Terminology

As this forum is primarily for autistic people and their families, it would be more straightforward and sensible to use the term ‘autistic’ when referring to autistic people, and call other conditions by their names such as ‘ADHD’, ‘Dyslexia’ and so on. 

I sometimes find it difficult to follow long threads with lots of content when terms are used interchangeably.

Some time ago, I posted that my pet peeve was the confusion between neurodiversity and neurodivergence. Perhaps I should add that I am also irritated by the use of 'spectrum' in this context. Perhaps it is because once upon a time I was an astronomer, but to me the word 'spectrum' very strongly conveys the notion of a continuum (from low to high frequency, etc.). But our autistic (or other neurodivergent) experiences can't be pinpointed somewhere on a continuum. For example, my usual experience might be (badly) described as very much at the 'high functioning' end. But what about when I have a shutdown and become more or less completely non-verbal? The idea of a constellation of traits has been suggested as an alternative. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it does convey the sense of the spikiness of our experiences.

I'm with Bunny and B on this one Iain - but don't want to be ganging up so perhaps it might help to consider what the terms are most usefully employed to indicate and then work from that?

I think a point might be to acknowledge that there are many representations of the terminology out there (including the one that haven school uses and dictionaries) however the most useful is to discriminate as 

Bunny said:

Humans are neurodiverse.
Autistic people are neurodivergent.
Autism is a form of neurodivergence.

The key difference is that diversity is about variety within a whole, whereas divergence is about separation or increasing difference between elements. 

In the context of autism and the broader neurodiversity movement, neurodiversity refers to the natural variation of all human brains, while neurodivergence describes the specific state of an individual whose brain functions in a way that diverges from the "typical" societal norm. 

I would like to straight out ask you please, do you accept these definitions for autism as you personally identify with it or not?

If you do then the discussion seems to be settled and we might then all go about clarifying autism to those who misrepresent it in their use of terminology.

If you don't that is of course up to you :-)

However... if you do not accept this definition please be prepared to consider that those for whom it is important will continue to provide evidence and reasons for why you might change your mind.

Also to ultimately ask you why, in the presence of evidence and reasons presented, that you do not?

Iain said:

Even when a word is accepted with a definition there can be groups who want to change the meaning for some agenda. You will see this around the word neurodiverse one this thread and on a few others. All the dictionary sites I check say one thing but they insist it should mean something different. 

You are continuing to misuse “neurodiverse” because you are still fundamentally misunderstanding:

• the neurodiversity paradigm, from which the word comes, and
• the nature of modern dictionaries 

As I explained earlier in this thread, modern dictionaries do not “insist” or claim to prescribe what any word “should mean”. Instead, acting like a mirror, they reflect how people are using words, including when words are used incorrectly by enough people for it to be considered significant usage.

The dictionary entry that you (misleadingly) only partly quoted in one of your earlier replies, for example, therefore included two definitions: one that is the accurate meaning, and one that is an inaccurate meaning, which reflects widespread misuse (including by you).

It is the neurodiversity movement, not dictionaries, that defined the intended and correct meaning of “neurodiverse”.

As Judy Singer explains in her article (per my earlier reply): neurodiverse describes a space, not a person or condition(s).

The correct usage is reflected in the NAS’s guidance, which includes:

Neurodiversity includes every single human being.

It is common for words related to neurodiversity to be misused. For example, people might say ‘Autistic people are neurodiverse’ when they mean ‘Autistic people are neurodivergent’.

Examples of accurate phrases include:

Humans are neurodiverse.
Autistic people are neurodivergent.
Autism is a form of neurodivergence.

NAS - Autism and neurodiversity

You linked above to Wikipedia’s article on neurodiversity. I encourage you to read the full article, which confirms how and why neurodivergent is the right word to use.

We all benefit from promoting accurate understanding and use of the basic language around our condition, whereas misuse of it fundamentally undermines the neurodiversity paradigm.

I don't understand what you mean by the quote. Can you elucidate please?

B said:

You are mixing up neurodivergency with neurodiversity.

ND = neurodivergent. 

https://www.havernschool.org/blog/navigating-the-alphabet-soup-understanding-neurodiversity-acronyms

ND (Neurodivergent/Neurodiversity)

Iain said:

The spectrum concept applies to ND as well but it means something a bit different

You are mixing up neurodivergency with neurodiversity.

ND = neurodivergent. 

The spectrum concept applies to ND as well but it means something a bit different. From en.wikipedia.org/.../Neurodiversity:

The neurodiversity paradigm is a framework for understanding human brain function that considers the diversity within sensory processing, motor abilities, social comfort, cognition, and focus as neurobiological differences. This diversity falls on a spectrum of neurocognitive differences

The terminology is still evolving and is often misunderstood so it is not surprising that some references may be out of date, written by someone who wants to promote a specific agenda or is simply misinformed.

Even when a word is accepted with a definition there can be groups who want to change the meaning for some agenda. You will see this around the word neurodiverse one this thread and on a few others. All the dictionary sites I check say one thing but they insist it should mean something different. 

Even the word spectrum can be confusing as many people think of a linear spectrum when autism is more of a circular or even spherical spectrum when you factor in the traits, intensities and impacts.

I think it best not to get too caught up on absolutes as it seems there is always someone who has a different absolute definition to you and arguing is not going to make you any more (or less) right about a slightly plastic concept.

I have recently read here 'ND spectrum'.

It isn't.

It's an autism spectrum.

Misophonia is new to me:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04vx47gx91o

I suspect that rather a lot of us have this although I assume it wouldn't be diagnosed separately, but who knows?

ArchaeC said:

Also, some non-autistic people may have reached the threshold for an autism diagnosis in one area, but not another. We can’t possibly know what they are experiencing.

Yes, I don't see it as a 'them and us' situation as there will be lots of shades of grey in between 'NTs' and 'NDs'.

I simply can't sum up the characteristics of an NT.

B said:

I don't know how to tell who these people are and I don't know them well if at all so I don't know, for example, if they may have just one condition that's not obvious but still makes them ND.

I don’t know who these people are either, and I also don’t know what many neurodivergent people (who are autistic with one or more other neurodivergent conditions/or are not autistic) are experiencing. Also, some non-autistic people may have reached the threshold for an autism diagnosis in one area, but not another. We can’t possibly know what they are experiencing. Most of us are limited to our experience of what other people around us tell us, or reading about some aspects of their experience in books or online research papers.We can’t accurately base our knowledge on that.

B said:

I much prefer the use of the opposite of each condition eg. autism -v- allistic as it's not a generalisation but a specific term.

I prefer to use the specific term too.

I'm glad to hear that.

Wib said:

I think a lot of people would benefit from reading !!

I agree.  I've learnt about this from members here in the past.

I just wanted to say I read the article you linked in your post it was very good and interesting read that I think a lot of people would benefit from reading !!

When people ask questions about NTs (in general) I find that difficult to reply to.

My understanding of a neurotypical is that they are not neurodivergent ie they aren't autistic, don't have tourettes, ADHD or any of the other 'conditions' listed.

I don't know how to tell who these people are and I don't know them well if at all so I don't know, for example, if they may have just one condition that's not obvious but still makes them ND.

For example, bipolar is being recognised now as neurodiverent so presumably people with bipolar aren't NT.  

How can I tell who, from the general population, doesn't have bipolar so therefore, how can I generalise when asked (especially here) about NTs?

I much prefer the use of the opposite of each condition eg. autism -v- allistic as it's not a generalisation but a specific term.

I think people should be able to refer to their own autism or neurodivergence as they like (as long as it isn't offensive) but I don't think terminology like that should be used to describe another person. I don't particularly like the term either and I wouldn't want someone to call me that.

Hehe to quote Steven Pinker " Thinking is on a lot of people's minds at the moment"

Pleased you can rest easier :-)   

The less stressed people like us are the better!

Thank you for your considered reply. 

Phased said:

The tricky thing may be that for a long time we have been "duped" for so long, our confidence and capability to decide which of these things are taking place might be reduced

That is the very thing that causes issues and for me, it is something that needs worked on continuously. I do agree that we are well placed to assess the evidence or lack of evidence for a “truth” or a “perceived truth”. Thought provoking stuff Phased I will rest easier tonight. 

PS I think that you communicate very well - just my opinion of course!

hehe I base that on our being able to communicate together without arguing - sharing the possibility that you or i might both be "stuck" in some ways and both of us are open to resolving this...