This is a personal blog and contains my personal analysis and opinion from a quest. In this blog I am not talking about individual people but about a broader phenomenon that worries me.
It may be that there are people who do take this story personally and do not feel seen by this blog. Of course, that is by no means my intention. I want to discuss and question the broad phenomenon, in which people talk about ‘neurodiversity’ and/or ‘neurodivergence’.
Because I have been working on knowledge about giftedness (for 25 years now), I emphasize the fact that giftedness is increasingly included in the concept of neurodiverse. In addition to my general objections to the concept of neurodiversity, I think it is unfair that giftedness is included in this.
I think it is unfair that giftedness is included in the concept of neurodiversity,
Introduction
More and more often I read about the concept/concept of neurodiversity and/or neurodivergence. It strikes me that it is usually talked about and written about positively. I understand that from an individual perspective. People feel it as an acceptance of being ‘different’. And I think that aspect is very important. Everyone is allowed to be there, even with characteristics that do not occur often.
However, it strikes me that the concept is often taken up uncritically, while I have difficulty with it and worry about it.
In this blog, I investigate why I have difficulty with the concept of neurodiversity. My objections, as I have already said, are not about individual people, but about the phenomenon itself.
I find it difficult material. These are people with a vulnerability. I know a number of them myself and I certainly don’t want to hurt them. I agree with the objective of this movement (inclusion, combating stigmatization). But I am against using the term, because in my view it does not work as intended, and damage can even occur. I hope to indicate my objections with arguments in a clear and respectful way in this blog.
Meaning
The terms neurodiverse and neurodivergent are not identical, I know that. I didn’t find the explanation someone gave me about the difference clear and I wonder how others, say the general public, readers of newspapers for example, see that. In most expressions about this, the terms are therefore used interchangeably.
If you look up meanings of neurodiverse and neurodivergent in the online Van Dale, you will find these:
Neurodiverse: ‘Reacting differently to social stimuli than most people.’
Neurodivergent: ‘Deviating from the prevailing norm from the point of view of social and/or cognitive skills’.
So, if you are reading this, there is a difference in meaning, but I must honestly say that I find that difference quite complicated to explain. And I also see overlap. That explains why the terms are usually used interchangeably, except for the people who deal with this extensively.
In the following, I will use the terms interchangeably, knowing that this is not entirely justified.
History
The term ‘neurodiversity’ means that people differ in their response to social stimuli (Van Dale) and that happens (they say) on the basis of characteristics of their brains. Neurodiverse people include people with dyslexia, dyscalculia, AD(H)D, ASD. People who do not have such a diagnosis/classification (they talk about people with an average brain, but what is that?) are called neurotypical. The idea behind this is that what has often been seen as a disability so far can also (or even especially) turn out to be positive.
The concept of ‘neurodiversity’ was first published in 1998. Judy Singer, an Australian sociologist with a daughter and a mother with autism, and also on the autism spectrum herself, coined the term. She was inspired by the liberation movements of women and homosexuals. The American journalist Harvey Blume published the term. Both saw that the neurological angle (with the term ‘disorder’) began to prevail over the psychotherapeutic one. They thought that was a bad development.
The term neurodiverse was then also used for and by people with schizophrenia, bipolarity, dyslexia, etc. The intention was to indicate that these are disorders but that they are not diseases.
Singer indicated that the term should always be used in the context of intersectionality. This means that different forms of discrimination or privilege (such as race, gender, class and sexuality) influence each other. The different forms of discrimination work together and influence each other. For example, if you are a black woman, both racism and sexism can affect your life in a way that is different than it is for a black man or a white woman.
The popularity of the concept of neurodiversity has increased through social media, among other things. Articles and books about it are published regularly.
The positive aspects of the concept of neurodiversity
In short, I will mention a few that are mentioned a lot.
People with a classification from the DSM, who suffer from misunderstanding and even stigmatization, are of course very happy with an umbrella term and especially with its positive annotation. Even people who have always felt different, for whatever reason, experience this.
We are all different—but that doesn’t mean we all belong under the same umbrella.
There is a hypothesis that this positive reception is partly a reaction to centuries of marginalization and misunderstandings surrounding psychiatric disorders. That makes it a very emotional issue. Of course, this is in line with the basic purpose of the term neurodiverse: reducing stigma and promoting inclusion. Unfortunately, for people with psychiatric diagnoses (at work, in society as a whole) there is still far from 100% acceptance.
I read another advantage: “Neurodiversity is an alternative to the traditional medical model, which often focuses on “cure” or “correction”. This new narrative then encourages a wider acceptance of different ways of thinking and functioning.”
It is also often written that neurological diversity would contribute to innovation, creativity and problem-solving ability.
Is the concept of neurodiversity only positive?
Neurodiversity is a trend. The concept is embraced in all kinds of places. Books and articles are published about it and people tell how happy they are with it. I also see that it functions as a movement against the DSM, which many people (including professionals) are increasingly struggling with.
In January 2025, Tilburg University will organize a (free) symposium on the subject. That was fully booked in no time. My question whether there would also be a contribution with a critical side was dismissed with: “Then come as a participant”. Officially, no one there deals with the critical aspects of neurodiversity. Is that justified if a university organizes this? Doesn’t an academic attitude require looking at things from different angles?
So far I see almost only positive statements about neurodiversity/neurodivergence. I myself do have reservations and questions about it. In this blog, I list these comments and questions.
I also read that there are people who classify gifted people under the concept of neurodiverse. This is a group that I have been gathering knowledge about for 25 years and I have objections to this classification. I will come back to that later.
Many of the critical comments I make are more widely applicable than just with regard to gifted people.
Are there any critical reactions about the use of the terms neurodiversity/neurodivergence?
You have to look for negative and critical reactions, but they are there. I read a decidedly negative reaction in Solomon’s book (2012), where a chapter is devoted to experiences of parents with a child with autism. In it I read:
“People who use ‘neurodivers’ are a handful of noisy people, who get a lot of media attention. And these people trivialize having autism. The result is o.a. dat there will be fewer subsidies for people with ‘real’ autism.”
I will take up this argument again later in my argument.
An extensive online article by Costandi (2019) is critical. He calls the concept of neurodiversity harmful (harmful). Especially in relation to autism. In doing so, he is in line with Solomon (2012).
Saskia Schepers’ book (2023) ‘When all brains work’ is seen by some reviewers as too optimistic and unrealistic. Her suggestions are called simplistic and unfeasible. The book also does not acknowledge that there are neurodiverse/divergent people who cannot work, according to the reviewer.
A sideline: Autism
Just a sideline. In my experience, it seems that the term neurodiverse often immediately brings to mind autism. The term originally comes from that corner. I have a completely different image of autism than the people who now say that they are neurodiverse because they have (a form of) autism. People call me old-fashioned because the ‘classic autism’ would no longer exist, after all, it has become a spectrum (ASD). Of course, I know that.
The term “autism spectrum” was first used in the 1970s and 1980s, but it didn’t really become common in the 1990s. The term was introduced to better describe the variety and diversity in the presentation of autism. I have seen that there has gradually been a major change in the use of the term autism. Many people now quickly talk about ‘autism’ in everyday speech, when they talk about people who experience problems in meeting behavioral expectations of the environment. But classifying autism, ASD according to the DSM, is really work for experts. That takes a lot of time and is difficult.
Costandi (2019) is, as already mentioned, critical of the use of the term neurodiversity, he even finds it harmful and specifically discusses autism. The idea (of people who talk about neurodiverse) that autism is a variation of the normal is not correct, according to him. Neuroscientists show that it is a developmental disorder with demonstrable genetic factors. That’s different from how the people who say they have autism and talk about neurodiversity describe it. Costandi writes that a large gap has now arisen between people who have children with severe autism and people who classify autism as neurodiversity and emphasize the positive sides of it. “‘They make autism something trivial,” says one of the parents in the article.
When I read that, it seems as if autism is about two completely different manifestations, which have no connection with each other but do have the same name.
A link is also often made between ASD/autism and giftedness. However, the correlation does not exist, so co-occurrence is rare. Gifted people are no more likely to develop autism than average. I regularly read articles about, for example, writers and comedians who (according to themselves) would have autism. That raises the question for me whether all this is justified. I often see their giftedness and depending on your childhood and environment, there are sometimes challenges to that. But to blame all that under autism?
Negative sides of the concept of neurodiversity in 10 points
Below I describe ten arguments that have made me think negatively about the concept of neurodiversity. They are not all separate from each other, but I have described them separately for clarity.
- Neuro- falsely suggests something medical, objectively demonstrable
Many people talk about neurodiversity as ‘My brain works differently’. Also think of the book ‘When all brains work’ (Schepers, 2023). And the word neuro- also suggests something objectively demonstrable.
Neuro- is linked to brain here, but is of course broader. A neurologist deals with all disorders of the nervous system, central and peripheral. So here the central part, the brain, is meant.
To my knowledge, there is no scientific, neurological evidence that there would be such a thing as neurodiversity at the brain level. So I find the suggestion from the term that it is about something neurological confusing and also wrong.
Most of the DSM classifications that are now classified under the umbrella of neurodiversity involve diagnostics that take place by experts in diagnostics and they do so with the help of conversations, observations and questionnaires. Classification is about agreements between people in mental health care (at the DSM these are worldwide agreements) about when to give a number of symptoms a certain name together.
People with ADHD indicate that there are indications that it is detectable in the brain with, for example, functional MRIs. But there appears to be only a moderate correlation between the clinical diagnosis and findings from brain research. Of course, this is consistent with the fact that the diagnosis is made on the basis of intersubjective agreements. In (classic) autism, there are more indications that you also see it in brain research (Costandi, 2019). But with ASD (lighter forms) that correlation is not clear.
To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence that there would be such a thing as neurodiversity at the brain level.
I see a shift in gifted people being classified more often with a term from the DSM. These are gifted people who get stuck somewhere in their lives. They then look for ‘What’s wrong with me?’ I also currently see that gifted people call themselves neurodiverse more often. But giftedness in itself is not neuro- …, it is also not a medical issue, not a disorder. It is rightly not in the DSM either. If giftedness goes hand in hand with a DSM classification, it is rare, the chance of it is certainly not higher than average (see further under 6).
2. Umbrella or container concept: who decides what is covered?
I observe that there are now a lot of different terms that fall under the umbrella term ‘neurodivers’. Originally, it was only about people with autism. Later others joined and now it is about a number of classifications from the DSM plus high sensitivity, dyslexia, dyscalculia (and more?) and lately giftedness has been mentioned more and more. I will come back to the latter under 7.
And if low intelligence and high intelligence fall under it, what good is this? These are completely different phenomena with very different challenges.
In my opinion, the concept is now very broad and vague. And who actually decides what is and is not included?
3. In addition to neurodiverse, I also see the separate classifications recurring
While people use the term ‘neurodiverse’ on the one hand, I also see (for example on LinkedIn) that people also continue to use the separate classifications. I think it was precisely the intention to stop doing that with the concept of neurodiverse.
It seems that there are different approaches to this. People who use the term neurodiversity and do so in the context of shared experiences. Those who still name the individual diagnoses have a purpose, such as specific treatment or guidance. But that is not really consistent.
I find these different approaches just understandable but it makes it very complex, illogical and so much less understandable for a larger group of people. If you want to fight prejudice, which is one of the goals, then this lack of clarity is not helpful.
4. Derive rights from being neurodiverse?
I can imagine that the term is used to draw attention in general to people who, for example, react differently than average to all kinds of stimuli at work, or have different ways of thinking.
But if people use it as an argument to stand up for their rights: “Because I am neurodiverse, I need a quiet workplace, I can’t work together, et cetera” then that doesn’t seem to me to be the intention. In this way, we make the term neurodiverse a diagnosis from which you can derive rights, right? It is certainly not intended that way. This phenomenon is not limited to the concept of neurodiverse. Of course, there is nothing wrong with standing up for your rights, but what matters to me is the way in which it is done. Juridification is an expression of escalation that usually causes damage.
5. The argument that neurodiversity is not a disorder is a fallacy
I see a fallacy in this. A number of terms from the DSM are used. The DSM consists of working agreements between people who work in psychiatry. By definition, they are about a disorder (because there must be some form of suffering/limitations and they must not be explained by something else, otherwise you may not make the classification from the DSM). Subsequently, people outside psychiatry (partly consisting of clients) collect a number of terms from the DSM into a catch-all term ‘neurodiversity’ and then they say that they are not disorders. That is not right for me. I think you can’t use those relevant terms from the DSM in that way. Then come up with other terms?
I fully acknowledge that there are people who suffer from, for example, (to put it briefly) concentration problems or social situations. But you can also look at that in a different way, can’t you? Name the concrete obstacles, if necessary look at where they come from and see what you can do with them.
In my work as a company doctor, I used to hear the term ‘zozijner’. A ‘zozijner’ was someone who could not be given a (medical) diagnosis, but who could not function in many places on the basis of personal characteristics. Perhaps they overlap with the current neurodiverses?
6. Do you function (very) well with your classification?
You are not innovative because of your ADHD—you are innovative because you’re intelligent.
With the concept of neurodiversity, it seems, a kind of ‘romanticization’ of the DSM classifications has crept in. I understand very well that you want to show and use your talents and positive sides. Only I also see something else. I see that there are people with disabilities who sought help, received a classification from the DSM and whose many talents and strengths have their origin in their high intelligence rather than in their classification. Their high intelligence is often not or not sufficiently visible. So you are not innovative because of your ADHD or because of your dyslexia, but that is precisely because of their high intelligence… After studying gifted people for almost 25 years, I dare to say this. The high intelligence allows you to compensate for and mask limitations. I think many people who now say they are neurodiverse are in this group.
The gifted with a classification are also called twice exceptionals or double special. Gifted people can of course also have a classification from the DSM, but the coincidence of the classification with giftedness is then a coincidence. They are actually less likely to receive psychiatric diagnoses at the population level (see under 7.). But of course there are also gifted people who do have a classification. The challenge for them is that on the one hand they can do a lot because of their intelligence and on the other hand because of their classification their high intelligence is not always discovered young.
I classify many stories about this as selective perception. That is something that we all do (also in other areas). If we know people who function very well with (and we think through) their [insert DSM classification or other word], then we see the situations that support this hypothesis and we don’t see the situations that show something else.
7. Giftedness does not fall under the umbrella term neurodiverse
This is an important point in my speech. I think it is unfair that giftedness (the descriptive term of the characteristics of people with high intelligence, as described in the Delphi model), is merged in the concept of neurodiverse with classifications from the DSM and a number of other descriptions of disabilities.
Of course I understand the idea behind it (take into account people who have a different way of thinking than average) but giftedness comes from a completely different paradigm (intelligence is a theme in cognitive psychology) and it is therefore illogical to link it to people with DSM classifications. It is also suggested that many gifted people would have psychological problems. The opposite is true. Many gifted people function well (but they do not always use the term gifted). High intelligence contributes significantly to a long, healthy and happy life at the population level. (Williams et al., 2023)
High intelligence contributes significantly to a long, healthy, and happy life at the population level.
I hear people say: but it can happen together, right? Then I say: yes, but then that is very rare. A combination of two rare characteristics (which do not correlate) is by definition even rarer.
There is no scientific evidence that there would be a correlation between being highly intelligent and, for example, ADHD (Barkley, 2023) or autism (Burger-Veltmeijer, 2016). Among gifted people, around 5% of them, just like in the general population, would therefore have symptoms of ADHD. In my observation (but it is colored because I mainly see gifted people who are looking for knowledge about giftedness and are looking for help with getting stuck), the proportion of gifted people who also receive a classification (especially ADHD or ASD) is too high and that seems to me to be a distortion. So there are certainly misdiagnoses among them. That worries me. Unfortunately I don’t have any figures (which are also very difficult to obtain) but I do have a lot of stories. Also from people who later literally said: “I’m not crazy, I’m gifted”. (Mireille, 2013) Unfortunately, there are gifted people who have been in mental health care as clients for years and then find out very late that they are gifted. When they then start working on their giftedness, their psychological symptoms often decrease, even disappear.
Apart from that, mental illnesses can of course occur in gifted people. And then it is very important that the practitioners know about giftedness, in the context of diagnostics, treatment and guidance. (Hoiting and Nauta, 2022)
In many people who call themselves neurodiverse, I often see characteristics of giftedness. But they often don’t talk about that, they also deny their giftedness quite often. In my opinion, the attention to the DSM classifications that are still in the concept of neurodiverse (especially ASD and ADHD) is not good for the attention that we could better pay to the characteristics of giftedness. And that can be of great use to these people.
8. Far too often the term autistic or ADHD is heard in everyday speech
Now that the attention for neurodiversity is increasing, it is concluded too quickly and too little substantiated (I see this in gifted people) that someone has a classification and I often hear ADHD and ASD in particular. “He’s on the spectrum” is a well-known phrase these days. People are increasingly saying that about themselves. The terms are also used very quickly in schools and at work. That has crept into everyday speech. People look up all kinds of things on the internet and do self-diagnoses. This leads to medicalization. For diagnostics, people will rely on the already limited capacity in mental health care. And it distracts from the attention for (possible) giftedness and what someone with characteristics of giftedness needs to function well.
A psychiatrist told me a few years ago that more and more gifted people come to his autism clinic to ask if they also have autism. “And”? I asked? “Almost never” he said …
9. People who need specific support are left out
Due to the concept of neurodiversity and its positive annotation, the seriousness of a number of classifications is underestimated, which is a particular problem for people who need specific and sometimes intensive treatment and guidance. Because of the ‘neurodiversity’ container, they fall by the wayside. Moreover, people may think that autism is not that bad. Those neurodiverse people all work too, don’t they? They are also said to be very innovative.
So I see a risk that people with severe forms of autism, for example, will no longer be taken seriously and will not receive appropriate guidance. Costandi’s essay (2019) ‘Why the neurodiversity movement has become harmful’ discusses this in detail.
10. What does the term neurodiverse yield in the longer term?
The more I think about it, the less I see of what was once the good intention of the concept of neurodiversity.
The basic idea that everyone has a different brain is an open door for me. I don’t think the term neurodiverse helps with that.
Of course, I also see that there are people who are not average and for whom various situations, for example at school or in regular jobs, are a challenge. But that does not mean that with the term ‘neurodiverse’ they suddenly get good guidance and a better working environment. The book by Saskia Schepers (2023) makes an attempt to indicate what can be improved at work. But these are all ideas that are not specific, that can even be good for all employees! In addition, all neurodiverse people are very different from each other. And that, in my opinion, much more customization is needed for them than what is proposed from books such as those of Schepers, however well-intentioned.
I think it’s a great ambition and I support it, to give all types of people the opportunity to find suitable work in a suitable working environment, but the question is whether employers can offer that in practice? I personally know some people for whom there is really no adjustment possible. They need an extreme amount of personal space and support and even then they often and unexpectedly drop out. As an employer, you can’t do that. I want these people to work, but they are not happy there.
There will always be people who fall by the wayside because adjustments are not realistic for them. I think the ideal is very beautiful, but also a bit naïve. Both in terms of investment and understanding.
I suggest: Please keep it concrete and let people tell me what they need as a person. What is now called ‘neurodiverse people’ are also all different. And let benefit agencies also understand that for some people regular work is simply not feasible. Please let them use their talents elsewhere (volunteer work, art, etc.) without pressure or control.
Why is giftedness linked to neurodiversity?
I have already written most of this before. Here is another summary. I can imagine the following about how that could have grown that way:
- There are gifted people who do not recognize their giftedness, get stuck somewhere (work, private, sometimes at school at a young age), who then seek help, then, if the giftedness is not seen, are given a classification (very often this is ADHD or ASD, with which they can then get paid psychological help) and then show that they (with their high intelligence) can do a lot. Sometimes the high intelligence is discovered, sometimes not. If that is found, I sometimes hear them say that the classification is wrong, but more often I hear that they can do a lot with their ASD or ADHD (of which the chance of merging is very small…). I think that’s a misconception, because they can do a lot with and precisely because of their high intelligence. They do not always let go of the classification if they know that they are gifted and the classification is probably a misdiagnosis. I also understand that this may have to do with paid help or a reduction in paid working hours. I think it’s a shame that it has to be this way. I grant everyone compensation for necessary help, but I have difficulty continuing to use misdiagnoses. It is also possible that the classification has become a part of their identity. “I am a full-time autist” I have read several times. The curious thing is that such a person does not say: “I am neurodiverse full-time”.
- Giftedness can occur together with, for example, ADHD or ASD (which is rare because the combination of rare things that do not correlate is even rarer, see above). The rare cases in which this is the case are complex and deserve customization. You can’t capture them under an umbrella concept.
- There are gifted people with, for example, dyslexia who can compensate a lot through their intelligence (so that the dyslexia or giftedness is sometimes discovered late). That takes a lot of energy. It is not that they have extra capacities because of their dyslexia, they often suggest that they are better at solving problems, being more creative, et cetera. I see something else: They are intelligent people who are used to using their intelligence to use other, less common strategies. In my opinion, someone with dyslexia without high intelligence does not benefit from the dyslexia in itself.
Conclusion
I wrote this blog because I am worried. And because several people asked me what my objections are to that beautiful concept of neurodiversity? And why giftedness should not be included?
I have built my argument from many different arguments. It is a complex story. Gifted people have a warm place in my heart. I see that with more knowledge about giftedness and peer contacts (we are still looking for a better term for the English peers) a lot is possible to improve the living environment of gifted people.
I think I want to achieve the same as people who use the term neurodiverse. I would like to grant people who are happy with the term neurodiversity and notice that it is helpful for them.
I want to achieve the same things as the neurodiversity movement—just with more precision, and fewer unintended harms.
My concerns are about the phenomenon itself, that I don’t think it solves anything in the long run and I see harmful sides to it. In principle, I think that giftedness is not included.
References
Barkley, R. (2023). ADHD, IQ, and Giftedness. Video:ADHD, IQ, and Giftedness – YouTube
Burger – Veltmeijer, A. (2016). Students with (suspicion of) IG + ASD: a study aimed at understanding the phenomenon Intellectual Giftedness in co-occurrence with Autism Spectrum Disorder in relation to (needs-based) assessment. Groningen University, PhD thesis.
Costandi, M. (2019). Why the neurodiversity movement has become harmful. Online article: Why the neurodiversity movement has become harmful | Aeon Essays
Hoiting, L. & Nauta, N. (2022). Gifted help-seekers. BigBusinesspublishers and IHBV. Gifted help-seekers – IHBV
Mireille. (2013). I am not crazy but gifted. Interview in Grazia.
Solomon, A. (2012). Far from the tree. Simon and Schuster.
Schepers, S. (2023). When all brains work. Business Contact
Williams, C.M., Peyre, H., Labouret, G., Fassaya, J., Guzmán Garcia, A., Gauvrit, N. & Ramus, F. (2023). High intelligence is not associated with a greater propensity for mental health disorders. European Psychiatry. High intelligence is not associated with a greater propensity for mental health disorders – PMC (nih.gov)
Comments (0)