06-08-2008, 01:10 PM
06-08-2008, 01:33 PM
In this context, i.e., AFF, NT=not autistic
That covers a lot of ground.
And good luck coming up with a definition of autism that would clearly and unequivocally pick out autistics from NTs.
That covers a lot of ground.
And good luck coming up with a definition of autism that would clearly and unequivocally pick out autistics from NTs.
06-08-2008, 01:42 PM
According to some, non-autistics aren't necessarily neurotypicals if they have other neurological conditions, but it seems like it is mostly just some people with ADHD other than autistics who subscribe to neurodiversity.
I guess these people aren't neurodivergent, but rather simply MAD.
I guess these people aren't neurodivergent, but rather simply MAD.
06-08-2008, 04:56 PM
I apologize, I wasn't making myself clear.
It seems like it is among people with neurological condition mostly just people with ADHD other than autism who think neurodiversity could be applied to their condition.
It seems like it is among people with neurological condition mostly just people with ADHD other than autism who think neurodiversity could be applied to their condition.
06-08-2008, 07:18 PM
Subscribe was an inappropriate use of word.
Ofcourse neurotypicals can subscribe to the idea of neurodiversity for autistics, but I've yet to see people with bipolar applying the idea of neurodiversity to their own group.
Ofcourse neurotypicals can subscribe to the idea of neurodiversity for autistics, but I've yet to see people with bipolar applying the idea of neurodiversity to their own group.
06-08-2008, 07:19 PM
Seems like asking what NTs are like is kind of like asking what women are like or men are like. Sure, book like "Men are from mars, women are from venus...." assume various stereotypes, which have exceptions all over the place. I don't like people assuming that because I am female I have such and such an attitude.
Stereotypes such as "NTs like to socialize", for example, don't really cut it. There are gobs of introverted NTs who hate to socialize.
Stereotypes such as "NTs like to socialize", for example, don't really cut it. There are gobs of introverted NTs who hate to socialize.
06-09-2008, 12:12 AM
Ivar T Wrote:
Subscribe was an inappropriate use of word.
Ofcourse neurotypicals can subscribe to the idea of neurodiversity for autistics, but I've yet to see people with bipolar applying the idea of neurodiversity to their own group.
Ofcourse neurotypicals can subscribe to the idea of neurodiversity for autistics, but I've yet to see people with bipolar applying the idea of neurodiversity to their own group.
Kevin Leitch, who writes the blog Left Brain/Right Brain (which is an autism hub blog) is Bipolar and considers himself to be of a distinct "Bipolar Neurotype".
It's interesting to see how people really use words in reality. A long while ago, I remember, people were using the word Neurodiversity to refer to the movement and concepts only; now people refer to themselves as "neurodiverse", which is ridiculous, because one individual doesn't represent a diversity of individual brains all by themselves! We used to say "neurodivergent" to refer to those who are not NT; because NT was meant to be JUST "normal" people, i.e people who were not diagnosed with another condition. But no one seems to use neurodivergent any more; it's become "NTs and Autistics", as if all there is is normal or autistic.
I've known autistics who consider themselves neurodivergent, ADD-ers who consider themselves neurodivergent, people with tourettes who consider themselves neurodivergent, epileptics who consider themselves neurodivergent, and more.
I even found a reference to neurodiversity in the glossary of a web community for Plurals- once known as people with multiple personalities. Here: http://astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html
06-09-2008, 12:17 AM
As far as what an NT is;
There's no real consensus. It's as hard to define as autism is. I could list lots of traits, but none of them would apply to ALL NTs, nor would all of them apply to any specific NT.
The best definition I can come up with is: A person who has no diagnosis and is considered "Neurologically healthy" by the medical authorities. This is, of course, dependent on the idea that all neurodivergence is unhealthy. But the entire system of diagnosis is based on that anyway. No, it's not right, but since that's the only way we have of defining autism and other conditions, it's also the only way we have *right now* of defining NT. Hopefully this won't be true in the future, and we'll have a better understanding of NT and ND and the very foggy lines between them.
There's no real consensus. It's as hard to define as autism is. I could list lots of traits, but none of them would apply to ALL NTs, nor would all of them apply to any specific NT.
The best definition I can come up with is: A person who has no diagnosis and is considered "Neurologically healthy" by the medical authorities. This is, of course, dependent on the idea that all neurodivergence is unhealthy. But the entire system of diagnosis is based on that anyway. No, it's not right, but since that's the only way we have of defining autism and other conditions, it's also the only way we have *right now* of defining NT. Hopefully this won't be true in the future, and we'll have a better understanding of NT and ND and the very foggy lines between them.
06-09-2008, 02:17 AM
micgrace Wrote:
So long as the use of DSM-IV is used, nearly everyone can fit within one or more axes.
Axis I. Symtoms that cause distress or significantly impair social or occupational functioning. (Most people could score something within here. Socially inept.)
Axis II. Personality disorders and intellectual disability (so if you think you are socially inept, avoid social situations score here)
Axis III Relevant medical conditions. (maybe none)
Axis IV Physcosocial and environmental problems (OK bad time at school)
Axis V Global assessment of functioning (poor if Axes I, II, IV are ticked)
OK this is a simplistic view of DSM-IV
So what is an NT? Nil social / occupational problems / Normal IQ etc / Nil medical problems / Fantastic family and school. / functions perfectly.
Find me someone like this then I have an NT (tongue in cheek)
Axis I. Symtoms that cause distress or significantly impair social or occupational functioning. (Most people could score something within here. Socially inept.)
Axis II. Personality disorders and intellectual disability (so if you think you are socially inept, avoid social situations score here)
Axis III Relevant medical conditions. (maybe none)
Axis IV Physcosocial and environmental problems (OK bad time at school)
Axis V Global assessment of functioning (poor if Axes I, II, IV are ticked)
OK this is a simplistic view of DSM-IV
So what is an NT? Nil social / occupational problems / Normal IQ etc / Nil medical problems / Fantastic family and school. / functions perfectly.
Find me someone like this then I have an NT (tongue in cheek)
Yes, exactly. 
We used to make jokes about how the name "Neurotypical" is misleading because the so-called "normal" person, who is totally "healthy" according to the DSM-IV, is so very rare.
06-09-2008, 04:07 AM
There's so much variation among NTs - beyond a few things, it gets incredibly hard to find what the majority shares - it's like trying to find what women share (aside from the obvious physical characteristics).
I mostly just use NT for shorthand and stuff.
I mostly just use NT for shorthand and stuff.
06-10-2008, 01:58 PM
Hm, not too long ago I posted something about the "NT" or "Normal" person being actually the complete opposite of "Normal."
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
06-10-2008, 08:56 PM
andrew_w Wrote:
That bothers me as well when people use "neurodiverse" instead of "neurodivergent" (as if neurodiversity only included those who are neurodivergent), or "NT" to refer to the "opposite" of autistic. I use "non-autistic" or "allistic" to refer to the "opposite". "Allistic" was originally coined as a semi-humorous word for non-autistic (not by me), but I think it's actually a good term for the opposite of autistic - allos (other) as opposed to autos (self).
...
"Neurotypical" simply means "someone with the most common set of neurotypes". Neurotypical implies allistic, since allistics are the majority, but allistic doesn't imply neurotypical, since allistics may be neurodivergent in other ways.
...
"Neurotypical" simply means "someone with the most common set of neurotypes". Neurotypical implies allistic, since allistics are the majority, but allistic doesn't imply neurotypical, since allistics may be neurodivergent in other ways.
I completely agree with you about neurodiverse/divergent.
Regarding NT/non-autistic, the reason I prefer to use NT is that it makes statements more accurate. For example, it's possible to say that one difference between autistic & NT people is the tendency to hyperfocus. If you try saying "one difference between autistic & non-autistic people is the tendency to hyperfocus", you have to add statements like "excluding people with ADHD, schizophrenia, and other neurological conditions that create the tendency to hyperfocus".
In other words, using NT rather than non-autistic automatically ensures that neurological-based exceptions aren't included.
06-10-2008, 09:01 PM
Korrigan Wrote:
Hm, not too long ago I posted something about the "NT" or "Normal" person being actually the complete opposite of "Normal."
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
Agreed as far as normal goes, but "NT" & "normal" aren't the same thing at all - as you're probably aware, NTs can, and often do, differ from the norm quite a lot.
As I understand it, NT just means any person that could not be diagnosed with a pervasive psychological label.
06-10-2008, 09:06 PM
EvilZakkie Wrote:
Korrigan Wrote:
Hm, not too long ago I posted something about the "NT" or "Normal" person being actually the complete opposite of "Normal."
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
My husband put this into words which are much more clear, but here is the basics of it.
The variables of people would be similar to a mountain. There is a large space on each side of the mountain. People of all "types" reside on either side, up or down, towards the middle, towards the bottom, towards the top. The "normal" person would reside, singularly, on the tip top peak of the mountain. Though that person exists, and contains all of the "normal" qualities, they are actually anything but "normal" as they are basically a "one in a million" type person.
We are all somewhere on the mountain.
Agreed as far as normal goes, but "NT" & "normal" aren't the same thing at all - as you're probably aware, NTs can, and often do, differ from the norm quite a lot.
As I understand it, NT just means any person that could not be diagnosed with a pervasive psychological label.
Good point. Do you think we could stuff them both onto the top of the mountain?
06-10-2008, 10:43 PM
Korrigan Wrote:
EvilZakkie Wrote:
Agreed as far as normal goes, but "NT" & "normal" aren't the same thing at all - as you're probably aware, NTs can, and often do, differ from the norm quite a lot.
As I understand it, NT just means any person that could not be diagnosed with a pervasive psychological label.
As I understand it, NT just means any person that could not be diagnosed with a pervasive psychological label.
Good point. Do you think we could stuff them both onto the top of the mountain?
Hard to say - I'm not really sure how many pervasive neurological labels are around. If we excluded people that have one or two autistic traits, shadow syndromes, and similar things from the definition of NT, then the neurotype mountain plateau would start getting pretty small...
I guess it just depends how strictly NT is defined. In any case, it would be a different mountain. *grins*
Pages: 1 2