differently wired" is a good way of putting it. Or "I process things differently from the norm."

It's true that Schizophrenia has some biological basis as well as psychological but as far as I'm aware, 'Schizoid' is a personality disorder and mood disorders are also psychological by definition. Whether those two things are secondary to a neurological issue is another matter and I don't think they'd come under being 'neurodiverse' as you can be 'neurotypical' and still have those illnesses.

Autism Spectrum orders are also psychological by definition and they are considered neurological disorders, one can see a neuropsychiatrist for a diagnosis, but a neurologist can't give a diagnosis. While it was thought for many years that genetics was the major origin of Autism, recent studies shows environment may play a bigger role than genetics.

There is about as much reason to believe that Bi-Polar, ADHD, and Schizophrenia is associated with genetics at this point as there is Autism. There is also research that suggests that genetics may play a role in personality disorders as well. However, there are different opinions as to how much biology or environment plays a role in the development of these psychological/neurological disorders.

There was a time within the autistic community that neurotypical defined everyone other than someone on spectrum. The concept of neurotypical is getting smaller and smaller depending on the source or individual that one talks to.

From Wiki:


[quote]

If there are biological/neurological conditions that must exist before a person develops the condition of Autism and some of those individuals develop Autism and some don't depending on environmental conditions, and the same applies to all these other conditions, including personality disorders, what is it that sets Autism apart from these disorders?

There are different levels of impairment in the ability to function in society that are a part of all these disorders. In the past one could be fairly confident in stating that Autism is clearly of neurological origin and personality disorders were clearly of environmental origin, but scientific research provides information that questions both of these assumptions, now.

One of the major tenants of the neurodiversity movement is that the conditions that are included in it are just genetic differences; a part of human variation, that don't need treatment. Some of the individuals that have the conditions may not need treatment and some do.

That to me seems to be the part that needs to change within the neurodiversity movement, especially as the number of conditions within the movement continue to expand; understanding that the impairments associated with these disorders are determined in severity by biology and the environment, and treatment is an extremely important part of managing the conditions for some people, as they can become disabling in some cases.

And how do you think this works, exactly? Google "child abuse brain" (without the quotes). A child with severely malformed white matter isn't "neurodiverse"? They don't suffer from an affliction that is "biological" in nature?





It's amazing that, in the year 2011, on a website dedicated to weird brains, that such misguided, outmoded, and just plain inaccurate information is still disseminated so eagerly.

It's almost as if the last 70 years of scientific study simply hadn't happened.

And how exactly is autism neurological?