Jump to content

Talk:Neurodiversity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avenue (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 29 January 2019 (→Rights movements: fix my typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Neurodiversity

Moved from User talk:SandyGeorgia.

Dear SandyGeorgia:

Thank you for monitoring the Neurodiversity article. You removed most of the Evaluative Diversity section as "off topic" because it has its own article. I appreciate edits, but please do not remove so much--it is not off topic: on the contrary, evaluative diversity may be the most important form of neurodiversity. 24.177.114.22 (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluative diversity has its own article, so does not need to be re-examined in depth at neurodiversity. Unless, if as you say, Evaluative diversity is the most important form of neurodiversity, then one of them should be merged to the other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will make a fuss about fairness if the topic of evaluative diversity is not considered on par with that of the autism movement which is another subset of neurodiversity and discussed in depth in the neurodiversity article despite having its own article. Evaluative diversity research makes significant contributions to our understanding of neurodiversity, so I think the neurodiversity article should include the following cited facts (though feel free to better phrase them):
  • Neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity) has been shown mathematically and empirically to have social value.
Weisberg, Michael; Muldoon, Ryan (2009). "Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor". Philosophy of Science. 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786.
Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2001). "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents". Journal of Economic Theory. 97: 123–163. doi:10.1006/jeth.2000.2709.
Wilde, Douglass J (1997). "Using student preferences to guide design team composition". Proceedings of DETC ’97. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
  • A survey of religious and philosophical doctrines finds all major doctrines to be on the side of neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).
Santos-Lang, Christopher (2014). "Moral Ecology Approaches to Machine Ethics". In van Rysewyk, Simon; Pontier, Matthijs (eds.). Machine Medical Ethics (PDF). Switzerland: Springer. pp. 111–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08108-3_8.
  • The impact of discrimination against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) was recently measured to outpace both classism and racism.
Haidt, Jonathan; Rosenberg, Evan; Hom, Holly (2003). "Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 33 (1): 1–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02071.x.
  • Bias against neurodiversity (as evaluativism) is implicit (i.e., we discriminate even when we try not to).
Mueller, Jennifer S.; Melwani, Shimul; Goncalo, Jack A. (2012). "The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire but Reject Creative Ideas". Psychological science. 23 (1): 13–17. doi:10.1177/0956797611421018.
  • Wage disparity has been found between certain neurological (evaluative) types.
Glomb, Theresa; Kammeyer-Mueller, John; Rotundo, Maria (2004). "Emotional labor demands and compensating wage differentials". Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (4): 700–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.700.
  • Conflicts over neurodiversity are inevitably political because diversity of political orientations comes from neurodiversity (as evaluative diversity).
Schreiber D1; et al. (2013). "Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans". PLoS ONE. 8 (2): e52970. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052970. PMC 3572122. PMID 23418419. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |author-separator= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author2= (help); Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Brandt, Mark; Reyna, Christine; Chambers, John; Crawford, Jarret; Wetherell, Geoffrey (2014). "The Ideological-Conflict Hypothesis Intolerance Among Both Liberals and Conservatives". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 23 (1): 27–34. doi:10.1177/0963721413510932.
These research achievements are tools and milestones for the neurodiversity movement. A neurodiversity article which lacked these citations would be incomplete. I also think it is important to diffuse the criticism that "neurodiversity" is poorly named: it is intended to refer to cognitive differences which happen to manifest neurologically in humans but manifest via other mechanisms in machines (i.e., what causes us to discriminate against people with Aspergers would also cause us to discriminate against artificial intelligences which lack empathy). Let's just admit that the name is historical, but may extend to computers as well. Langchri (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As just one (there are others) of the problems with the proposed text, PMID 23418419 is a primary source that shouldn't be cited anywhere on Wikipedia, and it never mentions the word neurodiversity (original research). Evaluative diversity probably needs cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to add secondary sources. Do you agree that these ideas belong in this article? Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Langchri: Are these comments about articles on the science, or the social movements? Confusing the two is clearly not going to lead to good articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LeadSongDog: Thanks for teaching me to ping--that's useful! If you were researching the neurodiversity movement for a school report, you might turn to this article, and your teacher might expect you to report on both the history of the movement and whether you think it is likely to grow in the future, so you would want this article to include answers to questions like, "What evidence can you cite that neurodiversity is valuable?" and "What measurements have been made so far of discrimination on the basis of neurotype?" If the science has been done, then I think this article should indicate that it exists (and how to find it)--That's our goal: to make a useful encyclopedia.
The other part of what was removed (not copied above) was to mention evaluative diversity as a form of neurodiversity and link to the article (much as this article treats autism). I have not been able to find any sources indicating that there is any controversy over whether neurodiversity includes evaluative diversity--I think anyone familiar with both terms would think it does. Both terms are relatively new, so it is not surprising that we find no source that uses both, but we do find sources which contain both concepts: My original addition included: "Simon Baron-Cohen concluded that discrimination against Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism can be mere discrimination against evaluative diversity (e.g., against evaluation not swayed by empathy)."Baron-Cohen, Simon (2000). "Is Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism necessarily a disability?". Development and Psychopathology. 12 (3): 489–500. doi:10.1017/s0954579400003126. It also included sources to support the claim that evaluative diversity includes the disparity between evaluation that is swayed by empathy and not swayed by empathy, and other sources are already cited to indicate that neurodiversity includes Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism. Langchri (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but does that address my question? LeadSongDog come howl! 01:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LeadSongDog: you asked if the removed material was about the science or the social movement. The part about evaluative diversity being a form of neurodiversity is not about the science. The other statements are about scientific achievements which are milestones for the movement. ...so both parts are about the movement. Langchri (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Langchri, from your recent edits at Evaluative diversity, it appears that a review of WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS may be helpful. For example, the entire sections on Genetics and Neurological in that article are also based on primary sources, without a single secondary review used. I am not interested in doing the cleanup over there, but this article has long been kept correctly sourced. Before adding content to this article, please be sure you understand sourcing policy and guidelines on Wikipedia, and please be sure to use sources that are actually about the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a new issue: the author of most of the published information on Evaluative diversity appears to be a Christopher Santos-Lang, while the main editor of the Evaluative diversity article is a Wikipedia editor, Langchri, raising the issue of WP:COI, in addition to copyvio issues surrounding this source, mentioned at Talk:Evaluative diversity by Langchri as being published before the Wikipedia article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the complaint just about primary sources, or about something deeper? Any works citing the sources named above would qualify (by definition) as secondary research, and Google Scholar reports many such works, so it seems easy to resolve the source concern by substituting those other sources. I would be happy to do that work and re-post, but my intention is to be helpful, rather than combative, so please tell me upfront whether that would be interpreted as an attack.
I thought the Baron-Cohen article is a notable reliable published secondary source making the argument that it would be better to protect people who have Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism from discrimination without actually forcing them to get diagnosed and labelled, but that such protection would be impossible without preventing discrimination against people on the basis of how they conduct the evaluative aspect of decision-making. In other words, preventing evaluativism should be a goal of the neurodiversity movement. That would make the evaluative diversity article relevant here. If the community here thinks this misrepresents the neurodiversity movement, however, I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here. I can understand why people who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement might serve as editors here, and I am not trying to compete with that. Langchri (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This concern is about COI, keeping article correctly cited and using due weight, but has also now become also about helping you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have you reviewed WP:MEDRS? This sample shows how sources are used incorrectly, generating synthesis and original research. The sample above on this talk page is another. You may find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches to be helpful.

The Baron-Cohen article is a secondary review; if it ever uses the term "Evaluative divesity" or "neurodiversity", please provide those quotes here. Otherwise, the use of that article in discussing "evaluative diversity" is synth/OR. "I will let the neurodiversity movement better define itself outside Wikipedia before posting any connection here" is always the way Wikipedia works; Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources have already published. Doing otherwise is original research. "[P]eople who want to shape the identity of the neurodiversity movement", or any other movement, should not be using Wikipedia for advocacy. Wikipedia should not be used to advance original thoughts or ideas, and should not be used for advocacy; it reports what reliable sources have already covered.

See WP:NPOV and WP:V; from what I can tell, you have cited Christopher Santos-Lang in quite a few articles, in ways that appear to be original research, [1] as was happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not explanation tells us that we are allowed to explain a source in other terms. We are allowed to use the terms "neurodiversity" and "evaluative diversity" to explain what a source says, even if the source does not contain those terms. The question is whether the explanation is accurate, not whether it contains certain keywords. An accurate explanation of a cited source does not qualify as original research.
Baron-Cohen wrote: "This article challenges the received view through a subtle but important shift of emphasis. Rather than conceiving of autism as a deficiency, it instead considers if autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style. ...this small shift could mean the difference between whether the diagnosis of autism is received as a family tragedy, akin to being told that the child has some other severe, life-long illness like diabetes or haemophilia, or whether the diagnosis of autism is received as interesting information, akin to being told that the child is right or left-handed. In this millennium special issue of Development and Psychopathology, the intention is to highlight this as an issue for the agenda." Is it accurate to explain the article as "written by a prominent autism researcher to advance the neurodiversity movement"?
The Baron-Cohen article can be found at http://www.larry-arnold.net/Neurodiversity/Mission/disability.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Langchri (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't seem to understand Wikipedia policies: no, it would not be accurate to draw our own conclusion about what Baron-Cohen meant. It would be even less accurate to describe him in this article as a "prominent autism researcher"; we don't need puffery. Either something is sourced or it's not, and we don't need to puff it up. Anyway, Baron-Cohen never mentioned neurodiversity, and the evidence that even you seem to be unclear on exactly what he meant is that text opposing what is being advanced here was removed from Evaluative diversity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rights movements

The article says that there are many facets and that autistic rights are the most prominent but the ONLY specific group it talks about are autistic rights activists. Possibly since it's an article about neurodiversity in general, not just autism, there should be sections on activists for other disorders? such as ADHD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia... I don't even know if those have rights groups but if they do they should be added or at least linked to. 50.129.99.10 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no organized rights movement for ADHD, bipolar and other mood disorders, dyslexia, dyspraxia, schizophrenia spectrum, sociopathy or any other atypical psycho/neurology other than autism spectrum. The idea of neurodiversity is inclusive but it seems like only autism spectrum gets a specific movement. Clr324 (say hi) 08:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome to the "See also" section for the moment. I think it would be useful to summarise the relevant parts of that article in this one, to show neurodiversity rights movements are not restricted to autism. --Avenue (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neurological vs psychological

Should the first sentence be edited to say "neurological and psychological conditions?" Or should it remain as it because most people in the movement use neuroscience-based language and not psychology-based language (and besides everything psychological results from material processes in the brain, materialism of the mind is the scientific consensus). Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems like most of what neurodiversity covers, with the exception of Down syndrome and narcolepsy which are sometimes included, is covered under psychiatry and psychology so I guess that is worth remembering. Ms. Andrea Carter here (at your service) 05:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ND and the Anti-Psychiatry movement

A paragraph or two from an expert specifically concerning the degree and extent of the connexion of this movement, if any, to the anti-psychiatry movement (qv) as in Szasz et al would be helpful in giving further context, I believe. If there are indeed distinct factions or tendencies within the Neurodiversity movement, a brief overview thereof would also be helpful. What I have read and heard over the years points to the movement being a big tent including people from most of the US, Latin American, Australian, Canadian, British, and Continental European political spectra and such movements as Objectivism, palaeoconservatism, followers of Michel Foucault, anarchism Left and Right, people with religious objections and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.103 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A precursor of the sentiment

No idea if this is worth mentioning, but in the Jargon File ESR writes, apparently in about 2000 (or, judging from the timestamp, at the end of 2003 at the latest):

"Many hackers have noticed that mainstream culture has shown a tendency to pathologize and medicalize normal variations in personality, especially those variations that make life more complicated for authority figures and conformists. Thus, hackers aware of the issue tend to be among those questioning whether ADD and AS actually exist; and if so whether they are really ‘diseases’ rather than extremes of a normal genetic variation like having freckles or being able to taste DPT."

This certainly foreshadows the core idea of the neurodiversity movement (questioning or denying the stance that conditions like ADHD and Asperger's are inherently pathological), which was only forming at the time. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Blume's work seems to cover this core idea, though, and was earlier (late 1990s). "NT [neurotypical] is only one of many neurological configurations -- the dominant one certainly, but not necessarily the best." (Blume, 1997) --Avenue (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neurodiversity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neurodiversity&oldid=880767225"