The contents of the Neurotypical page were merged into Neurodiversity#Neurotypical on 30 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on February 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Insofar as this article states that the word "neurotypical" is used by autistics to refer to those who do not have autism, it is useful. The article's focus, however, on what seems to be an internet joke gives it a particular slant. It's fine if autistics who feel they have been the butt of jokes want to tease back, but this is not the place. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not an internet joke. Verditer (not signed in) 68.115.93.208 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, it is not a joke, and it is an attempt to remove the negative connotations of not-normal. Fustbariclation ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
I am concerned with the neutrality of the following statement:
Q0 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would be very interested to see references for the statement:
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)
a link with reference to this: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html
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)
Would it be useful to state that the term is used both in serious contexts (such as in published books by "autism experts"), and is also used in satire by autistics such as ISNT and this newer parody of psychiatric definition of autism and normality http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html "Neurotypical Disorder" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.174.130 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
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)
It seems that there is support in the Aspie community for the notion that Asperger Syndrome is not a pathological form of "neurotypicalism", but rather an alternate and parallel type of thought-processing stlye -- so, Aspies use the term neurotypical to convey that notion (i.e., the term isn't simply a way to be peevish).
If the notion has any merit, then there should be a list here of characteristics that distinguish Ntypical-style thought processes from Aspie-style thought processes.
For example, Ntypicals are more empathizing, while Aspies are more analytical; Ntypicals more intuiting, while Aspies more systemizing. The way the two thinking-types gather and synthesize information may be qualitatively different…? Or the way the two groups are motivated may be different, e.g., Ntypicals are more externally motivated compared to the more internally motivated Aspie…?
If Aspergers and Ntypicalism are parallel, then perhaps psychopathy is the extreme form of Ntypical thinking style, as autism is an extreme form of the Aspie thinking style…?
Looking for sources…
-- Renice 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Only Way Is Essex should be used as a reference for this peice. They carry the social thing to such extremes, even labelling it as the "Pressure of Essex" to make themselves seem important. Its basically normal narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 ( talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the "neologism" tag because neurotypical is in fairly common use in the scholarly literature nowadays. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008 ( PMID 18435849), Cashin 2008 ( PMID 18269411), Shafritz et al. 2008 ( PMID 17916328), and Stieglitz et al. 2008 ( PMID 17665296). Eubulides ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A lot of the references on this page are dead. Tydoni ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I could wish the same about most Neurotypicals,then I wouldn't have them trying to sabotage my Asperger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 ( talk) 13:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
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/?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think that "psychonormative" is another word for this. —User 0 0 0 name 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems a little nonsensical to start the article with one definition, then several paragraphs later explain that in recent times it usually has a different definition. It would make far more sense to define it at the beginning of the article as "without mental illness or disability" and make a reference to the "non-autistic" definition as an origin. The word "allistic" has pretty much entirely replaced neurotypical as a term for "non-autistic", it's not really a relevant definition anymore. 129.10.29.29 ( talk) 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Per my edit summary @
Special:PermaLink/967702345: Wikipedia is not here to make linguistic prescriptions, it's here to describe language how it is. Many mentally ill people describe people who aren't as "neurotypical", as the article correctly identifies. Terms can't be "narrowed" by anyone but the speaker community, which this article doesn't prove has happened, just that some people think a narrowing should occur.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping! 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No more comments needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.106.195 ( talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
I propose that Neurotypical (NT) - after poorly-sourced content is removed - is merged into Neurodiversity (ND). The two articles have an overlapping scope ( WP:MERGEREASON) - NT is part of the ND spectrum, and it's the antonym of neuroatypical (I'm using neuroatypical here to avoid confusion between neurodiverse and neurodiversity) which is the core of the ND concept. NT also requires the context of neurodiversity to be understood, and the ND article would benefit from an explanation of NT ( WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:MERGEREASON). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the Neurotypical page were merged into Neurodiversity#Neurotypical on 30 December 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on February 27, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Insofar as this article states that the word "neurotypical" is used by autistics to refer to those who do not have autism, it is useful. The article's focus, however, on what seems to be an internet joke gives it a particular slant. It's fine if autistics who feel they have been the butt of jokes want to tease back, but this is not the place. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not an internet joke. Verditer (not signed in) 68.115.93.208 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, it is not a joke, and it is an attempt to remove the negative connotations of not-normal. Fustbariclation ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
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)
I am concerned with the neutrality of the following statement:
Q0 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I would be very interested to see references for the statement:
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)
a link with reference to this: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html
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)
Would it be useful to state that the term is used both in serious contexts (such as in published books by "autism experts"), and is also used in satire by autistics such as ISNT and this newer parody of psychiatric definition of autism and normality http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html "Neurotypical Disorder" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.174.130 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
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)
It seems that there is support in the Aspie community for the notion that Asperger Syndrome is not a pathological form of "neurotypicalism", but rather an alternate and parallel type of thought-processing stlye -- so, Aspies use the term neurotypical to convey that notion (i.e., the term isn't simply a way to be peevish).
If the notion has any merit, then there should be a list here of characteristics that distinguish Ntypical-style thought processes from Aspie-style thought processes.
For example, Ntypicals are more empathizing, while Aspies are more analytical; Ntypicals more intuiting, while Aspies more systemizing. The way the two thinking-types gather and synthesize information may be qualitatively different…? Or the way the two groups are motivated may be different, e.g., Ntypicals are more externally motivated compared to the more internally motivated Aspie…?
If Aspergers and Ntypicalism are parallel, then perhaps psychopathy is the extreme form of Ntypical thinking style, as autism is an extreme form of the Aspie thinking style…?
Looking for sources…
-- Renice 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Only Way Is Essex should be used as a reference for this peice. They carry the social thing to such extremes, even labelling it as the "Pressure of Essex" to make themselves seem important. Its basically normal narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 ( talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the "neologism" tag because neurotypical is in fairly common use in the scholarly literature nowadays. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008 ( PMID 18435849), Cashin 2008 ( PMID 18269411), Shafritz et al. 2008 ( PMID 17916328), and Stieglitz et al. 2008 ( PMID 17665296). Eubulides ( talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
A lot of the references on this page are dead. Tydoni ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I could wish the same about most Neurotypicals,then I wouldn't have them trying to sabotage my Asperger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 ( talk) 13:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
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/?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 ( talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think that "psychonormative" is another word for this. —User 0 0 0 name 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems a little nonsensical to start the article with one definition, then several paragraphs later explain that in recent times it usually has a different definition. It would make far more sense to define it at the beginning of the article as "without mental illness or disability" and make a reference to the "non-autistic" definition as an origin. The word "allistic" has pretty much entirely replaced neurotypical as a term for "non-autistic", it's not really a relevant definition anymore. 129.10.29.29 ( talk) 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Per my edit summary @
Special:PermaLink/967702345: Wikipedia is not here to make linguistic prescriptions, it's here to describe language how it is. Many mentally ill people describe people who aren't as "neurotypical", as the article correctly identifies. Terms can't be "narrowed" by anyone but the speaker community, which this article doesn't prove has happened, just that some people think a narrowing should occur.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping! 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No more comments needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.106.195 ( talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
I propose that Neurotypical (NT) - after poorly-sourced content is removed - is merged into Neurodiversity (ND). The two articles have an overlapping scope ( WP:MERGEREASON) - NT is part of the ND spectrum, and it's the antonym of neuroatypical (I'm using neuroatypical here to avoid confusion between neurodiverse and neurodiversity) which is the core of the ND concept. NT also requires the context of neurodiversity to be understood, and the ND article would benefit from an explanation of NT ( WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:MERGEREASON). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)