The neurodivergent label was always incredibly stupid though. It's an entire movement trying to make it sound that having a pathological condition is fashionable. Something like a super quirky, human difference, as opposed to a health problem. Even though the condition is defined in the context of reduced functioning in society. OPs site is a good example of that flawed line of thinking.

The bigger issue is that the various illnesses under the "neurodivergent" umbrella have wide differences in impact. So you might get people who function in society and others who can't do anything. The former of which wants to make it some quirky personality trait. They both still have the condition though...

▲

spider-mario 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

^ Bulverism.

> Even though the condition is defined in the context of reduced functioning in society.

Diagnostic criteria are not a definition. Even the organisation that publishes the DSM acknowledges it: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250876

> Mental disorders are clearly not “natural kind” categories that can be defined using polythetic symptom checklists, which assume that a symptom can only be “present” or “absent” (9). In fact, it is debatable whether any medical conditions have this property. […] Thus, clinicians use the DSM framework not as the final word on psychiatric nosology but rather as one tool among others for treatment selection and communication with patients and families (11, 12).

In fact, in the case of autism, and if autism is conceptualised as a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference, the criteria logically can’t be the definition since they reference “current functioning”, which could go one way or the other for the same person depending on their circumstances.

▲

TheGoddessInari 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This kind of reaction is exactly why the ISNT page appeared in 1998.

▲

stephbook 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's understandable though. Would you like to think of yourself as deficient, even if you really are?

	▲	benj111 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But you're kind of missing the point. If you were immensely intelligent to the point that most of the population found your ground breaking insight boring. Would you think you were deficient? Or different? What would others think of you? If they don't appreciate your immense intelligence they'd just think you're boring because you talk about random maths nonsense. Is the $SPORT fan that insists on discussing sport, in a group where no one else likes sport 'deficient'? What about the non $SPORT fan in a group of fans who insist on discussing the latest game?

▲

ozlikethewizard 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a health problem though. Neurodivergency (christ I hate that word) is far more prevalent than you'd expect, particularly ASD and ADHD, some 20% of the population. These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.

▲

neuroticnews25 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you think there was ever a time when systemizing type thinking was more beneficial than now?

▲

dofm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.

I mean, quite apart from the fact that you can be so profoundly autistic that you are vulnerable and cognitively limited, and so profoundly ADHD that you are incapable of keeping yourself safe.

I am as yet formally undiagnosed ADHD; it is obvious, so obvious to me that either I am in later life finally unable to blunder through with the ADHD patterns that are evident throughout my life, or I have early onset dementia (which is how severe it often feels).

It is in no way society's fault that I am impaired. I have no special talents from my condition that other people with better time management could not also have acquired (and often do, better than me).

There may be a benefit to society from my profound inability to manage time leading to me productively hyperfocussing on something that society wants, but this comes at a cost to my health.

So I don't really care for the idea that these traits might "select"; it is a disorder.

▲

danparsonson 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sorry for your struggles. Not to speak to your specific experience but in evolutionary terms there are other ways to look at neurodivergence besides the challenges: https://complementarycognition.co.uk/

Hyperfocus for example can be highly beneficial if you manage to point it in the right direction, and in general neurodivergence tends to specialise either into explorers or exploiters, that is, those who are good at exploring the space of possible solutions, and those who are good at applying a specific solution to solve the problem at hand. Such skills can be problematic in isolation (as you've described), but in combination can be very powerful and could've therefore been instrumental to our past success as a species.

I understand this is not much comfort for an individual who is struggling, but I second the GP in saying that many modern societies are not setup to provide the best environment for the neurodivergent among us to thrive, to the detriment of everyone.

	▲	dofm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Hyperfocus for example can be highly beneficial if you manage to point it in the right direction If you have the social support to cope with the costs of hyperfocus: forgetting to complete other tasks, losing track of broader priorities, and the risk of burnout. Hyperfocus is dysregulation. It just looks productive to everyone so we trick ourselves into thinking it is a benefit. But it is stealing from your present (other tasks you are neglecting) or your future (burnout). People who can manage their time can generally get the same work done in actually a similar span of time without the downsides. Take a bit longer maybe but then won’t have days of being distracted or exhausted or ill. Viewed over any longer span of time it is clear that hyperfocus is not really a benefit to the brain with ADHD.

▲

ozlikethewizard 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you not think that if your life consisted of chasing a gazelle once or twice a week you'd be suited to it? Evolutionary timelines are long.

▲

dofm 10 hours ago | parent [-]

More suited to it than others? No.

There is no upside to what I experience.

The genes for ADHD and autism survive because their consequences do not kill all their bearers before they get a chance to breed.

The appalling thing for me is that I have spent my life telling myself there are upsides; I have now reached an age and a set of life experiences where it is very clear there never were.

	▲	benj111 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can accept yourself though, which seems to be the important element. If you can't walk you have a disability, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't live a fulfilling life. I do have Autism, rather than ADHD, so I appreciate we probably have different viewpoints on this.

▲

danaris 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is absolutely untrue.

Sure, there are autistic and ADHD traits that are primarily a problem because of the structure of our modern society.

But just you try being severely ADHD, and ending up with your yogurt going bad on the counter and growing mold because your clutter blindness made you not notice it was there for 3 weeks. Or you start reading a good book, and 10 hours later you realize that you haven't had anything to eat all day, and neither has your cat. Or you just literally cannot force yourself to do basic household chores, and because you're undiagnosed you don't know why, and your roommates/significant other just decide you're lazy and selfish and kick you out.

There are plenty of neurodivergent traits that have never been net-positive, regardless if they have some specific evolutionary reason for existing. (We don't even know that they do; they may just come along for the ride with the other traits. We don't yet understand the neurophysiology of these conditions well enough to say to what extent they're just knock-on effects of something deeper.)