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)

POV

The use of the word "neurotypical" represents a particular point of view. I believe this article should be re-cast as being about the word rather than about people referred to by the word. I may do this if there are no objections —Ashley Y 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not, actually. Neurotypical refers to those who have no neurological "disorders." It's really quite an objective term. Rogue 9 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

it's NOT an objective term. It's just a politically correct newspeak substitute for the good old plain NORMAL. Insert NORMAL everywhere and you will get the same results as for "neurotypical". It's just hypocrisy. Like "homosexual" and "heterosexual": that is objective terminology. But "homosexual" and "sexotypical" would NOT be. And by the way, neurotypical WOULD be objective, if it would INCLUDE every abberation and not be their opposite. Did I make myself clear? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as this article states that the word "neurotypical" is used by autistics to refer to those who do not have autism, it is useful. The article's focus, however, on what seems to be an internet joke gives it a particular slant. It's fine if autistics who feel they have been the butt of jokes want to tease back, but this is not the place. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an internet joke. Verditer (not signed in) 68.115.93.208 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists?

One of the paragraphs in the article refers to the term 'neurotypical' coming from a group of people on a 'list'. Forgive my ignorance, but could someone who knows what this term refers to please add a short definition to the article, or a relevent wikilink? cheers Harriseldon 14:27, 10 April 2006 (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)

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)

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)

ADHD as Autism?

I would be very interested to see references for the statement:

'ADHD has sometimes been considered to be a form of autism'.

I have come across much information that says they often occur together, but never that one is a form of the other. Amanita 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

a link with reference to this: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html

Citation needed tags

There seems to be some confusiong over this. By adding a fact tag I am not saying that I believe the sentence is false, just that it is the sort of thing which needs a citation in order to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. If a statement is doubtful then I would use the verify source tag instead as that is what should be used for doubtful statements which are not harmful. Raoul 11:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific mention of autistic humour needed?

Would it be useful to state that the term is used both in serious contexts (such as in published books by "autism experts"), and is also used in satire by autistics such as ISNT and this newer parody of psychiatric definition of autism and normality http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html "Neurotypical Disorder" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.174.130 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

"Neurologically"?

I'll say right away I know zero about this topic -- I saw the word used somewhere so I looked it up -- but "It is a portmanteau of the words neurologically and typical" sounds wrong. Why "neurologically"? . . . why not "neurology" and "typical"? Or probably more correctly, why not simply note that the prefix "neuro" refers to the nervous system? I'm not editing the article itself because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject, but as written it just doesn't sound right, and if it's not someone ought to make a change.69.250.29.200 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed the sentence. Raoul 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallel thinking type -- a more Neutral POV

It seems that there is support in the Aspie community for the notion that Asperger Syndrome is not a pathological form of "neurotypicalism", but rather an alternate and parallel type of thought-processing stlye -- so, Aspies use the term neurotypical to convey that notion (i.e., the term isn't simply a way to be peevish).

If the notion has any merit, then there should be a list here of characteristics that distinguish Ntypical-style thought processes from Aspie-style thought processes.

For example, Ntypicals are more empathizing, while Aspies are more analytical; Ntypicals more intuiting, while Aspies more systemizing. The way the two thinking-types gather and synthesize information may be qualitatively different…? Or the way the two groups are motivated may be different, e.g., Ntypicals are more externally motivated compared to the more internally motivated Aspie…?

If Aspergers and Ntypicalism are parallel, then perhaps psychopathy is the extreme form of Ntypical thinking style, as autism is an extreme form of the Aspie thinking style…?

Looking for sources…

--Renice 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thinking more about this... I think the notion that this article represents is important. Asperger's as a neurodivergent-minority method of processing information can only be shown by explaining the data-processing method of the neurodivergent majority. Doing so will also illuminate the NT mindblindness that causes NTs to pathologize the AS thought-processing style.

--Renice 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got it! Asperger's is not an "extreme male mind"; rather, TESTOSTERONE makes the Aspie male mind more obnoxious (according to social norms), just as it makes the NT male mind more obnoxious!! This is the start of a proof of why AS and NT are 2 divergent thought-processing styles!

Testosterone is why there's a sex difference, save for those behaviors deemed culturally acceptable.

--Renice 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific focus

I submitted this article for AfD earlier today since it seemed to be nothing more than a dicdef about a wacky neologism used by autistic people to describe non-autistic people, rife with original research. I withdrew my AfD after several people found legitimate sources using the term in a real scientific context. However I think the article needs to be seriously rewritten to focus on the scientific concept and the issues at hand, rather than on the term itself and use as a tongue-in-cheek epithet. Krimpet 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. --Kizor 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Super-NTs"?

I have seen the term "super-NT" used very frequently to refer to people with extreme Neurotypical traits and was wondering if this should be added to this article. If so, what kind of reference or source should be cited for something like this? I'm assuming that just any old forum or blog post is NOT acceptable. --Luai lashire 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms

I removed the "neologism" tag because neurotypical is in fairly common use in the scholarly literature nowadays. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008 (PMID 18435849), Cashin 2008 (PMID 18269411), Shafritz et al. 2008 (PMID 17916328), and Stieglitz et al. 2008 (PMID 17665296). Eubulides (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Windows NT?

Is it true, or just an urban legend that Windows NT (tm) has been named after "neurotypical" because the majority of the programmers at Microsoft are in fact autists (above all Bill Gates)and wanted to make fun of their normal "neurotypical" customers? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows NT was released before the word neurotypical was invented. Eubulides (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin

I don't know how/where to include it well in the text, but it might be useful to add a piece about why people came up with the word.

It is used by 'the' autistic community because the words like normal would imply that the people in the community are not normal with all negative meaning/sound. That they are different is true, but the negative sound to it is what is disliked, and therefore someone got up with the NT term.

77.168.156.173 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This disagrees with the first source cited, Sinclair 1998, which says "However, members of the ANI community are well aware that within the context of humans-in-general, we are not normal. It is not considered insensitive or pejorative to acknowledge this fact. Most of us don’t mind not being normal and would not want to be normal. We appreciate being acknowledged for what we are." Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Neurological Conditions and NT

Can there please be some discussion in the article about how people with other neurological conditions (hydrocephalus, aphasia, epilepsy, the rest of Category:Neurological disorders) are supposed to be situated with regard to this label? If it's purely a binary, NT/n-NT, meaning "on the autism spectrum/not", then these other people are "neurotypical", but can we say that people with epilepsy, for instance, are neurotypical, in the sense of having the standard brain structure and/or mode of function as neurosicence defines them? No. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will have trouble finding sources on that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And therefore the issue shouldn't be raised? Even the most lay of scientific laypeople know there's more to neurology than the autism spectrum. The implicit argument this term makes, that people post stroke have "neurologically typical" brains doesn't hold water. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WIthout sources on such a thing the point is moot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The word neurotypical was coined by an autistic to make it easier to refer to all non-autistic people with a single word instead of having to say "people who don't have autism or Asperger's" or an ambiguous label like "normals". It's possible that, at the time, she didn't think it would ever catch on among the wider medical/psychiatric community and the strangeness of referring to people with Down's, epilepsy, etc, as neurotypicals wasn't really an issue. We could write into the article a sentence that emphasizes that Down's/epileptics/etc are still considered neurotypical if you think that that would make it clearer. I believe the sources that we have explicitly define it that way, although the first link is dead and the second requires a subscription to Wiley Scientific in order to read. —Soap— 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead Links

A lot of the references on this page are dead. Tydoni (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)