Is the label "neurotypical" meaningful?

Post Reply New Topic

This has been bothering me for a long time, now. I notice that the term N/T or "neurotypical"
is used very often by members on the forum to describe the 95%+ people we refer to who are not on the spectrum. My problem is this: As a biologist, we know that one of the core principles of Darwinian theory is that each and every living organism of the countless species of living organisms on the planet is a discreet and unique INDIVIDUAL that is different from all other members of their species. It is this individual variation within species that natural selection operates on to produce the process we call biological evolution. Given a 3 letter base code for some twenty amino acids in a human genome containing billions of base pairs, we can conclude that every single living person alive today is a unique individual that is in some real ways different from all other people. Given this reasoning, shouldn't we treat all the people we meet in our lives as individuals first and foremost? And doesn"t the power of Darwinian reasoning in some sense render many of the terms used by psychologists irrelevant?

"NT" isn't some kind of profound statement about diversity; it's just a way to refer to someone without a neurological condition without saying "normal". At this point, "normal" has too many connotations about it (the idea that normal is good and abnormal is bad, chiefly), and it's better to use a term like "neurotypical" which is a great deal more factual. Professionals sometimes use the term "typically developing," which means the same thing but refers only to children.

In any event, "typical" is not the same thing as "identical". Neurotypicals are in the average range; they are not all the same, and it would be silly to assume they are. They're simply not far enough off the cognitive norm for it to be a striking quality about them.

There are a great many other things to a person than just neurology. Their personality, their sense of ethics and compassion, their decisions, their interests, their environment... Neurology and genetics don't predetermine who a person will be. Neurotypicals may not have unusual neurology, but they can be, and often are, unusual in other ways.

Your estimate of "95%" is probably off by a good deal, incidentally. We have approximately 1% autistic, 3-5% ADHD, 1-2% mentally ret*d, 1% epilepsy... that's more than 5% atypical already and we haven't even gotten into learning disabilities, sensory integration, or motor coordination... Then there's the acquired stuff, like TBIs, post-stroke, Alzheimer's... You want to get into the motor regions of the brain, and you can add cerebral palsy and developmental dyspraxia... The figure for people without a diagnosable neurological condition is probably a good deal smaller than 95%.

Neurotyranical?

We already have "neuroelitism" (the belief that your neurology makes you better than others) and "neurobigotry" (prejudice based on neurology). Both terms can refer to anyone, NT, autistic, or otherwise, including both autistic supremacists and prejudiced NTs.

Callista....great statement! However, I also believe that normal is a dial on the washing machine....no one is truly normal. Humanity is on a spectrum of crazy from slightly eccentric to totally screwed up. The ones who seem the most normal are usually the most messed up from my experience. Ask my friend who fell in love with a man who she thought was normal...she loved his normalness. She later found out he was a serial child molester who married her so he could have sex with her kids. And she said, "but he seemed so normal" as she was mourning over what happened to her kids in total emotional shock.

Sociopaths often are masters at seeming super-normal and can morph into whatever a person wants them to be in order to get whatever they want. They speak in cliques and have no real depth and can pass a lie detector test while lying and can fool most unsuspecting therapists, and can even manipulate diagnostic tests to the results they want.
I am not saying that all Nt's are sociopaths (although there are alot more sociopaths running around than most people have any idea...not all are serial killers either, some statistics say 1 in 40 people is a sociopath) , but that the more normal a person seems, the more I am wary of them. Real people let folks see the their quirkyness, the ones who seem truly normal have something to hide because no one is normal.

I'm not sure how many others share this view, but I quite dislike the term "neurotypical". To me, it seems very derogatory. Because of that, I don't think it represents a good way of thinking about other people.

I hate the term because it is so meaninglessly non-specific. It refers explicitly to people who are not on the autistic spectrum, many of whom are by no means typical of human neurology. Presumably there is a neurotypical range for any measurable neurological phenomenon, so a person can be "of typical IQ" just as one might say "average height", but an NT person would have to be within the typical range on every relevant measure - and very few people are. I am sure the majority are neurologically atypical on scales of IQ, subscales of IQ, visual processing, motor coordination, vulnerability to psychiatric illness, migraine, etc.

I would like to see the term NT disappear up its own fundamentalism.

It doesn't just refer to people who not on the spectrum. I have several bi-polar and ADHD friends who would argue that.

I tend to not get carried away with labels and supposed deep meanings. It's a just a quick reference term.

For me, the main problem with the expression "neurotypical" is that does not have a well-defined meaning:

- sometimes is used in the sense of non-ASD (and I think that it was invented with this intention - look for the articles about "neurotypical disorder": what they describe is the opposite of autism)

- other is used in the sense of everybody without a neurological abnormality (ADHD, MR, etc.), like Callista is using

- others, in the sense of everybody without a neurological or psychological abnormality (what makes some sense, because the frontier between neurological and psychological condition can be very fuzzy)

I prefer the term NT, to the word normal.

They aren't arguing loudly enough, for sure. The term was created by the autistic community to refer to people who are not on the spectrum. Every definition (e.g. http://www.google.com/#q=neurotypical+definition) refers to autism or Asperger's syndrome. Almost every search result containing NT is in the context of the autistic spectrum. The word in its usage is "not on the autistic spectrum".

But even if this horrible term did become widely adopted for "normal" people without a neurological "abnormality", it is still divisive and still undermines the dignity of all people who are neurologically atypical.

Last edited by StuartN on 28 Sep 2010, 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think it's meaningful, but with limited scope. That is, it's useful in certain situations, certain discussions. But it can be overused. Or used too widely.

One thing I dislike is the people (I've seen this here at WP) who have some aspie/autistic traits (by their own description), and, yet, because they don't have a diagnosis and don't see themselves as qualifying for one, they call themselves NT. It's not ND for no-diagnosis! Yes, you can be different without a diagnosis. I do think there are people who don't have a diagnosable autistic spectrum disorder, yet also aren't neurotypical.

I don't have a problem with the term "neurotypical." Based on reading posts on WP for over a year, it appears to be meaningful to many (most?) people who are on the spectrum and that's good enough for me. I think many WP members wish to know the neurology of other members, particularly those who are not on the spectrum, and in an effort to respect those wishes I have no problem identifying myself as an NT. However, I would not ordinarily go around identifying myself as NT because, as other posters have pointed out, there is significant neurological diversity even amongst NTs and I consider myself to be very different than the "average" NT.

Another way to say this is, use of the term NT appears to be unique to the ASD community and culture, at least as far as the community is represented here on WP, and since I am part of the culture it works for me. When in Rome...

PS - I think Callista's remarks were spot on.

+1

Maybe we need a term neuroquirky. For those of us who are different and believe that difference is (at least) partly innate, without regards to whether or not that difference is a disorder with a fancy label or not.

How does Neurokinky sound?