Definition of "Neurodivergent"

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not sure how neurodiversity is supposed to be a useful concept and movement while people have such different ideas about what it means.

A while back, someone posted that only people who have social deficits are neurodivergent.

On Reddit, someone asked if she could claim to be neurodivergent for having PTSD, and people on the neurodiversity sub-reddit said yes. I thought neurodivergence only applied to people who had neurological differences from birth or a very young age. PTSD is a mental disorder. Is everyone with a mental disorder neurodivergent? Or only people with some mental disorders? Is there a relevant difference between a mental condition and a neurological condition?

And what about people who get brain damage later in life? What about senility, Alzheimer's? How many people can be considered neurodivergent before the term starts to become meaningless?

I really feel that at least some schizophrenics could be "neurodivergent"---because their overall viscera is divergent (seen by many people as being "distorted") from the viscera of a "normal" person."

Regardless of the answer,
am not sure whether "neurodivergent"
is the kind of label I'd want to apply to myself?

I would call PTSD a form of "neurosis", but not a form "neurodivergence" because its environmentally induced from one or more experiences, and you're not born with it.

The autism spectrum, and ADHD, and Williams Syndrome, would be examples of "neurodivergence".

Folks with schzophrenia are divergent above the neck, and not in their whole nervous system. So I would call them mentally divergent, and not neurodivergent. But I would be hard put to defend that opinion.

Apraxia, and dyslexia, might also be lumped under "neurodivergent".

"Viscera" as in internal organs?

There is a huge difference between PTSD, which is caused by an injury to a person's psyche, and something like bi-polar disorder which is literally a difference in brain function. New understandings of bi-polar show that very young children start to show signs of who is more likely to develop the disorder later in life. Its not something that happens TO them. It's a part of who they are. People with bipolar are clearly neurodivergent. Other disorders are a little more messy, discernment wise.

That's a really interesting thought. But have you heard of the new research that indicates our gut has more of a role in cognition than previously understood? Its seems that having a "gut feeling" is more than just a phrase. It's possible that our gut is where those feelings are originating from. So then, all mental disorders would be more whole body than just neck-up.

I hear you that autism includes a lot of whole body sensitivities. When I get over stimulated, my whole body hums with pain.

Nope....I used the wrong term.

I meant, more, the visual field of a person.

A person with schizophrenia might have a "distorted" view of things (according to "normal" people)

Or an "alternative" view of things.

I would say they might be "divergent" throughout the entirety of their nervous system.

It also depends on how you define Mental Disorders.

I guess you could say "lets just put psychotic folks aside for a moment" , and just look at clinically sane people.

Within sane people: folks with ADHD, Williams Syndrome, and who are on the ASD spectrum, (and maybe also tourettes, apraxia, and dyslexia) are "neurodiverse".

PTSD would be a type of neurosis, and not "neurodiverse".

But of course all of the above categories are all hard to define. But both professionals and laymen use the above categories (sane, insane, neurotic, psychotic) all of the time anyway.

People with Williams Syndrome would seem to be neurodiverse, based upon an extreme disparity between their expressive vocabulary and their comprehension of that vocabulary.

In other words, the speak well, but what the say might not have much substance.

They are nice people, though--and not to be scorned.

Studies have shown changes in brain structure and function in those with PTSD. I think it should be considered a form of neurodiversity.

That would make sense on an elemental level.

A change in brain function/structure vis-à-vis the norm would, invariably, lead to neurodiversity.

Yes, but they weren't born with it. Its not a part of the base of who they are. It's something that happened to them because of a traumatic event.

Please don't be offended by my push-back. I'm interested in the debate.

IMO, "neurodivergence" is significant biological differences in the brain that are more or less "innate", or anyway, not something with psychological causes. Neurological disorders, to make it short. Which technically includes things such as schizophrenia, but not PTSD or depression.

It's a meaningful, but very broad term. There are a lot of ways someone can differ neurologically from the average. I thought it generally was used to refer to someone neurologically "wired" significantly outside the typical bounds that most people fall within.

That includes a lot of things such as mental illnesses and who knows what else. Maybe even left-handedness could be a type of neurodiversity since only around 10% of brains are wired for left-handedness.