Is the label N/T really appropriate for normal people?

Post Reply New Topic

This has bothered me for a long time now. I notice the term "neurotypical" is used very often on the forum to describe the 95%+ people we refer to who are not on the spectrum. My problem with this terminology is this: As a biologist, we know that a core principle of Darwinian theory is that amongst all living species, every single living organism is a genetically discreet INDIVIDUAL, with unique and slightly different traits that differentiate itself from all others of its own kind. It is this individuality that Natural selection operates on to produce the change we see in living systems called evolution. Since every single person on the planet is different than all others in some manner due the astronomical combinations available in a 4 letter genetic code containing billions of base pairs in the human genome. Shouldn't we therefore treat all people we meet, whether on the spectrum or not, as individuals first and foremost? And doesn't the power of Darwinian reasoning render many of the labels used in psychology somewhat obsolete, in a certain sense?

Such a distinction between NT and Autism is necessary for the discussion of autism. It doesn't have to be related to "NT-bashing." NT is just a term that is widely understood and easy to use.

Well, I kinda like the term "neurotypical" precisely because it doesn't contain the word "normal." Because a person is NT doesn't mean he/she is psychologically healthy or free of abnormalities.

Yeah, people should, but most of them won't. One can argue about the reality/non-reality of various classifications, but ultimately the social classifications (such as race, the colloquial meanings of "ret*d" or "psycho," "working class," and so on) become real and dominant factors/concerns in people's lives, because the majority of society treats those differences as if they are real. Like with money; little actual value in the paper & ink of a dollar bill; has value because enough people treat it as if it does.

I think I see your point, but I think it's a little like saying that when people talk about racial issues, they shouldn't use "black" or "asian" or "white" or etc. because races aren't genetically all that distinct (if that's true?). Social realities cause there to be reasons to need these labels to talk about certain things, even if they are illusory.

From my understanding, neurotypical means the typical neurological development pattern is followed during gestation. Disorders like autism and adhd don't follow this pattern for whatever reason. There are differences in morphology and neuroimaging (the brain lights up differently when stimulated.) So I think it is correct to categorize into neurotypical and non-neurotypical by this definition. Maybe, there are a whole slew of different brain types yet to be identified, each with their different strengths and weaknesses. I think the difficulty comes from the expection of society for the non-neurotypical brain to work like neurotypical one. Non-neurotypical people then feel victimized and attach negative connotations to the term. It is just a word.

I prefer saying Non-autistic Person

Most of my friends are artists, or recovering
addicts........although they are far to
social and 'in the world" to be aspie-ish...
they are far from typical and far from
having a normal wiring

So do I. Neurotypical is just needlessly complicated and, to me, smacks of elitism. I think it's most likely a derogatory response to the lovely names many of us remember being called in school.

Also, the "neuro" part of the word bothers me. I'm quite sure neuroscience is still taking baby steps as a discipline and, until it gets some new technologies to play with, most talk about how people differ at the neurological level is premature. ASDs are defined, diagnosed, and distinguished from what is *statistically* normal through behavioural observations, not neural ones.