I was recently talking with a very bright college freshman who excels in science and foreign languages. She was telling me about her friends, the people she studied with, and the travels she had completed, including a recent visit to Japan. We also talked about organic chemistry and some of the nuances of chemical crystal structure. It was clear that she had an inherent desire to learn and a breadth of interests she was happily pursuing in college. I have been very fortunate indeed to have been a college professor for more than 40 years and to have met quite a number of students such as this young woman who are passionate about learning, highly intelligent, and an absolute delight to teach.
But this conversation took a different turn when she told me that some of her friends were pointedly asking whether she was “neurodiverse.” Some were even suggesting she is “on the spectrum,” referring to the autism spectrum. Evidently, for some, the term “neurodiverse” can be synonymous with being “on the spectrum.” I wondered whether these questions were prompted by the fact that she is highly intelligent and keenly interested in topics and ideas that others in her group may not be.
This characterization came as an unhappy surprise to me because my background in autism and autism spectrum disorders and supporting autistic children and their families has provided a context for thinking about autism and the different ways that autistic children learn, communicate, and interact with people. Although the autism spectrum has expanded dramatically since I first learned about autism in the 1980s and 1990s, it was nonetheless surprising that this social, highly intelligent, engaging student would be viewed through the lens of being “on the spectrum.” Enjoying conversations about linguistics, eastern languages, organic chemistry, and crystal structure are probably not universal traits in the general population of young people, among college freshmen, or even most people in society, but in no way should that, unto itself, be viewed as a “clinical” condition.
Understanding Neurodiversity and Neurotypical Terminology
This leads to foundational questions regarding the term “neurodiversity” and, perhaps more importantly, the contrasting term “neurotypical.” An article by Nicole Baumer, M.D., MEd, and Julia Frueh, M.D., entitled “What is neurodiversity?[1]” provides important context: “The word neurodiversity refers to the diversity of all people, but it is often used in the context of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as well as other neurological or developmental conditions such as ADHD or learning disabilities.” [emphasis added] I wholeheartedly applaud the idea in this article which states, “Neurodiversity describes the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many different ways; there is no one ‘right’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and differences are not viewed as deficits.” However, does this mean that neurodiversity is inherently an autistic trait or a symptom of ADHD or a learning disability?
In contrast, “neurotypical” was described in an article from the Cleveland Clinic as meaning “your brain developed and works like the brains of most people,” which added that neurotypical people “generally have brains that operate at about the same level across different types of skills. Some of the skill areas include things like memory, math, and written or spoken language.” [2] This definition is—in some ways—quite shocking. For many years, neuroscientists have been reporting that there are profound individual differences in neural development and neural functioning. I challenge any neuroscientist (or radiologist for that matter) to look at a brain scan and accurately identify that scan as coming from a “neurotypical” or “neurodiverse” individual.
As with brain scans, it is not common for anyone to “operate at the same level across different types of skills.” Many years ago, neuropsychologist Richard Woodcock and I published an article on sex differences in the cognitive abilities of more than 10,000 participants[3]. Although females and males display highly similar overall levels of intellectual ability, the distribution of relative strengths and weaknesses in broad abilities such as processing speed, auditory processing, visual spatial reasoning, comprehension knowledge (language ability), and so on were quite distinct in males and females. A striking finding was a significant female advantage in processing speed (the ability to complete tasks of moderate difficulty quickly and accurately), especially in adolescent females as compared to adolescent males: “The results indicated that males scored significantly lower on estimates of Gs (processing speed) in all three normative samples, with the largest difference evident in adolescent subgroups.” This cognitive advantage translated into a similar female advantage in reading fluency and writing fluency.
Male and Female Architecture
There is also an extensive literature showing fundamental differences in male and female brain architecture. For example, Madhura Ingalhalikar and colleagues reported sex differences in brain connectivity[4]: “In all supratentorial regions, males had greater within-hemispheric connectivity, as well as enhanced modularity and transitivity, whereas between-hemispheric connectivity and cross-module participation predominated in females.” Females tend to use both hemispheres of their brain whereas males tend to have greater intra-hemispheric specialization. These authors wrote, “Overall, the results suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.” Woodcock and I had speculated that this stronger cross-hemisphere connectivity in females could be linked to the female advantage in processing speed.
Given these fundamental differences in female and male cognitive processing and brain architecture, the question arises as to which group is “neurotypical” and which is “neurodiverse.” Should females be considered “neurotypical” and males “neurodiverse,” or vice versa? An even more striking result of the study comparing cognitive abilities in females and males is that there were very few individual profiles displaying performance “at about the same level across different types of skills. Some of the skill areas include things like memory, math, and written or spoken language.” Nearly everyone had different relative strengths and weaknesses in memory, math, and written or spoken language. Indeed, like snowflakes, there was no one pattern that could be applied across all groups and all age levels. One could argue persuasively that very few people are “neurotypical” and that everyone is, at least to some extent, “neurodiverse.”
This point was also made by Baumer and Frueh: “Neurodiversity describes the idea that people experience and interact with the world around them in many different ways; there is no one ‘right’ way of thinking, learning, and behaving, and differences are not viewed as deficits….The word neurodiversity refers to the [neuro] diversity of all people.” [emphasis added]
Neurodiversity Essential Reads
This brings us back to the bright college student who likes languages, chemistry, and crystal structure—and intelligent conversation. Is she “neurodiverse”? Without a doubt! At least in terms of being highly intelligent and being interested in topics others may not be. Is she neurotypical? Definitely not! Her intellectual gifts are not equally distributed across all cognitive domains. But then, very few people indeed are “neurotypical” by that definition. If this is neurodiversity, I sincerely hope to see even more of these outstanding traits: curiosity, rational thinking, and engaged learning in everyone. I would also strongly argue that no one displaying these traits should be told to think of themselves as clinically impaired; being curious and highly intelligent should never be viewed as pathological conditions.