It’s obvious that this page was written by an autistic person because the top third is a fairly witty and insightful joke and the bottom third is an explanation of the joke.
As someone who relates to the article, it reads a lot less like humor. It's a grim reality.
Constantly being told there's something wrong with you, only to see clearly those around you, has a profoundly awful impact. Eventually it's replaced by more accurate internal modeling.
> Constantly being told there's something wrong with you
Worse yet, there's likely much less wrong with you than there is with those who feel they need to label you as somehow "less" to feel like "more" themselves.
I sometimes wonder if there are other possible neurodivergence, I'm not neurotypical, but I'm also not autistic (at least according to the criteria I've seen), just a bit odd or quirky doesn't seem to be enough.
Thanks for the links - from the OP post "Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity." I know this is a gag, but I see things like this and think oh maybe I'm autistic but no, I have the same complaints autistic people have, I just call it deathly dull, who knows.
See also "Am I German or Autistic?", which despite the cheeky title, does a pretty good job showing the balance between cultural and mindset patterns and autism spectrum traits. https://german.millermanschool.com
It is quite funny and IMO in good taste (which is hard to do when diagnosing 9,625 out of every 10,000 as deficient). It probably works well as an in-joke for people who prefer critical thinking to social proof.
But it isn't really appropriate to fight fire with fire when it comes to calling people disordered and the people who need to hear the message won't understand it because they key off social proof. In fact, they may literally not understand the gentle ribbing and might respond poorly.
I don’t think it’s so much as fighting fire with fire, as just reframing and correcting the usual biased assumptions about what it means to be “typical”.
> wont accept clear straightforward plain language explanation of what others want
From experience this feels to me like a very NT thing to say (apologies if you're not NT, no context to determine either way) - it comes across as written: "Why can't you just do what I ask you".
Often it feels atypical people require a logical understanding from first principles of why something should be done.
Then, once they have that they need to come to the same conclusion of what the course of action is.
If they're aligned, awesome.
If not, then the work is to try to make them understand why, given the current constraints and cultural context, their optimal approach is suboptimal in this situation.
Something as simple as "yes your idea is great, it will work better then theirs, but sometimes others need to fail so that they can learn from their failure" - exact quote.
I'm speaking to a very limited subset here based on quite a bit of exposure in many contexts.
“Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity.”
But then the author says:
“My brain is a jewel. I am in awe of the mind that I have.”
Obviously. It would come off as sarcastic humor if so many of the basic facts were correct. Neurotypical people are only just above 80% of the population, so the author is in more common company than they believe.
The scenario which drives me insane is; someone tells me some popular mainstream narrative about why we should do something in a particular way. Essentially just parroting expert consensus on a similar topic. I tell them exactly why this approach wouldn't work in that particular case and they concede to all my points. They fully agree and don't push back on anything.
But then a few minutes later, they're still pushing for the exact same mainstream expert consensus approach and ignoring all my earlier points which they had literally just agreed to. WTF.
The impression I get is that they liked how my arguments sounded superficially and felt that other people in the meeting also agreed but they didn't actually understand any of it! It's like they only absorbed it in a very superficial way; just enough to allow them to rephrase it or to add a few supporting points but somehow they really didn't actually understand the essence of the argument.
This kind of situation reminds me of the wordcel vs shape rotator discussion from a few years back. NT people are like wordcels.
The neurodivergent label was always incredibly stupid though. It's an entire movement trying to make it sound that having a pathological condition is fashionable. Something like a super quirky, human difference, as opposed to a health problem. Even though the condition is defined in the context of reduced functioning in society. OPs site is a good example of that flawed line of thinking.
The bigger issue is that the various illnesses under the "neurodivergent" umbrella have wide differences in impact. So you might get people who function in society and others who can't do anything. The former of which wants to make it some quirky personality trait. They both still have the condition though...
> Mental disorders are clearly not “natural kind” categories that can be defined using polythetic symptom checklists, which assume that a symptom can only be “present” or “absent” (9). In fact, it is debatable whether any medical conditions have this property. […] Thus, clinicians use the DSM framework not as the final word on psychiatric nosology but rather as one tool among others for treatment selection and communication with patients and families (11, 12).
In fact, in the case of autism, and if autism is conceptualised as a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference, the criteria logically can’t be the definition since they reference “current functioning”, which could go one way or the other for the same person depending on their circumstances.
It's not a health problem though. Neurodivergency (christ I hate that word) is far more prevalent than you'd expect, particularly ASD and ADHD, some 20% of the population. These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.
> These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.
I mean, quite apart from the fact that you can be so profoundly autistic that you are vulnerable and cognitively limited, and so profoundly ADHD that you are incapable of keeping yourself safe.
I am as yet formally undiagnosed ADHD; it is obvious, so obvious to me that either I am in later life finally unable to blunder through with the ADHD patterns that are evident throughout my life, or I have early onset dementia (which is how severe it often feels).
It is in no way society's fault that I am impaired. I have no special talents from my condition that other people with better time management could not also have acquired (and often do, better than me).
There may be a benefit to society from my profound inability to manage time leading to me productively hyperfocussing on something that society wants, but this comes at a cost to my health.
So I don't really care for the idea that these traits might "select"; it is a disorder.
> written by some "expert" from the perspective that neurotypical perception is correct, and my brain is a genetic mistake.
Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path. But so what? "Correct" and "mistake" are not antonyms. Without any mistakes, there would no be life in the world as we know. This is not a moral codemnation of any individual.
> I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life.
I am not quite able to put in words right now, but the sentiment expressed here seems like a perfect illustration of what happens when we let society become hyper-atomized and the fetishization of the individual.
If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself. If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered.
That's not how genetics of sexual reproduction works. I think it's only fair to say that we can't truly do a qualitative measure of the impact of any condition on fitness.
1) Being a hinderance does not necessarily mean evolutionary dead-ends, and some traits can still be prevalent in populations because the diversity is what protects us from systemic environment shocks.
2) Perception and adherence of hierarchies and status symbols are things present in nature for millions of years. "Capitalist society" has nothing to do with it.
Is there value to people constantly self-diagnosing themselves or seeking clinical diagnoses for neurodivergency? I don't mean this in a disparaging way; but surely constantly seeking to remind both yourself and society of your neurodivergency and any shortcomings you have with that seems almost like a crab bucket mentality that you are enveloping yourself with.
I don't have a problem with people looking inwards, but surely to maintain any kind of rationality you need to balance it by also reminding yourself to look outwards.
I got more things done in one week on ADHD meds than in the three months before that. And the only reason I went out to get a diagnosis was an ADHD meme community that constantly made me go "haha, that is so me".
If I got diagnosed 10 or 20 years earlier, I wouldn't have dropped out of university and my life would have been profoundly different and better.
It’s not really about productivity. Consider productivity an unintended benefit of the medication.
Extreme ADHD is a constantly shifting quest for volatile stimulation. This results in poor diet (extreme sugar cravings all the time), short term memory loss, failure to achieve basic tasks, obsessive behaviors, poor social framing, and more. For these extreme cases medication provides clarity that allows for more rational control of basic cognitive decisions.
For me I just kind of ignore the fact that I am neurodivergent, it really doesn't matter. I always refused in school to get any help for it since it really bothered me that I should be treated different. I haven't even gotten diagnosed since I wouldn't take any medications anyway.. But to answer your question it's extremely obvious if you are neurodivergent, it's not really a question that you have to ask yourself. If you need to research or seek answers you are probably pretty normal, there's things you notice in your day to day life that people around you do not have and over the course of your childhood you will have a pretty good understanding of it.
Obviously, this is a sample of 1 so take it with a grain of salt. I am just naturally stubborn which helped me learn to deal with these problems on my own.
Yes. It tells you to stop trying to fit in with the NT world and get on with being who you are. It could save you from a neurodivergent breakdown in your 40s that could take years to recover from. I trivialise because my wife is pressuring me to get of hn and drive her somewhere.
Depending on your context professional diagnosis might be expensive and out of reach and more importantly not incentivized. It's a space where self-diagnosis is more often than not the only path to diagnosis and understanding.
I'm myself bipolar (diagnosed) and very likely autistic (undiagnosed) and having a base understanding on the why and how my brain works has been a significant improvement.
Is this actually happening widely, or just in some spaces and it blows it out of proportions?
> constantly seeking to remind both yourself and society of your neurodivergency and any shortcomings you have with that seems almost like a crab bucket mentality
Is this what's happening or what you believe is happening? To me, it however looks like much more people are getting the help and support they need for this, compared to when I was a teenager. To me it's not learned helplessness or what it is you're trying to describe, but learning how to navigate society, and society being more aware of other's struggles. In the same vein that learning about structural racism isn't about disparaging people, but lifting everyone.
"Shortcomings" may even be the wrong word, as for many it's just different, not worse or better. Hence educating people like you is good.
Some can be improved with meditation. For example there is a roughly 60% comorbidity of ASD and ADHD and the ADHD portion can be improved with certain nonstimulant medications. Another example is that some disorders like psychosis and schizophrenia could pose harm that demands intervention.
I wouldn't put ADHD and psychosis in the same bucket.
Some is being different to various degrees(with having more problems to adjust to modern life without medication), the other is having a mental illness where most cannot perceive reality undistorted anymore.
Yes. We seek answers to why we feel so different or out of place socially living in a society. It has nothing to do with reminding ourselves of our shortcomings (although some do find humor in self-deprecation), but with the ways that society constantly reminds us that our brains are not wired the same way as everyone else. Frankly to even consider neurodivergency as shortcomings or a crab bucket mentality only furthers the narrative that neurodivergency is inherently a negative trait, when that is categorically false. It is much closer to feeling like a square in a world full of circular holes and the desire for diagnosis lies in understanding that.
Some folks won't get it, no matter how well you explain it, because they do not seek to understand in the first place. For them, being reminded that there is somebody out there that is somewhat different from them is already an annoyance, even before they realize they don't even understand you.
Whether you are neurodivergent, LGBTQ, or you get around on a bicycle, they treat you with the same derision and lack of sincere curiosity. Lindsay Gibson has written about these sorts of folks.
What does your point look like when you remove the presumption of shortcomings? I feel that it’s you who might have missed the point of the original post, unless you were just making an unrelated point because neurodivergence happened to be mentioned.
> Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. […] NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity.
What’s your point? I also don’t get it. Neurotypicality is by definition outward, neurodivergence is defined by your relation to the overall society expectations
It’s obvious that this page was written by an autistic person because the top third is a fairly witty and insightful joke and the bottom third is an explanation of the joke.
As someone who relates to the article, it reads a lot less like humor. It's a grim reality.
Constantly being told there's something wrong with you, only to see clearly those around you, has a profoundly awful impact. Eventually it's replaced by more accurate internal modeling.
> Constantly being told there's something wrong with you
Worse yet, there's likely much less wrong with you than there is with those who feel they need to label you as somehow "less" to feel like "more" themselves.
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody
I sometimes wonder if there are other possible neurodivergence, I'm not neurotypical, but I'm also not autistic (at least according to the criteria I've seen), just a bit odd or quirky doesn't seem to be enough.
Neurodivergent is absolutely not a synonym for autistic.
https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa...
https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/
Thanks for the links - from the OP post "Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity." I know this is a gag, but I see things like this and think oh maybe I'm autistic but no, I have the same complaints autistic people have, I just call it deathly dull, who knows.
See also "Am I German or Autistic?", which despite the cheeky title, does a pretty good job showing the balance between cultural and mindset patterns and autism spectrum traits. https://german.millermanschool.com
Disappointing - it seems I'm neither German or Autistic, but normal, and yet my experience suggests otherwise
ADHD, OCD, BPD, bipolar are all forms of neurodivergent. I'm sure there are more too.
I'm torn on whether I like this parody.
It is quite funny and IMO in good taste (which is hard to do when diagnosing 9,625 out of every 10,000 as deficient). It probably works well as an in-joke for people who prefer critical thinking to social proof.
But it isn't really appropriate to fight fire with fire when it comes to calling people disordered and the people who need to hear the message won't understand it because they key off social proof. In fact, they may literally not understand the gentle ribbing and might respond poorly.
3/5 stars.
>In fact, they may literally not understand the gentle ribbing and might respond poorly.
That, IMHO, is what makes it so delicious.
I don’t think it’s so much as fighting fire with fire, as just reframing and correcting the usual biased assumptions about what it means to be “typical”.
> t probably works well as an in-joke for people who prefer critical thinking to social proof.
Autistic and neuroatypical are not better critical thinkers. Fairly often they just ... dont understand certain things.
And wont accept clear straightforward plain language explanation of what others want, because in their heads they should not.
> wont accept clear straightforward plain language explanation of what others want
From experience this feels to me like a very NT thing to say (apologies if you're not NT, no context to determine either way) - it comes across as written: "Why can't you just do what I ask you".
Often it feels atypical people require a logical understanding from first principles of why something should be done.
Then, once they have that they need to come to the same conclusion of what the course of action is.
If they're aligned, awesome.
If not, then the work is to try to make them understand why, given the current constraints and cultural context, their optimal approach is suboptimal in this situation.
Something as simple as "yes your idea is great, it will work better then theirs, but sometimes others need to fail so that they can learn from their failure" - exact quote.
I'm speaking to a very limited subset here based on quite a bit of exposure in many contexts.
"Neuroatypical" shows up in many, many ways.
It started well. I laughed at the first sentence:
“Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity.”
But then the author says:
“My brain is a jewel. I am in awe of the mind that I have.”
Lost all respect instantly.
> Lost all respect instantly.
Just imagine there’s a cult that tells everyone that you and people like you are a mistake that should have been killed or “fixed” in the womb.
I maintain respect for the author, they have a good attitude in a grim reality.
> This site is an expression of autistic outrage.
Obviously. It would come off as sarcastic humor if so many of the basic facts were correct. Neurotypical people are only just above 80% of the population, so the author is in more common company than they believe.
So true. NT people are so frustrating!
The scenario which drives me insane is; someone tells me some popular mainstream narrative about why we should do something in a particular way. Essentially just parroting expert consensus on a similar topic. I tell them exactly why this approach wouldn't work in that particular case and they concede to all my points. They fully agree and don't push back on anything.
But then a few minutes later, they're still pushing for the exact same mainstream expert consensus approach and ignoring all my earlier points which they had literally just agreed to. WTF.
The impression I get is that they liked how my arguments sounded superficially and felt that other people in the meeting also agreed but they didn't actually understand any of it! It's like they only absorbed it in a very superficial way; just enough to allow them to rephrase it or to add a few supporting points but somehow they really didn't actually understand the essence of the argument.
This kind of situation reminds me of the wordcel vs shape rotator discussion from a few years back. NT people are like wordcels.
David Chase(the wonderful creator of The Sopranos) has said on more than one occasion that people don’t say what they mean.
I think in your scenario that’s applying both ways.
The neurodivergent label was always incredibly stupid though. It's an entire movement trying to make it sound that having a pathological condition is fashionable. Something like a super quirky, human difference, as opposed to a health problem. Even though the condition is defined in the context of reduced functioning in society. OPs site is a good example of that flawed line of thinking.
The bigger issue is that the various illnesses under the "neurodivergent" umbrella have wide differences in impact. So you might get people who function in society and others who can't do anything. The former of which wants to make it some quirky personality trait. They both still have the condition though...
^ Bulverism.
> Even though the condition is defined in the context of reduced functioning in society.
Diagnostic criteria are not a definition. Even the organisation that publishes the DSM acknowledges it: https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250876
> Mental disorders are clearly not “natural kind” categories that can be defined using polythetic symptom checklists, which assume that a symptom can only be “present” or “absent” (9). In fact, it is debatable whether any medical conditions have this property. […] Thus, clinicians use the DSM framework not as the final word on psychiatric nosology but rather as one tool among others for treatment selection and communication with patients and families (11, 12).
In fact, in the case of autism, and if autism is conceptualised as a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference, the criteria logically can’t be the definition since they reference “current functioning”, which could go one way or the other for the same person depending on their circumstances.
It's understandable though. Would you like to think of yourself as deficient, even if you really are?
It's not a health problem though. Neurodivergency (christ I hate that word) is far more prevalent than you'd expect, particularly ASD and ADHD, some 20% of the population. These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.
> These traits have self selected for a reason, and any issues encountered are a fault of modern society not the individual imo.
I mean, quite apart from the fact that you can be so profoundly autistic that you are vulnerable and cognitively limited, and so profoundly ADHD that you are incapable of keeping yourself safe.
I am as yet formally undiagnosed ADHD; it is obvious, so obvious to me that either I am in later life finally unable to blunder through with the ADHD patterns that are evident throughout my life, or I have early onset dementia (which is how severe it often feels).
It is in no way society's fault that I am impaired. I have no special talents from my condition that other people with better time management could not also have acquired (and often do, better than me).
There may be a benefit to society from my profound inability to manage time leading to me productively hyperfocussing on something that society wants, but this comes at a cost to my health.
So I don't really care for the idea that these traits might "select"; it is a disorder.
Do you think there was ever a time when systemizing type thinking was more beneficial than now?
> written by some "expert" from the perspective that neurotypical perception is correct, and my brain is a genetic mistake.
Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path. But so what? "Correct" and "mistake" are not antonyms. Without any mistakes, there would no be life in the world as we know. This is not a moral codemnation of any individual.
> I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may be superior, to the NT experience of life.
I am not quite able to put in words right now, but the sentiment expressed here seems like a perfect illustration of what happens when we let society become hyper-atomized and the fetishization of the individual.
> Well, it is a mistake.
If you say it is a mistake, then you must know what the goal is.
If we are talking about genes, the goal is to keep the ability to duplicate itself. If there is anything about this duplication process that has lead to the individual's brain development with difficulties to adapt to life with their tribe, socialization and chances of finding a mate are also hindered.
The prevalance of these traits shows that it wasn't always a hinderance. Capitalist society predominantly valuing conformity is the issue.
That's not how genetics of sexual reproduction works. I think it's only fair to say that we can't truly do a qualitative measure of the impact of any condition on fitness.
1) Being a hinderance does not necessarily mean evolutionary dead-ends, and some traits can still be prevalent in populations because the diversity is what protects us from systemic environment shocks.
2) Perception and adherence of hierarchies and status symbols are things present in nature for millions of years. "Capitalist society" has nothing to do with it.
> Well, it is a mistake. It is a deviation from the normal path.
This is a non sequitur. Why do you assume variation is a “mistake”? And how do you define “normal”?
Maybe in the future they will consider attentionwhorism as a mental disorder
Maybe. But this site was last updated in 2002.
A different world.
Is there value to people constantly self-diagnosing themselves or seeking clinical diagnoses for neurodivergency? I don't mean this in a disparaging way; but surely constantly seeking to remind both yourself and society of your neurodivergency and any shortcomings you have with that seems almost like a crab bucket mentality that you are enveloping yourself with.
I don't have a problem with people looking inwards, but surely to maintain any kind of rationality you need to balance it by also reminding yourself to look outwards.
I got more things done in one week on ADHD meds than in the three months before that. And the only reason I went out to get a diagnosis was an ADHD meme community that constantly made me go "haha, that is so me".
If I got diagnosed 10 or 20 years earlier, I wouldn't have dropped out of university and my life would have been profoundly different and better.
Productivity is not the most important thing to me— because it’s too easy to get the wrong things done.
It’s not really about productivity. Consider productivity an unintended benefit of the medication.
Extreme ADHD is a constantly shifting quest for volatile stimulation. This results in poor diet (extreme sugar cravings all the time), short term memory loss, failure to achieve basic tasks, obsessive behaviors, poor social framing, and more. For these extreme cases medication provides clarity that allows for more rational control of basic cognitive decisions.
For me I just kind of ignore the fact that I am neurodivergent, it really doesn't matter. I always refused in school to get any help for it since it really bothered me that I should be treated different. I haven't even gotten diagnosed since I wouldn't take any medications anyway.. But to answer your question it's extremely obvious if you are neurodivergent, it's not really a question that you have to ask yourself. If you need to research or seek answers you are probably pretty normal, there's things you notice in your day to day life that people around you do not have and over the course of your childhood you will have a pretty good understanding of it.
Obviously, this is a sample of 1 so take it with a grain of salt. I am just naturally stubborn which helped me learn to deal with these problems on my own.
Yes. It tells you to stop trying to fit in with the NT world and get on with being who you are. It could save you from a neurodivergent breakdown in your 40s that could take years to recover from. I trivialise because my wife is pressuring me to get of hn and drive her somewhere.
Depending on your context professional diagnosis might be expensive and out of reach and more importantly not incentivized. It's a space where self-diagnosis is more often than not the only path to diagnosis and understanding.
I'm myself bipolar (diagnosed) and very likely autistic (undiagnosed) and having a base understanding on the why and how my brain works has been a significant improvement.
Why do you think this person is self diagnosed?
> people constantly self-diagnosing
Is this actually happening widely, or just in some spaces and it blows it out of proportions?
> constantly seeking to remind both yourself and society of your neurodivergency and any shortcomings you have with that seems almost like a crab bucket mentality
Is this what's happening or what you believe is happening? To me, it however looks like much more people are getting the help and support they need for this, compared to when I was a teenager. To me it's not learned helplessness or what it is you're trying to describe, but learning how to navigate society, and society being more aware of other's struggles. In the same vein that learning about structural racism isn't about disparaging people, but lifting everyone.
"Shortcomings" may even be the wrong word, as for many it's just different, not worse or better. Hence educating people like you is good.
Some can be improved with meditation. For example there is a roughly 60% comorbidity of ASD and ADHD and the ADHD portion can be improved with certain nonstimulant medications. Another example is that some disorders like psychosis and schizophrenia could pose harm that demands intervention.
I wouldn't put ADHD and psychosis in the same bucket.
Some is being different to various degrees(with having more problems to adjust to modern life without medication), the other is having a mental illness where most cannot perceive reality undistorted anymore.
They are not similar yet it’s all neurodivergence.
Yes. We seek answers to why we feel so different or out of place socially living in a society. It has nothing to do with reminding ourselves of our shortcomings (although some do find humor in self-deprecation), but with the ways that society constantly reminds us that our brains are not wired the same way as everyone else. Frankly to even consider neurodivergency as shortcomings or a crab bucket mentality only furthers the narrative that neurodivergency is inherently a negative trait, when that is categorically false. It is much closer to feeling like a square in a world full of circular holes and the desire for diagnosis lies in understanding that.
Some folks won't get it, no matter how well you explain it, because they do not seek to understand in the first place. For them, being reminded that there is somebody out there that is somewhat different from them is already an annoyance, even before they realize they don't even understand you.
Whether you are neurodivergent, LGBTQ, or you get around on a bicycle, they treat you with the same derision and lack of sincere curiosity. Lindsay Gibson has written about these sorts of folks.
Neurodivergence does not require a diagnosis. https://sherlocksflataffect.tumblr.com/post/121295972384/psa...
And looking outwards is exactly what it does since it references societal neuronormativity. It’s not about the “shortcomings you have”.
> Neurodivergence does not require a diagnosis.
It does if you require to be treated specially.
If you're looking outwards merely just to look inwards again, then you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say.
What does your point look like when you remove the presumption of shortcomings? I feel that it’s you who might have missed the point of the original post, unless you were just making an unrelated point because neurodivergence happened to be mentioned.
> Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. […] NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity.
What’s your point? I also don’t get it. Neurotypicality is by definition outward, neurodivergence is defined by your relation to the overall society expectations