We never know the number of undiagnosed, many may be just capable of pretending but suffering.

  • Grellan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Neurodivergent doesn’t mean a failure at communication. That is a very reductive view of such a broad statement. Adding to that the concept of Neurodivergent covers a massive range of things. Someone who is ADHD faces different problems than someone with depression. So nearly everyone may be neurodivergent in some form but the average of communication falls within range of how we do now.

    • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not what he’s saying. He’s referring to neurotypicality as just being the standard that won a standards war, as in a format war like VHS vs Betamax or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think what OP is communicating is this:

        There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of different mental models. There is a single mental model that is neither good nor bad that appears to to cover the largest number of living human beings on the planet. Because this covers the largest number of humans, it holds the title of the standard by which all other mental models are judged. It is the baseline. “Neuro” being “of the nerves” and typical" meaning “common”. It is, by definition, neurotypical.

        So OP continues the thought with: Consider instead of the mental model that is today’s “neurotypical”, that some other mental model was shared by the largest number of living humans. Would that other mental model, which could be drastically different, be called the “neurotypical”.

        The answer, clearly, is: Yes. Simply the definition of the term defines it so.