We like the word ‘neurodiversity’ for the reasons given on the brain.he homepage. But how should we talk about people? Is it OK to say someone is ‘neurodiverse’? Is that a meaningful word? If it’s useful to refer to people as ‘neurotypical’, how about saying others are ‘neurodifferent’? How close is that to sounding like ‘abnormal’? Ideas please!
June 24, 2007 at 11:54 pm
ford dealerships houston
July 24, 2007 at 3:32 pm
the use of neurodiverse depends on the context doesn’t it? if i am in the bank i might say ‘can you just check that number for me?’ and they will. i don’t need to say ‘i am a bit neurodiverse so i may have transcribed those numbers round the wrong way’. if i am in a meeting and i think i may have missed the point because what the person is saying seems to not make a lot of sense, i might say ‘can you say that a different way?’ or ’so are you saying….’ – i wouldn’t say ‘my neurodiversity is playing me up today, sounds daft what you are saying, but i could be wrong’….in the context of disablity support in a university, is neurodiverse a useful label for anyone?? often people who work in universities have neurodiverse tendencies don’t they?
January 18, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Amanda is right – it does depend on the context. Maybe words like ‘neurodiverse’ suit professionals more than the people concerned. Professionals (lecturers, learning support tutors) are concerned, of course, in a different way. The best ones want to make the university environment accessible to all; meanwhile they need language with which to talk about the diversity of students. Personally, I try to avoid the word ‘with’, as in ’students with dyslexia’, because it sounds like a disease. The noun ‘neurodiversity’ struck me as a useful shorthand and possibly more user-friendly than ’specific learning differences’, but the adjective ‘neurodiverse’ is more problematic. Maybe it still pathologises people. What does anyone else think?
June 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm
- no other comments, so excuse me if I make another observation. If a neurodiverse person wants to apply for adjustments on assessment methods or wants to apply for funding, then they will inevitably have to use the language of the university or the language of whoever acts as gatekeeper on the funding. And the use of language cascades from there. The ‘dyslexics’ have extra time, the ‘mental health’ might need to be in quiet room etc. In fact it is useful for non-neurodiverse students to adopt this language in order to avoid semi-public or public disclosures about health (eg fatigue due to hepatitis C, MS, cancer). If questioned about why in the ‘extra time’ room just say ‘I’m a bit dyslexic’.
I am not sure the Student Loan Company (about to take over admin of the Disabled Students Allowance) would know what to do with a student who described themselves as neurodiverse. I wonder what they would do with ‘medical evidence’ that cited ‘neurodiversity’ as an impairment and therefore likely to lead to disability and thus additional costs at uni? The requirement is for something recognisable to the lay person as medical evidence of some kind of uneven cognitive profile and preferably with some poor literacy scores (to be a compensated dyslexic is running a bit of a risk because someone might think that the dyslexia has no effect on studying) . They need ‘a dyslexia report’ or ‘an asperger’s diagnosis’. That language then gets used throughout the assessment process.
I would like to see ‘neurodiversity’ reports become an accepted piece of medical evidence for uni and funding purposes actually.
January 18, 2009 at 8:31 pm
My point continues the theme of labelling. We have many names, but what about them? I have long thought that ‘machine people’ hits the spot, certainly with the kind of bureaucratic inflexible thinking which makes me feel quite ill.
I’m not sure what to call the neurodiverse ragbag, though it’s the best name to date. What about: ‘Sorry, I’m a bit arty, could you print that out for me to look at later?’
January 18, 2009 at 8:49 pm
And can I start another topic? ‘Dyslexic’ (and all the related words) are of course seen almost exclusively by the general public as negative terms. It is hard to convince them of the positive side, without it sounding as though one was seeking to put a positive spin on something bad.
I was looking again at one of the classics of european literature, the Little Prince (Le Petit Prince) by Antoine de St Exupery. For those who don’t know it, it was published posthumously in 1944, after his plane went into the sea. It is a sad, mysterious book, exploring the otherness in children, which as adults we grow out of. It looks at first like a children’s book, but it is quite profound writing. Very easy to read, and it has pictures! Anyway, I suddenly realised that it articulates beautifully the neurodiverse mind. The number of pointers is extraordinary, and I won’t bore people with them here, as you probably have not read it yet (though everyone in France knows it).
It’s not a long book. Please try to read it. See what you think – does it speak for you?
February 28, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I love your site!
_____________________
Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!
May 27, 2009 at 11:39 am
I have just got back to my research/writing/presenting work in the area of specific learning difficulties after a summer of supporting people with problems resulting from various differences – some acquired from drug abuse or dysfunctional upbringing. I am struggling with the aspects of my own SpLDness and self describing… neurodiverse is good as it short cuts ‘i have assessments of dyslexia, dyspraxia, ADD or (or ADHD if hormonally imbalanced at a given time!). I agree with David on the contexual aspects. a friend of mine describes me and her son as being ’special people’ – that’s a nice label for anyone to have!
On another note, I am glad that I have been told I am eligible for ‘access to work’ benefits to help with my selfemployment support needs – if i hadn’t had my assessments and DSA (and thus my labels) at university I guess I wouldnt get that..
I have really enjoyed reading your comments and find it helpful to chat to others in the same arena so to speak. i’ll check the book out too.
August 25, 2009 at 6:31 pm
It seems to me that if we use neuro diversity we don’t need neuro typical. Surely being typical is just one kind of diversity!