what is neurotypical

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know what it is can some one help me please

"Neurotypical" is a word we have made up because we don't like calling non-autistic people "normal". There's too much connotation attached to "normal"; when you call people normal, you call everyone else abnormal, and "abnormal" has a completely negative connotation. If only "normal" kept its statistical definition as "average", it would be fine, but it also means "acceptable" and "without disease", making non-normal people unacceptable and diseased.

"Neurotypical" means either, "A person without autism," or, "A person who does not have a mental/neurological/cognitive disorder/difference".

The word "neurodiverse" is the opposite of neurotypical. It means anyone with a mental/neurological/cognitive difference, including non-disabling things like giftedness or most kinds of synesthesia.

Oddly enough, there are fewer neurotypical people than neurodiverse, because there are so many different ways that a human brain can differ from the norm that most people have at least one such quirk, even if it's only something like dyslexia or depression.

Another irony is that the neurotypical brain is not just "boring and average"--it is actually specialized just like neurodiverse brains are; only the specialization--toward social connections, face-reading, and language use--is so common that most people think it is unremarkable. A brief study of cognitive psychology refutes that idea easily, though; the neurotypical brain is just as fascinating as a neurodiverse one.

Didn't know that! Interesting!

I would be a little more clinical about the definition. I prefer not to restrict "neurotypical" to conditions on the autism spectrum, but to include, within its definition, any neurological condition, and to apply it to an examined population, rather than some hypothetical universal population.

For me, "neurotypical," means, with respect to a given neurological condition, the state which is typically exhibited by a majority of individuals within a population.

By way of examples: with respect to handedness in North America, those who are right handed are neurotypical. With respect to sexuality on WrongPlanet, those who are heterosexual are neurotypical (I assume). With respect to cognition within the global population, those whose intelligence lies within one standard deviation of the normalized median and neurotypical (by statistical definition).

I don't use the term to describe a person who is typical with respect to every neurological condtion. Such a person might well exist, but the circumstance seems to me to be meaningless.

Also, I don't use the term "neurodiverse" as an adjective to refer to an individual, but only to a population. I don't consider myself to be "neurodiverse," but rather, I am (as are we all) a unique individual. We, as a population, however, are neurodiverse, in that each of us displays differences in our neurological condition from those around us.

Similarly, "neurodiversity," is the nominal form of the word, used to identify this variety. I take the view that neurodiversity includes people are are neurotypcial with respect of a given condition, just as much as it includes those who are not. The term will become, I hope, part of our social lexicon on diversity. Just as workplaces are coming to terms with the benefit of diversity relating to dimensions such as age, sex, ethnic origin, belief and ideology, physical ability or family status so to, I hope, they will come to include neurodiversity as a spectrum of abilities that is to be embraced and celebrated, rather than simple accommodated and tolerated.

Neurotypical could be an artificial construct. It's a symbolic state of existence that no one ever reaches.

I dont think there is such thing as NT everyone has a problem in some way.
I think someone who is a NT is rare these days, there is always problems in all.

Define normal, I challenge that to any doctor.

Neurotypicals don't light up as many warning lights in the brains of other neurotypicals as we do.

NTs just don't have so many impairment issues like we do, and that they don't need a particular diagnosis for anything.

But that still doesn't mean they're perfect. They can still be weird. Well, I don't know about you, but I'll rather be ''weird'' because of having a disability, than having no impairments and being NT but being weird. At least I can say, ''well, I have a disability'', and they'll start understanding more, but if I was NT but just acted weird, people would discard you more. That's what my social worker told me.

Exactly. The Platonic ideal, as somebody else said. It's like asking "what is a table?" A table has four legs - but this one only has three. A table is wooden - but this one is metal. A table has a flat top - but this one has a rough stone inlay. A table has chairs - but this one is too low for that. A table is for eating on - but this one is plainly decorative. We all know what a table is, but whatever we define it as in words, there will be tables that deviate from that invisible norm.

This remind's me of Plato's Republic. The Neurotype exists perfectly in a spiritual realm, not here on earth. We only see shadows of them on barely lit walls...

1. What is normal and who gets to decide what is normal?

2. I would rather have autism than chemical dependency issues with drugs and alcohol.

There's naught no queer as folk. True saying.

This is how I understand it too. Neurologically typical - common, "normal", majority.

I was surprised to find that there's no definition that doesn't somehow relate the word to Autism and Asperger's. I understand it originates from us, but if every word should be defined within the concept of it's origin we'd certain have a lot of subgroups and sub categories defining us and labeling what we say.

The term is being used outside of the Autistic community. Antisocial Personality Disordered, Sociopaths and Psychopaths use it, and so do people who have some connection to these groups. When I saw it in this context the first time I thought "Hey, maybe it's commonly used now!". But that is not the case, though I would imagine it being used in scientific neuro-psychological circles (I actually think I've seen it in a recent book about Personality Disorders, but I'm not entirely sure).

It does bother me somewhat that the only alternative is the word 'Normal' or 'mainstream'. If I don't want to use such vague words I'm forced to use the word Neurotypical (the best anyway), and thereby become associated with groups I may have no association with. This could lead to stigma!

Any thoughts?

#1. My parents.

#2. Not being on the spectrum.