The Myth of the Neurotypical (Part 1)

There Is No Such Thing As Neurotypical

There’s no such thing as a ‘normal’ brain. Nothing scientific backs it up. Every human brain is different, which means there is no ‘us versus them’ when it comes to neurotypes.

Where did the word neurotypical come from?

The word neurotypical didn’t start as science. It began in the 1990s as satire, created by autistic advocates through a project called the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical (ISNT).

The ISNT parodied psychiatry’s language: non-autistic people were described as having a disorder called ‘neurotypical syndrome’. It was a political joke - a mirror held up to how autistic people were written about in the DSM 4 at the time and other psychology research.

But over time, the word lost its tongue-in-cheek meaning. Neurotypical became shorthand for ‘normal’, and everything else was framed as defective.

What about neurodiversity?

The word neurodiversity was introduced by sociologist Judy Singer in 1998. Singer argued that autism, ADHD, dyslexia and other neurological variations are simply part of natural diversity - like biodiversity in nature.

But just like neurotypical, this word was hijacked too. Instead of honouring natural variation, many institutions use it to reinforce the idea of ‘different’ and ‘less than’.

Where ‘Normal’ Came From 

The idea of a ‘normal brain’ isn’t an ancient concept - it was invented in the 1800s:

• Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian statistician (who also created the BMI Index still used today), started measuring traits like height, weight and intelligence across large groups of people. He noticed most people clustered around an average value, with fewer people at the extremes.
• He called this ‘the average man’ and treated the average as the ideal, while anyone above or below it was seen as a deviation.
• The Industrial Revolution needed standardised, obedient workers, so this idea of ‘average = normal’ fitted perfectly.
• Francis Galton, father of Eugenics, pushed it further, arguing that people who strayed too far from the average were ‘defective’ and shouldn’t reproduce.

This is how variation, once just a natural fact of humanity, was redefined as deviation from normal. And that thinking still underpins school, healthcare and workplaces today.

What does ‘normal’ even mean?

When you look at what society deems ‘normal’, it's really just an ideal worker:

• Productive - works long hours, multitasks and needs little rest
• Rational - makes logical, consistent decisions without being ‘too emotional’
• Socially adaptable - fits in, plays by the rules, doesn’t cause discomfort
• Surface-resilient - absorbs stress without challenging the structures causing it
• Positive - easy to be around, not ‘too heavy’
• Independent yet compliant - self sufficient but still obedient

This isn’t human. It’s people pleasing, masking and suppression. Maybe you know people like this, but under the surface probably there’s more going on. Conflict avoidance, fear of emotions and collapse under pressure.

‘Normal’ in this sense is not healthy. It’s suppression packaged as ideal.

But what about severe autism etc?

This is where people say: ‘But what about the severe cases?’

Here’s my view: the baseline of these neurotypes is natural. They’re part of humanity’s variation. But the extremes, the versions labelled ‘severe’, are often shaped by trauma and environment.

And by trauma, I don’t mean obvious abuse or accidents. Trauma can be subtle and cumulative:

• Illnesses in pregnancy
• Nutritional deficiencies
• Chronic stress
• Medications or toxins
• Overstimulation in modern environments
• Repeated invalidation or neglect

Research backs this up: autistic people experience higher rates of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) than their peers. The more trauma, the more ‘severe’ the symptoms tend to look. And when a brain is naturally sensitive (eg heightened sensory perception), hostile environments can make that sensitivity overwhelming.

So no - there is no such thing as neurotypical. There are only human brains, all naturally different, some more wounded than others by trauma and by artificial environments that were never built for them.

References

• Singer, J. (1998). Odd People In: The Birth of Community Amongst People on the Autistic Spectrum’. Honours Thesis, University of Technology Sydney.
• Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical (ISNT): archived site https://erikengdahl.se/autism/isnt/index.html
• Kerns, C. M., et al. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences and autism spectrum disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45, 197-207.
• Bishop-Fitzpatrick, L., et al. (2017). Trajectories of adversity and autistic symptom severity. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 47(2), 439-450.