Of course, that doesn't mean that anyone who happens to not be Aspergic or Autistic is, as an individual, "typical". Is a schizophrenic who happens to not be Aspergic or Autistic really "neurotypical"? What about someone with late Alzheimer's? Is that person really "neurotypical"? There are folks who fall under ADD criteria who aren't Aspergic or Autistic, are they necessarily "neurotypical"?
Lewy body pathology? Neurotypical?
Parkinsonism? Neurotypical?
Nicotine addiction? Neurotypical?
Caffeine addiction? Neurotypical? Really?
Left-handed? Neurotypical?
What are the criteria, or is it really just another category that breaks down upon examination?
dogface, it's an appropriate way of saying someone who is "normal" vs Autistic, or on the spectrum. That's all, we're really not that brainy about it. Besides, your point is that NTs aren't all the same, well maybe since alot of NTs like to assume everyone with Autism is the same, we feel why not assume they're all alike as well.
For the same reason that I never responded to racism directed against me or my family with racism on my own part. That is why.
Oh this is weird.
I thought people with other noticeable mental "differences", let's say, were also not NTs. So there's me clueless.
I thought NTs were the people that you couldn't find a DSM-V or whatever for them becos they were "normal".
Except that the DSM-IV is not a neuroscientific survey, it is a psychological catalogue with rather tenuous linkage to actual neurological/neuronal states. Thus, the question of "who is actually neurotypical?" in the field.
NT == neurologically typical
If you are part of the vast majority in that your brain is wired for the most part in a similar way to the majority then you are neurologically typical - NT.
How much is "for the most part"? In what context does "for the most part" apply? What are the confidence intervals? What specific neuromarkers are used? Within the actual field in which "neurotypical" might have the most meaningful use, there is serious debate over whether or not "neurotypical" actually even exists or if it is merely a convenient fiction.
It is certainly easier than saying non-autistic.
If You Say That It Should Be "NA"
Or how about "nothing"? Just call such people "nothings". Yes, I already know it's wrong, but it was momentarily amusing.