Talk:Neurotypical

I'm

I'm sorting stubs and I ran across this article. It seems fairly filled out so I went ahead and removed the stub tag Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

I am concerned with the neutrality of the following statement:

Neurotypicals tend to have more trouble understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with autistics, than most autistics have understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with NTs. Autistics are usually able to interact with other autistics as well as NTs interact with other NTs.

Q0 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it isn't a neutral POV. Not only is this 'fact' completely unfounded, but it could be argued that autists would have more or less trouble depending on the topic of interest, especially with other autists, as they might just ignore the other, eventually provoking a reaction. To some extent, the statement may be true, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for unfounded beliefs. And besides, what point does it try to make anyways? I doesn't seem as though it has to do with the topic at hand... So perhaps it should be removed. 1337 r0XX0r 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the theory of it goes like the following. There are an awful lot more neurotypicals than autistics, so autistics get a lot more experience of communicating with neurotypicals than most neurotypicals do with communicating with autistics. As a result, autistics end up better able to understand, etc, neurotypicals than most neurotypicals are able to understand autistics. It's as if there are a few Martians living here on Earth: they have a lot more experience of Earthlings than most Earthlings have of Martians! Whether or not it really is the case that autistics are better at understanding neurotypicals than the other way around, I do not know. But I do understand that theory behind that idea. --Simon G Best 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's less that we understand NTs better, and more that the onus is placed on us to bridge the inter-neurotype communication gap, via masking. Autistic people tend to have a lot of experience translating their communication style into a neurotypical-friendly format, even before realising they're autistic, whereas neurotypical people tend not to have much if any experience of translating their communication style into an autistic-friendly format. As Simon correctly points out above, the onus is always placed on a minority to assimilate into the majority's standards. Foreigners (in his example, aliens) learn the native language, you know, unless they're imperialists. ZoeB (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent definition

It seems a little nonsensical to start the article with one definition, then several paragraphs later explain that in recent times it usually has a different definition. It would make far more sense to define it at the beginning of the article as "without mental illness or disability" and make a reference to the "non-autistic" definition as an origin. The word "allistic" has pretty much entirely replaced neurotypical as a term for "non-autistic", it's not really a relevant definition anymore. 129.10.29.29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent hours reading up on this, "Neurotypical" can only reliably be defined as "not autistic", and this seems to encompass it's current technical (scientific) usage. I have been reading many recent scientific studies (mostly into autistic children) and alternatives are often "typically developing" or TD, never allistic. Aspergers etc often use NNT (non neurotypical) to describe themselves also, not "neurodivergent", at least offline. But word usage within a group is cultural, which has a tendency to shift over time, hence it's current usage having migrated to within the scientific community (though many Neurologists, understandably, hate the word). The interesting thing about this is that dividing humanity into two halves - NT and NNT is a typical example of "splitting" or black and white thinking. Which is typical autistic or defensive thinking. No one seems to have noted this thus far. I wonder if I should note this under "reception", though a reference may be tricky to find. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that's not right at all. The very early definitions were mostly about people who were not 'autistics or cousins'. That clearly included some people with, for example, dyspraxia, SCD or ADHD. By now it has a long history of excluding people with other neurodevelopental differences. Nick Walker's widely cited basic terms and conditions was first published in 2014 (and more recently in her book Neuroqueer Heresies). There are many other sources on this, e.g. the free online book Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement, published by Palgrave Macmillan.
I've been very active in autistic communities for about seven years now, in person in the UK and online, and somewhat active for decades before that, and I don't believe I've ever come across 'NNT'.
The NT/ND split has never been truly binary. I think it's widely understood in autistic and other neurodivergent communities that it doesn't divide humanity neatly in two; the fact that so many outside those communities have reacted against it as if it did is an intriguing example of NT black-and-white thinking. Oolong (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of a group that uses NNT regularly, but then I'm in Australia, also it may just be that group. So perhaps it's scientists mostly using the term in this binary fashion, more so than the autistic community then. OK, I stand corrected. Probably shouldn't read so much New Scientist etc. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectively biased article

This article is horribly biased. It is pseudo-scientific, giving a socio-political conotation to the expression. Can we agree that factually, "neurotypical" describes a hypothetical typical brain, in particular when one describes a neurological condition as a deviation from a typical brain? 77.189.67.68 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article reads like badly written "original research" and needs a complete rewrite IMO. While "neurotypical" is a flawed concept, it's widespread use in certain circles means that people will go looking it up, as they may have been called NT and would like to know what it means. "Allistic" is a better word, but I have to admit I rarely use it myself. NT is a great swearword :) 101.176.79.226 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting so woke 2600:1700:6730:E380:94C:2D76:E5DE:A5C8 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neurodiversity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge with a section redirect and improve; the merge on the grounds of NT being part of the ND spectum; antonym best discussed in context. Klbrain (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Neurotypical (NT) - after poorly-sourced content is removed - is merged into Neurodiversity (ND). The two articles have an overlapping scope (WP:MERGEREASON) - NT is part of the ND spectrum, and it's the antonym of neuroatypical (I'm using neuroatypical here to avoid confusion between neurodiverse and neurodiversity) which is the core of the ND concept. NT also requires the context of neurodiversity to be understood, and the ND article would benefit from an explanation of NT (WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:MERGEREASON). --Xurizuri (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be merged. I see your point about NT being a part of neurodiversity as a whole, but I don't know if that necessarily means it shouldn't have it's own page. If someone comes across the word neurotypical and searches wikipedia for it, would it be helpful for them to be redirected straight to a general article about the neurodiversity paradigm? Or would it be more helpful for them to reach a (probably fairly brief) article which explains the specific meaning of NT within the neurodiversity paradigm, and then refers to the general article for further details?
I definitely see that the article in its current state is flawed. And I think if NT is retained as a separate article, there should probably also be a corresponding standalone article for "neurodivergent" or "neuroatypical" as its antonym.
By analogy I'm imagining someone searching for the term "woman", and getting redirected to a page for "gender". Would that page really provide the information they were looking for in an accessible way? Although "woman" is a type of gender, it's a specific and defined type that's worth separating from the article about the concept of gender itself.
I tentatively agree with the merge proposal, as long as there is a specific section for both neurotypical and neurodivergent for those terms to redirect to. Averixus (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could achieve that by having it be a section, and having the article redirect to that section. And if there was barely anything written about women, then it should be under gender. For another example, neutrois redirects to non-binary gender. Regardless, a key difference is this: neurotypical, as a concept, exists only because we have the concept of neuroatypical. It is the lack of being neuroatypical (primarily, of not being autistic). Being a woman is not defined by not being a man (man as default concept notwithstanding). I tend to think of ND more in terms of personality (spectrums where a person is generally defined as having more or less of a trait), so I'll use some article examples from that topic. Take the traits of the Big Five, which is made up of 5 dimensions. Rather than having an article for each end of those spectrums, e.g. introversion and extraversion, we have one, Extraversion and introversion. Similarly, the other 4 dimensions - Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism - also discuss both ends of the spectrum. But, neither your nor my examples actually entirely fit, because not many things are genuinely similar. However, ND and NT complement each other, and an article would be more useful to a reader if it discussed both. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'll tentatively agree with this merge. Averixus (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging - NT should be its own section in the ND article, but I don't see the need or purpose of having it separate at this time. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging - I think making neurotypical a section in the neurodiversity article makes a lot of sense, but I would make sure that there is a forwarder that points to it for the word "neurotypical." Jmbranum (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is key. I've followed way too many Wikipedia redirects that took me to the top of a page that was not about what I was looking up, and sometimes didn't even mention it by name.
I'm ambivalent about the proposed merger: I think the concept of 'neurotypical' is important, and probably notable enough to warrant its own entry, much as Cisgender and Heterosexuality have their own entries. It also has a fairly interesting (and mildly contested) history: did it originate satirically with the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, or was it already in use in a less tongue-in-cheek way before it showed up there? The question of what exactly it means is still deceptively fraught, too; but then, Wikipedia tends not to be very good at covering controversies...
I do take @Xurizuri's arguments; less redundancy is often better, and it is true that the concepts of ND and NT pretty much rely on each other to make sense. Neurodiversity should explain the concept of 'neurotypical', and probably touch on 'neurominority' and 'neuronormativity' as well. As long as NT redirects straight to a dedicated section, I guess I'm not opposed to a merger. Oolong (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neurodivergent is the antonym of neurotypical. 5.206.216.179 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging - I agree with the points discussed, and acknowledge the concepts NT and ND do rely on each other to be meaningful. Although I consider the term NT to have special notability due to the prevalence of the term "non-neurotypical" as recently as 2021.[1][2][3] This reflects a lack of consensus, among at least academia, on which terms to use. I agree that there should be a more detailed summary style description of ND on this page.
I also think the merge appears more appropriate in part because the NT article currently lacks coverage on the etymology of the term. Compared to the Cisgender page, the NT page is missing an etymology and history section. Compared to the Heterosexuality page, the NT page is also lacking usage statistics and classification statistics, although to my knowledge there have been no papers published specifically considering such statistics. If the NT page already had such sections I think it would be more self-evident that a merge would not be appropriate.
One other somewhat-notable usage of the term in academia is to term a control group as neurotypical.[4]
[1] Kong, Michele. "What COVID-19 means for non-neurotypical children and their families." Pediatric Research 89.3 (2021): 396-397.
[2] Kong, Michele, and James Willig. "The 5-Es: a model for providing care for non-neurotypical patients." Pediatric Research 88.5 (2020): 686-687.
[3] Drzazga-Lech, Maja, and Maria Świątkiewicz-Mośny. "Analysis of media representations of non-neurotypical students in the context of support for people with autism spectrum disorders offered by polish state-owned universities. Sociological study." (2018).
[4] Salis, Christos, Nadine Martin, and Laura Reinert. "Sentence recall in latent and anomic aphasia: An exploratory study of semantics and syntax." Brain Sciences 11.2 (2021): 230. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger: I hear what Darcyisverycute is saying, but I think for the time being, a merger makes sense, as long as the term "Neurotypical" is explained adequately and the term "Neurotypical" remains as a re-direct.Historyday01 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. It is worth noting that the link to the "neurodiversity movement" in the first sentence goes to the autism rights movement page. Despite this, the neurotypical page makes mention of other learning disabilities: ADHD, dyslexia, etc.
The quintessential problem has less to do with context and more to do with outdated information in light of recent developments. Many adults with learning disabilities, ADHD primarily among them, have sought to identify themselves as "neurodiverse" and "neurodivergent" outside the autistic context, not to mention turning the concept into a social movement in the last couple years. Neurodiversity's page in its current form does little to discuss this development. Before any merger is to be considered, these developments have to be addressed. Brokenwit (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  checkY Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little surprised - I wasn't actively opposed to the merger, but that didn't look like a consensus to me?--Oolong (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neurotypical