Wikipedia's very broad definition of neurodiversity

Post Reply New Topic

I'll just leave the following passage, without comment.

Which would you leave out? Why?

Yes. Autism isn't the only neurodiverse thing.

I don’t know enough about all of these conditions to render specific judgements so I will use a general guideline. It should be a mostly genetic caused condition that determines “brain wiring” that is atypical.

^I agree it should refer to something you are born with and caused by geneticts. It should also be a stable condition that you can't cure by medicine. You are born that way and will stay that way. (Then, of course, if you take some medicine or drug it will momentarily change your feelings or behaviour regardless your neurotype.) For that reason I don't think of for example schizophrenic people as neurodiverse.

First off, quite a few people in this thread are using the word "neurodiverse" to mean "neurodivergent."

See Nick Walker's essay, NEURODIVERSITY: SOME BASIC TERMS & DEFINITIONS, 2014. I won't quote the whole thing, but here are some relevant parts:

So, then, which conditions qualify as "neorodivergent?" According to Nick Walker:


More about the word "neurodiverse":


One point I disagree with Nick Walker on: A classroom made up of only autistic people can indeed be neurodiverse, because there are many different kinds of autism. Autism isn't just one thing. A group of autistic people would fail to be neurodiverse only if it consisted solely of people with the same narrowly-defined subtype of autism.

But I agree with her distinction between "neurodiverse" and "neurodivergent."

^ I agree. I used the wrong word in my post. A person could be neurodivergent, not neurodiverse.

Thanks, this was very informative.

These terms are not handed down from some godlike figure, whereby violating them is a sin. These terms were invented by social justice activists to frame an agenda. Like all terms they evolve and mean different things in different contexts.

In an autism forum context the neurodiv—— words are often conflated with Autism and Autistic. When members rant about neurotypicals we often mean allistic the grammatically correct term for not autistic. Neurotypical and NT are used way way way more then allistic. The author of linked grammar lesson did not use allistic which is telling. As I recall in 2014 when this lesson was written the term allistic was used on occasion here. I can not remember the last time I have seen allistic used here or anywhere. Surely many of the same double empathy issues we have with neurotypicals we have with allistic neurodivergent people.

Agreed.

"Allistic" is the most precise term for all people who are not autistic. There are plenty of people who are neither autistic nor NT.

I get that; however, there comes a point where a term gets used in such widely varying ways by different people that it loses much of its usefulness and creates only confusion. I fear that's started to happen with "neurodivergent."

Part of the problem is that the term was created in an attempt to destigmatize certain conditions, and that I think is why so many people want their own stigmatized condition to be included in the umbrella. At this point, is there any condition found in the DSM that we can definitively state is not a category of neurodivergence, according to at least some people? I'm starting to have my doubts.

"Neurodivergent" was originally intended to be inclusive of everyone who is not NT. The narrower definitions you may have seen (limited to developmental disabilities only) are a subsequent development. See What comes under the “Neurodivergent” umbrella?

"Allistic" is shorter than "non-autistic," and "normal" implies that autistic people are not normal, which falls under the "autism is a disease that needs a cure" argument, which many autistic people disagree with.
Excuse me for clarifying this, but I wouldn't want a well-intentioned disambiguation to define a more easily understood term, neurotypical, to inadvertently create a discrepancy with allistic terminology that would imply pathology. I also agree with neurodivergent.
I also find it more logical, honestly. Also because neurodiverse is a more varied concept. It encompasses more. We often use the term "autism spectrum" to clarify multiplicity, not unidirectionality.
This thread is frequented by very knowledgeable people; that's very nice to see.
What I'm most concerned about is the lack of real communication to help non-autistic people understand how we function, how we are, what we are; they don't understand.

In a psychiatric session, the doctor told me I wasn't autistic because, for him, autistic (he defined it that way in his own way, and he was a top-level manager) was like the one depicted in the movie The Rain Man (Dustin Hoffman).

Many films, instead of clarifying and outlining fundamental aspects, exacerbate nonsense that non-autistic people have. Here, if you want, I'll call them allistic, that's fine too, because I know you can understand the difference.

They do harm: those that can be defined as diagnostic labels are indeed useful in medical settings. Otherwise, doctors themselves will continue to express themselves incorrectly. We need a definition (label) in medical settings.

Otherwise, we'll be a sort of all-the-same or similar, and that's not who we are at all. It doesn't represent us.

It bothers me because if I went to a banal emergency room for even a non-vital need, they would run several tests and catalog everything precisely, even with hyper-precise acronyms and definitions.

If I go to a specialist, this person at most expresses the concept of neurodivergence.
But they can't go beyond that.
Hic sunt leones (Here are the lions, no further than that, excuse the use of Latin).
The only difference is how it works. But even if I go to a mechatronics technician, this individual will use precise classifications and we're talking about a banal machine...we aren't included.
We exist and we are different in the different status of similar diagnoses.

Which, by the way, are unlikely: they always have comorbidities. And often very significant ones. How is it possible to obtain a pure definition of a Black divergent individual who will never be purely neurodivergent?
Understood in a single sense and devoid of any additional diagnostic aspect. All these definitions are virtually correct, but in real life there can be no excuses. I have several comorbidities and I have Asperger's. Now, in the old and latest DSM-5, I always find myself in an HFA correlation.

Studies since 2018 have converged on differences with Asperger's. What many people don't know is that the DSM-4 manual can still be used as a diagnostic model. Specialists can use it without being accused of error. My diagnoses are both previous and subsequent.

Asperger's is the one that best represents me. I sense that it could still be different if we analyze the concept and that there could be people who partially fall into both diagnostic distinctions. I believe one study was specifically by Simon Baron-Cohen, a professor at the University of Cambridge and author of books and research in the fields of psychology and neuroscience.

In Italy, Anthony Attwood is often present.

He also clarified the diagnostic discrepancies between men and women diagnosed.
This, too, discriminates against women, even in diagnoses.

They are different because they understand some things that men don't (nonverbal, for example, being more socially attentive and intelligent).
But the tests can't be identical; we're writing about people with different characteristics.
This issue is often ignored by diagnosticians.
It's not good.
It's also not good that diagnoses are paid for.
We have a public system, and a doctor will never make a diagnosis if he doesn't truly understand it.
While a paid one, on the other hand, can: lured by the money, he could certainly do it.
Many diagnoses are simplistic.

A few hours.

What diagnosis comes out in a few hours of evaluation?

My longest one lasted almost a year.

Not 2/4/8 hours or five sessions.

A person needs to be evaluated at length to be defined.

Years ago, they were rare.

I obtained it after many evaluation sessions.

The current percentages don't depend only on the increased frequency of diagnosis, but also on the preconception that they are lacking in the criteria and therefore we diagnose them.
In Italy, it works very well; some regions are at the forefront,
others, however, not at all.
I wouldn't want to mention some countries that are terrible.

@Mona Pereth
""Allistic" is the most precise term for all people who are not autistic. There are plenty of people who are neither autistic nor NT."

§

I'm sorry, you're a very good interlocutor.
But I don't understand what you mean by that.
I'm ready to evaluate things differently.
I'm not necessarily right; maybe I'm wrong.
I always accept learning things that aren't clear to me.
Sometimes I've changed my way of thinking about things that were different to me.
It's better to understand why I haven't been following these aspects for a long time.
And I notice that there's quite a subtle difference here, which is wonderful.
It was just stressful to dwell on the topic, so I kind of abandoned everything that came after my diagnosis.
Afterwards, I struggled through two other medical evaluations for disability recognition. We have a method that currently includes two additional evaluations.
And you end up with committees made up of many doctors.
I waited another two years. Then I could appeal for 100% but I gave up. It was very burdensome: by taking them to court I would have won the case given the certifications. that are terrible.


§
Do you mean subclinical case?

Examples of people who are not NT, but not necessarily autistic either:

- ADHDers
- dyslexic people
- people with other developmental disabilities, such as Down's syndrome
- people with mental illnesses

All of the above, if they are not also autistic, are allistic. NT's are allistic too. NT's are a subset of allistics.


I wasn't thinking about people with subclinical autistic traits when writing my previous posts in this thread.

A term that does include both autism and subclinical autistic traits is "broad autism phenotype" (BAP).

As for whether people with subclinical autistic traits should be considered "allistic," I'm not sure. That's kind of a grey area.

Anyhow, at least here in the U.S.A., an autism diagnosis does NOT, in and of itself, qualify someone for disability benefits. The latter requires a more specific disability than just "autism."

I'm sorry to hear about your struggles for disability recognition. That must have been awfully stressful.

First of all, thanks for the reply.

I'll give you a brief answer first.
Then, if you have time, you can read the rest. Thanks.
1) I agree with the definitions: I'll use the one you specified, too. Thanks.
2) It depends on the degree of impairment; severe disability isn't just a percentage. Keep in mind that without a long-acting anxiolytic, for example, I wouldn't even be able to leave the house.
Or look people in the eye, which is stressful for me anyway.
3) A 100% autistic person with Asperger's/HFA has a degree of impairment where they can't do anything socially.
4 )Yes, thank you, you're kind: the previous diagnoses were also very hard.
Because here, autism is included in the standard diagnoses.

So, 8 years of useless drug therapies.
Nothing worked.

Not a short answer:

I understand what you mean now. I know the meaning, but I didn't associate it with that; in Italy I just read "Neurotypical."
I'll use allistic from now on, thanks.
BAP is also used here exactly as you describe.

I helped change some questions on the Aspie quiz in 2011; they weren't understandable.
Then they changed it again, if I'm not mistaken.
Then I noticed in the graph that Aspie talent was decreasing; mine is still touching the circle.
I'm not recalculating it because it's disheartening for me.
I thought that understanding more social things would decrease the scores, but instead they're very high.

My autism is 75%, but the certifications were read by unqualified doctors.
They couldn't remove the severe one; it was 100%.
But considering that the severity of those who have it, like the people I know, is 100%, I think it's fine.
The comorbidities are with major depression and avoidant personality disorder, so the 75% in the score calculation is wrong. In my case, it's necessarily underestimated, even in the Balthazard method.

In our country, you're entitled to a small benefit of up to 100% with severity.
75% is very low, like a 343, 66 euro benefit.

I also liked law: I chose a school that included that too: I like researching laws and I have a remarkable memory.

The degree of social and occupational impairment still counts.

People with Down syndrome (trisomy 21)...

Just think, in our country the state doesn't consider them eligible for retirement.
While those who manage disability have rightly established a 75% benefit, I'm going from memory.
I think that's fair.
In my case, too, the figure here is ridiculous.
I could have asserted my rights, but I was literally exhausted.
Because the lawyers would have defended me for free.

But the stress was unbearable.

I didn't file a lawsuit.
It takes years.
Of course you win. I had medical reports from those who prepare them for the court and a certificate, a public report from a research center specializing in autism.
I was making a distinction between public and private, because you pay around 2,000 euros for an HFA diagnosis.
While I didn't pay anything or anyone, where the public sector is lacking, you have no other options. I understand, but I find it pointless to believe those diagnoses. There are too many of them in Europe and the US. It doesn't align with reality. Perhaps they recognize it in Sweden too, and I think in Japan too, perhaps even for hikikomori. Their methods are coercive.

Between paying and not paying, here at least, there's a big doubt: you paid for the diagnosis. In the public sector, it's already very difficult to get a specialist autism consultation.
I brought four, all from different medical boards.

Of course, a person with autism certainly doesn't go there for the money.