The Neurotypical Myth

Post Reply New Topic

Since getting my HFA diagnosis last year, I have been immersing myself in the autism communities I find online. It has been an enjoyable experience so far.
It has been something of a homecoming for me, a chance to learn from others, as well as an opportunity to share my own experiences. There is so much to learn.

Within many discussions, I keep encountering the concept of neurotypicality: the idea that somewhere out there lives a vast, faceless human population who happen to be equipped with a standard neurology. This population of 'Neurotypicals' (NTs) apparently make up the majority of the human race. But I beg to differ, because honestly, I can't say I know anyone who conforms to this pattern. I am beginning to question how well this concept serves us, because...

- We autistics are, without doubt, a disadvantaged neurological minority, I wonder how empowering it is for us to identify with the victim position of a binary 'Us versus Them' mentality.
- I grew up in an industrialised western nation. The dominant culture carries with it many assumptions about how a person should live out their lives: birth, school, work, marry, reproduce, consume, retire, die. I followed this script from childhood to the moment I was retrenched from my first full-time job in banking. This was probably the end of my own 'normal' period - I changed my expectations and sought out a more "bohemian" lifestyle immediately after my retrenchment. When I reflect back on my 'normal years', I am struck by the parade of freaks who existed within the framework of "normality." Alcoholics, tee-totallers, hobbyists, deviants, white collar criminals, depressives, dyslexics, musicians, spontaneous singers, the excessively fastidious, hypochondriacs, neurotics, bullies, altruists, radical socialists, anarchists, mormons, unionsts, anglicans, atheists etc etc. I only remember a handful of people being boring and plain and uninteresting and possibly even mean and uninquiring. And yes, there may have been a couple of other autistics in amongst this outwardly normal community. By painting the whole lot of my non-autistics colleagues as neurotypical, I fear that I would be doing myself and others a disservice by overlooking the astonishing diversity within this "neurotypical" community.
- After I chose to follow my genuine impulses and pursue a lifestyle of creativity, I mix with less "normal" people: artistic people, thinkers and intellectuals. Some of these people have issues like: schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, gender dysphoria, bi-polar disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, PTSD, depression, neurosis, psychosis. Met a few sociopaths too. None of these people were on the autism spectrum. Are they neurotypical?
- When we lump everyone else into the neurotypical category, we may miss the cues and signs that warn us of dangerous people like sociopaths and histrionics, who may pass as normal. The concept of neurotypical actually might be endangering us, by clouding our judgement and objectivity.

I'm sorry, but I believe neurotypicality is a harmful myth.

They key trait for autism is an inability to understand and respond to social situations. Humans are social creatures and so this inability is a distinct difference from the vast majority. So neurotypical defines the vast majority who do not have an inability or difficulty to live a social life.

NT's can be depressed, they can be sociopaths (being NT would be a prerequisite for that), they can have any number of mental issues. But the main thing that links them all is that they have a natural ability to engage socially, which we do not have.

It's not really a myth. The word "neurotypical" was initially coined by the autistic community to mean non-autistic. The fact remains that we have a neurological condition that makes us different from the majority of the population.

The paranoid schizophrenics are neurotypical?

On WP, the word is often used to contrast with an autistic person. For example, "NTs have no problems socialising" (ha ha).

Using that definition, I would say dyslexics, and people with "high functioning ADHD" (for want of a better term) are NT, as are people with depression (on a good day). But schizophrenics, people with severe intellectual disabilities, people with Downs syndrome, and so forth, would not be "NT".

I think a good, but not perfect, line is "visibly non-physically disabled". I don't know what side of that line I'd sit on when I'm "acting NT" though, and I'm sure the same is true of many autistic people ("you don't seem autistic!" threads are very common, after all).

JakeDay-

Glad you've embraced the bohemian way of life. My wife and I are quite happy with that lifestyle.

Yes..it can be quite confusing..

I did a 'little' research..

on the Problem of Determining 'WHO IS NEUROTYPICAL'

per the often heard myth of us vs.them..in so called

online autistic communities..

AS A REAL FACT FINDING MISSION..

AND CAME UP WITH this...;)(:


http://katiemiaaghogday.blogspot.com/20 ... ho-is.html

The OP lumps unlike things together: being of a deviant creed (being socialist, or Mormon, or being a member of the Flat Earth Society, is not comparable to being a kleptomaniac ( neurotic but not likely neurological) , nor is it comparable to having tourettes syndrome (likely neurological).

Neurotypical implies that you're 'wired like most people' so the subject is neurology, not either neurosis (bad upbringing or traumatic upbringing or whatever) nor belief systems.

But having said that- yes even that is a conundrum.

Maybe 98 percent of the population is not on the autism spectrum, but are all of that 98 percent actually 'neurotypical' . Are even a majority of them 'neurotypical'? And if not a majority- then what would be 'typical' about being 'neurotypical'?

ADHD, and Williams Syndrome, are different but comparable conditions to the autism spectrum. So you might take them out of the 98 percent ( another one or two percent maybe?).

But then are schzophrenics "neurotypical", or not? If not then youd have to subtract them too.

Then there is evidence that some folks are genetically wired to become alcholics, so -take alcholics out- and so on. Keep subtracting and soon- 'neurotypical' might not be so 'typical' any more.

Still-"nt" is a handy catch-all to label all non autistics. But what the term actually means is a bit mirage-y.