The term "Neuro Typical"

Post Reply New Topic

Is the term "Neuro Typical" really proper? it uses the fact that a certain type of behavior is common and thus "typical". But let's say that aspies would populate the world, then it would fall flat. A term that concentrate what something is, rather than how common it is would be more to the point.

Some traits:
* So what is the term for obsessive disorder to comply in decision making with peers as the highest priority. Add to that constant anxiety to fulfill this.
* Being engaged in talk about things that are of really no concern, where the real message is in how the message is presented and to whom is the message.
* Trying to instigate intrigues or drama.
* Status chase. (I bought the car because it's fast OR I bought the car because it's faster than my neighbor)
* Impulses to do things with others, much of the time.

Not all is present all the time. But ought to be a starting point for a better term?

NT is an awful term. Every time I hear it, I think of the person saying it in a mocking looking down tone like normal people are soooo typical, easy to predict, mundane, a thorn in "our" side.

There's not such thing as a NT, whoever came up with the term felt grieved by people they felt typified some psychological profile, that is filled with a bunch of arbitrary characteristics.

I've noticed that there are definitely some people around these parts that could be called "Autistic Supremacists". To these people, "NT" is something like a racial slur.

I just think that it's a cute and vague term to use when telling an anecdote. I like to spell it "entie", to make it line up with "aspie".

Neurotypicals might be boring but certainly not predictable. But it's understandable that there is mocking tone when they treat different people like s**t.

I would rather come up with a term that is correct in the psychiatric profession. More true and that will stick.

I use neurotypical as a term to refer to "normal" people. I recognize that it's somewhat derrogatory when used by certain people, but it doesn't bother me that much for two reasons.

1. The people I use it around don't feel offended when I use it.
2. People use "ret*d" to describe us a lot more often and a lot more offensively than we use "neurotypical" to describe them.

I will continue to use it until both "ret*d" and "neurotypical" become considered swear words in public schools.

it might be a bit derrogatory, but only in the context it's used in.
aside from that, it's better then 'normal' people, which implies that people on the spectrum are 'wrong', and it's also better then 'people that do not have any kind of ASD', which is just too long to use regularly...

indeed, if aspies were the majority, then NT would not be the current NT people; aspies would be the NT's.

Instead of calling some one an NT, why aren't people satisfied with calling them " a non-AS" or "someone that doesn't have Asperger's"? Because NT is shorter and more efficient? I can think of a couple racial slurs that are "shorter and more efficient"

Let's us read them ..

Obsessive-Socio ..? (OS) .. from the land of Oz..
Peer-Obsessive ? (PO)

nirshsaktra

which means?

Is it really necessary to pile more terms onto the "PI" (Politically Incorrect) pile we already have now?

Why on earth do we need more? NT = "Neurologically Typical" shortened to neuro-typical. The word is pretty much self explanatory, except for it's etymological origins. Just because some people abuse the term, does that mean it should be "forbidden" for those of us who don't?

Besides, if we came up with yet another term, that one too would be chastised and labeled PI eventually. Why bother?

It's just a word. Nothing intrinsically "racist" or "superior" about it, other than how it's used by some. Any word can be used in that way. Changing the word won't change attitudes.

Why care if it's politically incorrect?, following politically correct dogm is just a mental straitjacket.

Well, that's precisely my question, and point in a nutshell. Why care indeed?

So then, what's the problem? It's just a word. Why do we need to change it? Suggesting we should implies there is something inherently wrong with the word, but we all know it's how words are used that causes harm, not the word. Changing the term just changes the term people will end up using for exactly the same purpose they used the original word for.

Example:

Most people use stove burners to cook food with. Some abusive people use them to burn their children. We don't ban stoves, do we? We don't suggest that we should all use microwaves instead do we?

We don't, because we all know that abusive parents will find some way to abuse their kids even if stoves are banned. They could even find ways of using supposedly "safer" cooking methods to do so.

Changing words used for a particular purpose won't change the people who abuse them.

The point was to find a word that describe what is meant better. Not to deal with abuse or not.

the autism supremacist site actually used to call people Non-autistics and not NTs. they did it to reach a wider audience that didn't know what the term NT meant. the autism supremacists on here usually say NT though. so it just matters who says it really.

My impression was that NT or Neurotypical meant just that- neurologically typical, as opposed to having a neurological difference like AS or ADHD or some other disorders. Neurotypical does not mean "normal"; just not neurologically different. Whether it is used in a derogatory way depends entirely on the context it is used in. I really don't see how the term can be any more PC--even some NT's I know would cringe at being referred to as "normal".