Who hijacked the neurodiversity definition and why?

Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,946
Location: Sweden

22 Feb 2021, 4:45 pm

traven wrote:
what's your definition?


I defined it like this: "Neurodiversity was defined as the primary factor output by factor analysis of a data set of human behaviors which contains evenly distributed traits of all sorts that cover all of human diversity. Neurotypical function was defined as the second factor."

Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 4013497722

IOW, ND and NT was defined based on results from factor analysis, an objective, scientific method. Note that being ND is not at the extreme end of being NT (there always were two factors), and so it is inccorect to compare to NT as being NT is a spectrum of traits just like being ND is a spectrum of traits.



DIVAIR
Raven
Raven

Joined: 9 Feb 2021
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 120

22 Feb 2021, 5:14 pm

So, ummm, wait... Are you saying that "neurodiversity" and "neurodivergent" are two different things? :?

Also, it sounds like y'all'r saying this, whatever his names is, is a piker: is that correct? :roll: Could it be that he's merely trying to make money, preying on people's ignorance, like Dr. Phil.

Anyway, that's what I'm reading from these posts: please correct/educate me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

Sincerely,

Confused in California :wink:



Edna3362
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,193
Location: ᜆᜄᜎᜓᜄ᜔

22 Feb 2021, 7:31 pm

Who hijacked it?
I'd guess it'll probably be supremists, seperatists, and loud accusers.


Also context -- I don't came from a country of similar attitudes and interpretations.

I also don't came from a place where neurodiversity exists like the west do nor it's reason it exists.
Along with it's conveniences and expectations and histories.



I don't define neurodiversity for what it is -- other than it is a form of diversity.

But I can definitely define what neurodiversity is not -- that includes the accusation of denying the disability.

And neurodiversity isn't simply about being in some room, singing kumbaya. :lol:
Whatever it is, it does not tolerate dehumanization, exploiting any labels through any involved parties, and abuse -- many of which are normalized and an attempt to normalize another.


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


CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,554
Location: Canada in person, Germany in spirit

22 Feb 2021, 11:36 pm

I don't think the definition of Nerodiversity has been hacked at all.


_________________
Peabody

Om Nom 2024

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26&start=645


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,348
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

23 Feb 2021, 5:44 am

rdos wrote:
I'm getting increasingly irritated by people that misunderstand what neurodiversity was originally meant to be, and that have hijacked the terms so that neurodiversity today seems to be anything that differs from the NT norm, rather than the traits related to the broader autistic phenotype and related "disorders" like ADHD and Dyslexia.

When I read the Wikipedia article on neurodiversity it doesn't even mention neurodivergent and it seems to depict the true history of the term rather than the hijacked version.

I've also seen quite a few "scientific" articles on neurodiversity that are based on the hijacked version. There certainly are some that deal with it usingh the original definition too, but those seem to be older.

The main issue is that the new neurodivergent terminology will put autistic traits in the sociological realm again, something that will affect autistic people in a negative way. For sure, the medical view is not any better. The original intent of neurodiversity (and the term Aspie too) was to describe autistic traits as human diversity, and not a "culture" or "disorder".

If people here have more information about how this switch of neurodiversity happened, who is behind it and why, I'd be interested. I'm planning to write an article about it and link it to Aspie Quiz just to make sure that people understand that Aspie Quiz neurodiversity basis is not sociological, nor medical, rather was done using the original intent of the term. Perhaps this would be possible to publish too.


The definition was never hijacked. The precursor to the neurodiversity movement was the autistic rights movement that was started by Jim Sinclair, Donna Williams and others but the word neurodiversity was first coined in the '90's by Judy Singer and Harvey Blume (though I don't like Singer that much) to broaden the concept to include other neurological disorders, not just the autism spectrum.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,673

23 Feb 2021, 6:23 am

Language isn't hijacked.

It shifts in definition.

Because of users. Native speakers of English when it comes to English.

It isn't a science. It's not really an art until it's wielded by a poet or particularly adept literary fiction writer. It's just a social phenomenon. We use it to get by and communicate. Some autistic people, like myself, are hyperlexic so saying 'you can't use words if you're autistic' is quite offensive to us, actually.

Normal HFA people don't have this sickness & hatred & misanthropy towards the social. Sure, we're not extroverts, but not everyone has to be.

Misanthropy against others, desire to manipulate, strong belief in stuff that autistic people tend to find hard (body language and facial expression) & magical thinking/lack of rational thought suggests something else going on.
*
When it comes to aspie rights for HFA people such as myself, I don't see a sickness. When it comes to mental illness, I see something which needs to be cured. Especially when it involves harm to the self or others.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,946
Location: Sweden

24 Feb 2021, 2:52 am

I think I take this to mean that Dr Walker's page is just an opinion piece where he tries to convince people how to think about neurodiversity, and what terms to use. He uses his proposed authority as a professor to try to make it sound scientific. The problem just is that he has rather poor knowledge of the neurodiversity movement and he doesn't know a lot about non-diagnosed autism and the broader autism phenotype. He has not published any significant scientific work in the field, rather is campaigning online and in books where he proposedly gets invited based on his own campaigning.

Actually, based on mainstream outlets like Wikipedia and dictionaries, there is no support for the idea that we should use the term neurodivergent, that individuals cannot be neurodiverse or that PTSD or epilepsy is part of neurodiversity. Actually, I don't think there is any accepted practice in the neurodiversity community on what neurodiversity is and what terms to use. Something I will remember the next time somebody complains about how I use the terms.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,342
Location: New York City (Queens)

24 Feb 2021, 9:10 am

rdos wrote:
I'm getting increasingly irritated by people that misunderstand what neurodiversity was originally meant to be, and that have hijacked the terms so that neurodiversity today seems to be anything that differs from the NT norm, rather than the traits related to the broader autistic phenotype and related "disorders" like ADHD and Dyslexia.

Where is your evidence that your usage is the original one? Did Judy Singer, for example, ever speak of an individual person as being "neurodiverse" (rather than "neurologically different" or "neurodivergent") or use the term "neurodiverse" to refer to some specific set of traits, rather than just the innate variety of human nervous systems?

Your usage (e.g. a "neurodiverse" individual, or "neurodiverse" as referring to a single specific set of traits) is the one that does not make sense, given the standard dictionary definitions of "diverse" and "diversity." It does not make sense to speak of an individual person as being "neurodiverse" (rather than "neurologically different" or "neurodivergent"). "Diversity" intrinsically involves variation among two or more different people or things, so an individual cannot be "diverse," nor can a single specific "factor" of any kind.

rdos wrote:
When I read the Wikipedia article on neurodiversity it doesn't even mention neurodivergent and it seems to depict the true history of the term rather than the hijacked version.

The Wikipedia article starts off with "The term neurodiversity refers to variation in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions." This definition is actually more consistent with what you are calling the "hijacked version" than with your own use of the term "neurodiverse" to refer to a single specific set of traits.

rdos wrote:
I've also seen quite a few "scientific" articles on neurodiversity that are based on the hijacked version. There certainly are some that deal with it using the original definition too, but those seem to be older.

The main issue is that the new neurodivergent terminology will put autistic traits in the sociological realm again,

"Neurodiversity" was always a sociological term. Judy Singer is/was a sociologist. What exactly do you mean by "put autistic traits in the sociological realm"?

rdos wrote:
something that will affect autistic people in a negative way.

How?


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


Last edited by Mona Pereth on 24 Feb 2021, 10:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,342
Location: New York City (Queens)

24 Feb 2021, 9:42 am

rdos wrote:
traven wrote:
what's your definition?


I defined it like this: "Neurodiversity was defined as the primary factor output by factor analysis of a data set of human behaviors which contains evenly distributed traits of all sorts that cover all of human diversity. Neurotypical function was defined as the second factor."

Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 4013497722

This is a highly unusual definition of "neurodiversity." I have never seen anyone else use the term that way.

rdos wrote:
IOW, ND and NT was defined based on results from factor analysis, an objective, scientific method.

While your statistical analysis may be "an objective, scientific method," your choice of terminology is not. Your choice of terminology was just that, a choice. You could just as well have used a totally made-up word like "RDOS-ianism" -- it would not affect the validity of your statistical results one way or the other.

Experimental methodology and semantic coherence are separate issues.

The words "neurodiverse" and "neurodiversity" were invented as shorthands for "neurologically diverse" and "neurological diversity," respectively. Hence any semantically coherent definition of "neurodiverse" or "neurodiversity" must be consistent with the meanings of "diverse" and "diversity," respectively.

To avoid further confusion in the future, I would suggest that you use a different term to refer to the specific set of non-NT traits you've identified via your factor analysis. Maybe "broad autism phenotype" (BAP)? Or maybe just "autism phenotype"? Or perhaps some other, totally new term?


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


Last edited by Mona Pereth on 24 Feb 2021, 11:56 am, edited 7 times in total.

Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,342
Location: New York City (Queens)

24 Feb 2021, 10:16 am

rdos wrote:
I think I take this to mean that Dr Walker's page is just an opinion piece where he tries to convince people how to think about neurodiversity, and what terms to use.

Mostly he is talking about semantics and how to be logically consistent in one's use of words.

rdos wrote:
He uses his proposed authority as a professor to try to make it sound scientific.

His main concern seems to be logical coherence in one's choice of words. Logical coherence does not depend on "science" in the sense of experimental methodology and results. However, logical coherence, including semantic coherence, is highly desirable in academic papers. Academic jargon generally aims to be logically coherent.

However scientific your methodology may otherwise be, your use of the word "neurodiverse" is not logically coherent.

rdos wrote:
The problem just is that he has rather poor knowledge of the neurodiversity movement

Really? Could you give an example of his "poor knowledge of the neurodiversity movement"?

rdos wrote:
and he doesn't know a lot about non-diagnosed autism and the broader autism phenotype.

Indeed I don't find anything on his website about the broader autism phenotype. But is anything he says contradicted by the existence of the broader autism phenotype?

rdos wrote:
Actually, I don't think there is any accepted practice in the neurodiversity community on what neurodiversity is and what terms to use. Something I will remember the next time somebody complains about how I use the terms.

Agreed that there isn't currently a definitive standard. But I predict that Nick Walker's word usage will, almost certainly, eventually, prevail over yours, at least in the academic world, simply because his usage is semantically coherent whereas yours is not, and most academics like their jargon to be semantically coherent. I would expect the vast majority of academics (including and especially editors of academic journals) who happen to read Nick Walker's article to say "Aha! This makes total sense!" and then adjust their terminology accordingly, if they previously were using the word "neurodiverse" in ways that he objected to.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,604
Location: Long Island, New York

24 Feb 2021, 2:19 pm

Getting back to the question posed by the title of this thread Neurodiversity and to a somewhat lesser extent Autism itself are relatively new concepts. They are still in the formation stage. Concepts in these stages usually change rapidly as things are discovered.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

It is Autism Acceptance Month.


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 24 Feb 2021, 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,946
Location: Sweden

24 Feb 2021, 4:14 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Where is your evidence that your usage is the original one? Did Judy Singer, for example, ever speak of an individual person as being "neurodiverse" (rather than "neurologically different" or "neurodivergent") or use the term "neurodiverse" to refer to some specific set of traits, rather than just the innate variety of human nervous systems?

Your usage (e.g. a "neurodiverse" individual, or "neurodiverse" as referring to a single specific set of traits) is the one that does not make sense, given the standard dictionary definitions of "diverse" and "diversity." It does not make sense to speak of an individual person as being "neurodiverse" (rather than "neurologically different" or "neurodivergent"). "Diversity" intrinsically involves variation among two or more different people or things, so an individual cannot be "diverse," nor can a single specific "factor" of any kind.


I think my definition actually covers what people meant by neurodiverse before things like PTSD were added. It certainly covers the broader autism phenotype, but it doesn't stop there. Actually, most traits that builds up autism, AD/HD, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Tourette, Bipolar, Schizophrenia, Social phobia and OCD link to the neurodiverse or neurotypical factor. Therefore, it clearly defines what most people believe neurodiversity is. That's why my test has become popular and has been taken by several million people, and still is taken by several hundreds every day.

However, it doesn't include some strangeties, like lacking imagination that has items in the AQ test, but that has no relevance for neurodiversity (and thus not for autism either). Which is something that many autistics would agree with too.

Mona Pereth wrote:
The Wikipedia article starts off with "The term neurodiversity refers to variation in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions." This definition is actually more consistent with what you are calling the "hijacked version" than with your own use of the term "neurodiverse" to refer to a single specific set of traits.


It works with both. The problem is not in that area. The problem is with neurodivergent and that people cannot be part of a neurodiverse phenotype. Wikipedia says nothing about that.

Mona Pereth wrote:
"Neurodiversity" was always a sociological term. Judy Singer is/was a sociologist. What exactly do you mean by "put autistic traits in the sociological realm"?

rdos wrote:
something that will affect autistic people in a negative way.

How?


I'm old enough to know how it was before people could get diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Autistic traits in children were thought to be caused by bad parenting, and so social authorities could go in an kidnap their children. I've actually been part of that process myself. I had to do a private ASD evaluation of my daugther since I couldn't get one done through the official channels. So, if you ask me which is worse, the medicial or sociological view of autism, there is no doubt it is the sociological. With the medical view you can at least get a diagnosis and that way get societal acceptance for your differences, while with the sociological, you are completely in the hands of the well-being (or not) of authorities.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,946
Location: Sweden

24 Feb 2021, 4:36 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
The words "neurodiverse" and "neurodiversity" were invented as shorthands for "neurologically diverse" and "neurological diversity," respectively. Hence any semantically coherent definition of "neurodiverse" or "neurodiversity" must be consistent with the meanings of "diverse" and "diversity," respectively.


Actually, I don't think it was that way. The terms were first mostly associated with the autism spectrum, and later broadened to include co morbid conditions. Thus, the de facto meaning was not just any difference. This is an after construction, and not the original intent.

Also, I don't think you should analyse those words based on their potential parts. Rather, neurodiverse and neurodiversity are complete words that shouldn't to be analysed in this way. Many combined words actually make little sense when broken down like this, and so the case for neurodiversity is not unique.

Mona Pereth wrote:
To avoid further confusion in the future, I would suggest that you use a different term to refer to the specific set of non-NT traits you've identified via your factor analysis. Maybe "broad autism phenotype" (BAP)? Or maybe just "autism phenotype"? Or perhaps some other, totally new term?


That wouldn't make any sense. My definition agrees with what most people believe is reasonable to include in neurodiversity. It includes the conditions that are typically thought to be part of the neurodiversity spectrum.

Actually, I initially used the term Aspie, but after long (and tiresome) discussions about what Aspie really was, with some people claiming it was just another name for Asperger's syndrome, which is a medical label, I decided to switch to neurodiverse as I thought that term could not be misused in such a way.

About the only other available alternative would be Neanderthal, but I think using that term would be more problematic than to continue to fight over the meaning of neurodiverse.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,653
Location: temperate zone

24 Feb 2021, 4:44 pm

Hasnt shifted. hasnt been hijacked. The term means the same darn thing it always meant.

Autistics, aspies, adhd folks, dyslexics, and the like are all "neurodivergent people". Their/our conditions are all examples of "neurodiversity".

Not much to it :lol: .



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,342
Location: New York City (Queens)

24 Feb 2021, 4:55 pm

rdos wrote:
I think my definition actually covers what people meant by neurodiverse before things like PTSD were added. It certainly covers the broader autism phenotype, but it doesn't stop there. Actually, most traits that builds up autism, AD/HD, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, Tourette, Bipolar, Schizophrenia, Social phobia and OCD link to the neurodiverse or neurotypical factor. Therefore, it clearly defines what most people believe neurodiversity is. That's why my test has become popular and has been taken by several million people, and still is taken by several hundreds every day.

Well, no, your "Aspie quiz" is popular because people want to get a preliminary indication of whether they are "Aspies." The precise meaning of "neurodiverse" has very little if any bearing on the reasons why your quiz is popular, IMO.

rdos wrote:
However, it doesn't include some strangeties, like lacking imagination that has items in the AQ test, but that has no relevance for neurodiversity (and thus not for autism either). Which is something that many autistics would agree with too.

Mona Pereth wrote:
The Wikipedia article starts off with "The term neurodiversity refers to variation in the human brain regarding sociability, learning, attention, mood and other mental functions." This definition is actually more consistent with what you are calling the "hijacked version" than with your own use of the term "neurodiverse" to refer to a single specific set of traits.


It works with both.

Only because your use of the term "neurodiversity" is ambiguous. You use "neurodiversity" to refer both to general human neurological diversity and to one specific constellation of traits. That's a problem right there. Academic terminology isn't supposed to be ambiguous.

rdos wrote:
The problem is not in that area. The problem is with neurodivergent

What, exactly, is your problem with that term?

rdos wrote:
and that people cannot be part of a neurodiverse phenotype. Wikipedia says nothing about that.

The very idea of a single specific phenotype being equated with "neurodiversity" in general is a semantic/logical contradiction.

rdos wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
"Neurodiversity" was always a sociological term. Judy Singer is/was a sociologist. What exactly do you mean by "put autistic traits in the sociological realm"?

rdos wrote:
something that will affect autistic people in a negative way.

How?


I'm old enough to know how it was before people could get diagnosed on the autism spectrum. Autistic traits in children were thought to be caused by bad parenting, and so social authorities could go in an kidnap their children. I've actually been part of that process myself. I had to do a private ASD evaluation of my daugther since I couldn't get one done through the official channels. So, if you ask me which is worse, the medicial or sociological view of autism, there is no doubt it is the sociological.

You completely misunderstand what it means to use the term "neurodiversity" or "neurodivegent" in a sociological context. The point is certainly NOT to deny that autism is biological in origin. The point of the terms "neurodiversity" or "neurodivergent," in a sociological context, is to analyze how neurodivergent people are treated by society as a whole. Such analysis has nothing to do with any claim that autism is caused by bad parenting.

rdos wrote:
With the medical view you can at least get a diagnosis and that way get societal acceptance for your differences, while with the sociological, you are completely in the hands of the well-being (or not) of authorities.

Where on Earth do you get the idea that "the sociological" view of autism entails a return to the "refrigerator mother" hypothesis???


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- My life as one of the many belatedly-diagnosed autistic older people.
- Queens groups on Meetup.com.


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,946
Location: Sweden

24 Feb 2021, 4:59 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
Agreed that there isn't currently a definitive standard. But I predict that Nick Walker's word usage will, almost certainly, eventually, prevail over yours, at least in the academic world, simply because his usage is semantically coherent whereas yours is not, and most academics like their jargon to be semantically coherent. I would expect the vast majority of academics (including and especially editors of academic journals) who happen to read Nick Walker's article to say "Aha! This makes total sense!" and then adjust their terminology accordingly, if they previously were using the word "neurodiverse" in ways that he objected to.


It's possible, but I don't see how accepting this would lead anywhere.

The most important thing with the broader autism phenotype and neurodiversity (whichever you prefer) is that all these traits are linked, which has profound implications for most psychological research, not just autism research. It means that if you are checking two traits that have a link to neurodiversity, they will be expected to be correlated even if they have absolutely no causative link. I suspect that much of the replication crisis in psychology relates to this. Somebody does research if trait x is related to trait y, and uses some biased population. Then somebody else does the same thing with another population with another bias, and gets another result. Actually, it's close to impossible to recruit a population that has no neurodiversity bias. You can easily link about any neurodiverse trait to any other neurodiverse trait if you use a large enough population. Many things that there are a lot of research on, like depression or anxiety have huge correlations to neurodiversity, and so these can be linked to about any neurodiverse trait without the trait being a cause of depression or anxiety. There are a long row of studies like this that have published false results.

Not only that, but some traits have different links if you use a neurodiverse or neurotypical population. Take the trait "asexual" for instance. It was defined to be "lack of sexual attraction", and this is correct if you use a mostly neurotypical population. However, if you use a neurodiverse, completely new associations with disliking dating and sexual intercourse appears. If you use a mixed population, you will get some mixed results that doesn't say much if anything. It actually appears that asexual is a coping mechanism in the neurodiverse population.

In fact, we cannot hope to understand why many autistics identify as asexual if we view asexual as an independent concept like we are supposed to with neurodivergent terminology. It will simply lead nowhere.