The use of "NT" (I presume it abbreviates "neurotypical") amuses me. I work in molecular psychiatry, and one of the debates in the field is over whether or not "neurotypical" even exists--that is, whether or not any single person can even qualify as "neurotypical" across the board.
It is certainly easier than saying non-autistic.
Welcome to the forum.
It's from a joke website.
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.
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".
Do I know any? Not sure. If you dig deep enough into any "normal" person and/or their family you usually find quite a few "flakes and nuts".
I think that's good, it makes the world more interesting.
(I do know people whom I refer to as NT, in the sense of non-autistic. But literally totally normal?! Not likely.)
I think if you have any neurobiological disorder thats mean you arnt NT.
Not just if you have autism, I think there is a very low percentage of people who are NT or will stay NT for the rest of their lives.
The use of "NT" (I presume it abbreviates "neurotypical") amuses me. I work in molecular psychiatry, and one of the debates in the field is over whether or not "neurotypical" even exists--that is, whether or not any single person can even qualify as "neurotypical" across the board.
This is like asking people if they're normal. Normal doesn't exist by definition; it depends on your frame of reference. And no matter what that frame is, there will always be deviations.
Brains are incredibly complex things. Every single person is different, and every single brain is different. As stated above, there will always be deviations. Therefore truly neurotypical brains do not exist.
It's much easier to use NTs in this context. But of course the irony is that NTs are part of a minority, a rare breed. Because in the larger context NT is simply someone who doesn't have a brain "difference"-- which includes anything from OCD to depression.
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.
If you are schizophrenic you obviously aren't NT, but if you are pretty much normal then you are NT. NT is simply another term for normal without the negative connotations. It is better than the horribly offensive terms some use such as "normie".
It's much easier to use NTs in this context. But of course the irony is that NTs are part of a minority, a rare breed. Because in the larger context NT is simply someone who doesn't have a brain "difference"-- which includes anything from OCD to depression.
If they are a minority, they cannot be defined as typical. That'd be a contradiction.
The use of "NT" (I presume it abbreviates "neurotypical") amuses me. I work in molecular psychiatry, and one of the debates in the field is over whether or not "neurotypical" even exists--that is, whether or not any single person can even qualify as "neurotypical" across the board.
You cannot deny that a primarily social configuration is predominant. Nor can it be denied that a majority of people fall within certain accepted limits of behavior, focus, and cognition--if they didn't, such limits never would have been quantified in the first place. That's what neurotypical refers to.
You are asking whether or not normal exists essentially, and if normal does not exist then there is no basis to deviate things from normal. If you fall within certain limits of normality then you are normal.
It is certainly easier than saying non-autistic.
If You Say That It Should Be "NA"
I don't say "neurotypical" because I think it's demeaning to people without autism or AS. I think a term like that makes it too easy for us to think of them as some homogenous block of not-people, which we can hate or despise with impunity.