Talk:Neurotypical

message: I'm sorting stubs and I ran across this article. It seems fairly filled out so I went ahead and removed the stub tag Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm

message: The use of the word "neurotypical" represents a particular point of view. I believe this article should be re-cast as being about the word rather than about people referred to by the word. I may do this if there are no objections —Ashley Y 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not, actually.  Neurotypical refers to those who have no neurological "disorders."  It's really quite an objective term.  Rogue 9 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: it's NOT an objective term. It's just a politically correct newspeak substitute for the good old plain NORMAL. Insert NORMAL everywhere and you will get the same results as for "neurotypical". It's just hypocrisy. Like "homosexual" and "heterosexual": that is objective terminology. But "homosexual" and "sexotypical" would NOT be. And by the way, neurotypical WOULD be objective, if it would INCLUDE every abberation and not be their opposite. Did I make myself clear? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it is the term "normal" which is POV and profoundly non-objective, as it implicitly casts everything else as inferior, due to the positive connotations of "normal" and negative connotations of "not normal". Your example in fact is an excellent demonstration of this point: People generally do not call heterosexual people "normal" anymore, as it implies that homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc. people are "not normal". In the same way, non-autistic people may be called "neurotypical" or (even better, IMHO) "allistic" as that treats both as existing on the same level, neither superior or inferior to the other. This is a central defect of the article as it currently stands, namely that it does not explain the original, completely serious, point of these neologisms – the idea of decentering or challenging the norm and challenging and even changing people's perspective. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it is not a "joke". It does, however, contain some degree of negative connotation - much as the phrase "you are not normal" has. Can (and does) get used like a swearword at times. When used in a group of autistic people it can just mean "not one of us" to "those weirdos (inferior is implied) who think they are normal". It's a useful word, if a little ungainly. 101.176.79.226 (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: One of the paragraphs in the article refers to the term 'neurotypical' coming from a group of people on a 'list'. Forgive my ignorance, but could someone who knows what this term refers to please add a short definition to the article, or a relevent wikilink? cheers Harriseldon 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists? 

message: I am concerned with the neutrality of the following statement:
:Neurotypicals tend to have more trouble understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with autistics, than most autistics have understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with NTs. Autistics are usually able to interact with other autistics as well as NTs interact with other NTs. 
Q0 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it isn't a neutral POV. Not only is this 'fact' completely unfounded, but it could be argued that autists would have more or less trouble depending on the topic of interest, especially with other autists, as they might just ignore the other, eventually provoking a reaction. To some extent, the statement may be true, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for unfounded beliefs. And besides, what point does it try to make anyways? I doesn't seem as though it has to do with the topic at hand... So perhaps it should be removed. 1337 r0XX0r 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the theory of it goes like the following.  There are an awful lot more neurotypicals than autistics, so autistics get a lot more experience of communicating with neurotypicals than most neurotypicals do with communicating with autistics.  As a result, autistics end up better able to understand, etc, neurotypicals than most neurotypicals are able to understand autistics.  It's as if there are a few Martians living here on Earth: they have a lot more experience of Earthlings than most Earthlings have of Martians!  Whether or not it really is the case that autistics are better at understanding neurotypicals than the other way around, I do not know.  But I do understand that theory behind that idea.  --Simon G Best 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's less that we understand NTs better, and more that the onus is placed on us to bridge the inter-neurotype communication gap, via masking.  Autistic people tend to have a lot of experience translating their communication style into a neurotypical-friendly format, even before realising they're autistic, whereas neurotypical people tend not to have much if any experience of translating their communication style into an autistic-friendly format.  As Simon correctly points out above, the onus is always placed on a minority to assimilate into the majority's standards.  Foreigners (in his example, aliens) learn the native language, you know, unless they're imperialists. ZoeB (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I would be very interested to see references for the statement:
:'ADHD has sometimes been considered to be a form of autism'.
I have come across much information that says they often occur together, but never that one is a form of the other.
Amanita 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ADHD as Autism?

message: There seems to be some confusiong over this. By adding a fact tag I am not saying that I believe the sentence is false, just that it is the sort of thing which needs a citation in order to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. If a statement is doubtful then I would use the verify source tag instead as that is what should be used for doubtful statements which are not harmful. Raoul 11:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed tags

message: I'll say right away I know zero about this topic -- I saw the word used somewhere so I looked it up -- but "It is a portmanteau of the words neurologically and typical" sounds wrong.  Why "neurologically"? . . . why not "neurology" and "typical"?  Or probably more correctly, why not simply note that the prefix "neuro" refers to the nervous system?  I'm not editing the article itself because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject, but as written it just doesn't sound right, and if it's not someone ought to make a change.69.250.29.200 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've changed the sentence. Raoul 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neurologically"?

message: I submitted this article for AfD earlier today since it seemed to be nothing more than a dicdef about a wacky neologism used by autistic people to describe non-autistic people, rife with original research. I withdrew my AfD after several people found legitimate sources using the term in a real scientific context. However I think the article needs to be seriously rewritten to focus on the scientific concept and the issues at hand, rather than on the term itself and use as a tongue-in-cheek epithet. Krimpet 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument here. --Kizor 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: At this date: not really a neologism any more, in regular use in respectable publications such as Scientific American etc, and certainly used in a serious, not tongue-in-cheek manner. Article certainly could use a rewrite though. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific focus 

message: I have seen the term "super-NT" used very frequently to refer to people with extreme Neurotypical traits and was wondering if this should be added to this article.  If so, what kind of reference or source should be cited for something like this?  I'm assuming that just any old forum or blog post is NOT acceptable.  --Luai lashire 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Super-NTs"? 

message: I removed the "neologism" tag because neurotypical is in fairly common use in the scholarly literature nowadays. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008 (), Cashin 2008 (), Shafritz et al. 2008 (), and Stieglitz et al. 2008 (). Eubulides (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has since put it back again. It shouldn't be there, it's included in a number of published dictionaries at this point, and according to Merriam-Webster (online, at this date) is in the top 7% of looked up words. This article is full of errors and outdated information that people evidently don't want removed. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologisms 

message: Is it true, or just an urban legend that Windows NT (tm) has been named after "neurotypical" because the majority of the programmers at Microsoft are in fact autists (above all Bill Gates)and wanted to make fun of their normal "neurotypical" customers? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows NT was released before the word neurotypical was invented. Eubulides (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I have not found any evidence that Bill Gates has ever stated that he has any diagnosis of autism (please correct me if you know otherwise). Many people may indeed have it (or seem to), and I realise people like to diagnose others, but it's currently only supposition unless he states otherwise. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows NT? 

message: I don't know how/where to include it well in the text, but it might be useful to add a piece about why people came up with the word.
It is used by 'the' autistic community because the words like normal would imply that the people in the community are not normal with all negative meaning/sound. That they are different is true, but the negative sound to it is what is disliked, and therefore someone got up with the NT term.
77.168.156.173 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This disagrees with the first source cited, Sinclair 1998, which says "However, members of the ANI community are well aware that within the context of humans-in-general, we are not normal.  It is not considered insensitive or pejorative to acknowledge this fact.  Most of us don’t mind not being normal and would not want to be normal.  We appreciate being acknowledged for what we are." Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Can there please be some discussion in the article about how people with other neurological conditions (hydrocephalus, aphasia, epilepsy, the rest of Category:Neurological disorders) are supposed to be situated with regard to this label?  If it's purely a binary, NT/n-NT, meaning "on the autism spectrum/not", then these other people are "neurotypical", but can we say that people with epilepsy, for instance, are neurotypical, in the sense of having the standard brain structure and/or mode of function as neurosicence defines them? No.  -75.57.7.223 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you will have trouble finding sources on that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And therefore the issue shouldn't be raised? Even the most lay of scientific laypeople know there's more to neurology than the autism spectrum. The implicit argument this term makes, that people post stroke have "neurologically typical" brains doesn't hold water. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WIthout sources on such a thing the point is moot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word neurotypical was coined by an autistic to make it easier to refer to all non-autistic people with a single word instead of having to say "people who don't have autism or Asperger's" or an ambiguous label like "normals".  It's possible that, at the time, she didn't think it would ever catch on among the wider medical/psychiatric community and the strangeness of referring to people with Down's, epilepsy, etc, as neurotypicals wasn't really an issue.  We could write into the article a sentence that emphasizes that Down's/epileptics/etc are still considered neurotypical if you think that that would make it clearer.  I believe the sources that we have explicitly define it that way, although the first link is dead and the second requires a subscription to Wiley Scientific in order to read. —Soap— 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Neurotypical refers to anybody who isn't disabled on the basis of their psychology or neurology. Sociopaths are also non-NT even though I don't think they are usually considered disabled unless they have another condition. Andrea Carter (at your service | my good deeds) 07:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Neurological Conditions and NT 

message: A lot of the references on this page are dead.
Tydoni (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Links

message: If you check talk:asperger's syndrome, talk:Aspies and talk:Damon Matthew Wise you will see considerable discussion and discovery of evidence of pre-1999 references to such cultural lingo used by Aspies, and removing Aspie cultural.  It should start coming out of talk pages and come into the public area.
Aspies around the world, who have now been using Aspies, Cousins, and Auties for around 20 years have no problem using their referenced lingo.  It should not be classed as a subculture, to be hidden away, but identified as a unique cultural language and meaning.
Please do the right thing and reinstate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to get consensus first.  Before that you will need reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please reinstate word coinage cross-referencing Aspies usages of words, like Mundane for "Neurotypical" 

message: I would like to expand this article with some explanation of what neurotypical neurology/psychology/sociology looks like, particularly in comparison to the various neurominorities rather than in comparison to other neurotypicals. Unfortunately, most sources I've found that use the term are unsubstantiated claims from autistic activists, specifically in parody of inaccurate descriptions of autism. Any sources or advice on finding sources is welcome.Muffinator (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tips for finding reliable sources? 

message: Hoverbird has changed the second sentence to "However, the term eventually became used for anyone who does not have typical neurology." That is, changing "atypical" to "typical." I reverted it back, because it reverses the meaning of the sentence such that it contradicts the rest of the article. However, Hoverbird has now reverted my reversion. Rather then get into an edit war, I appeal here to other editors for some consensus. - DaveSeidel (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: All is well, article is restored. Thanks, Hoverbird. DaveSeidel (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not atypical" 

message: I think that "psychonormative" is another word for this. —User 000 name 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AKA 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neurotypical syndrome. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotypical syndrome listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Per my edit summary @Special:PermaLink/967702345:  Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy disputed tag 

message: No more comments needed...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.106.195 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hypocrisy when this issue is politically charged is (awful) notorious...  

message: This article is horribly biased. It is pseudo-scientific, giving a socio-political conotation to the expression. Can we agree that factually, "neurotypical" describes a hypothetical typical brain, in particular when one describes a neurological condition as a deviation from a typical brain?  77.189.67.68 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article reads like badly written "original research" and needs a complete rewrite IMO. While "neurotypical" is a flawed concept, it's widespread use in certain circles means that people will go looking it up, as they may have been called NT and would like to know what it means. "Allistic" is a better word, but I have to admit I rarely use it myself. NT is a great swearword :) 101.176.79.226 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Stop acting so woke 2600:1700:6730:E380:94C:2D76:E5DE:A5C8 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subjectively biased article