Beyond "Good Diversity" and "Bad Disorder": Embracing Complexity in Advocacy

In the growing movement for neurodiversity and broader diversity inclusion, many advocates still frame diversity as inherently "good" and disorder as inherently "bad." While this perspective has been instrumental in challenging stigma and promoting acceptance, it remains rooted in binary, linear thinking that limits our ability to fully embrace the complexity of human variation. By maintaining this dichotomy, we risk reinforcing the very pathology models we aim to dismantle, creating new boundaries that fail to capture the dynamic, nonlinear reality of diversity and adaptation.

The Pitfall of "Good vs. Bad"

The idea that diversity is "good" and disorder is "bad" often stems from a desire to highlight strengths and combat negative stereotypes. Advocates may argue, for example, that autism represents a valuable form of diversity because it includes traits like heightened focus, creativity, or pattern recognition. At the same time, they might distance autism from being labeled a "disorder" by pointing out that it is not inherently pathological.

While well-intentioned, this framing creates a problematic division:

• Diversity becomes the box of acceptable traits, highlighting strengths and framing differences as assets.
• Disorder becomes the box of unacceptable traits, representing challenges, suffering, or deviations from societal norms.

This binary approach forces advocates to pick and choose which aspects of human variation are worth celebrating and which are not, often based on subjective or societal standards of "functionality." In doing so, it risks marginalizing those whose experiences don’t neatly fit into the "good diversity" category.

Complexity: All Diversity, All Trade-Offs

The Evolutionary Stress Framework (ESF) offers a different perspective: all human traits are part of the spectrum of diversity, shaped by evolutionary trade-offs, energy dynamics, and environmental contexts. There is no clear boundary between "diversity" and "disorder." What we label as "disorder" often reflects a state of heightened entropy or constrained adaptability—a dynamic interaction between an individual’s traits, their environment, and the demands placed upon them.

From this perspective:

• Diversity includes all traits and trade-offs, whether they are seen as strengths, challenges, or both.
• Disorder is not a fixed label but a state of transactional entropy where the costs of maintaining balance and adaptability exceed the system’s capacity to manage stress or energy demands.

For example, conditions like Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) or autism spectrum diversity reflect profiles of connective tissue or neurocognitive variability. These profiles come with traits and trade-offs: flexibility and hypermobility in EDS may enhance physical adaptability but increase vulnerability to injury, while heightened pattern recognition in autism may enhance problem-solving but lead to sensory overwhelm in high-stress environments. The challenges arise not because these profiles are inherently "disordered," but because their energy needs and adaptive strategies may not align with societal or environmental expectations.

Moving Beyond Binary Thinking

To fully embrace diversity, advocates must challenge the "good vs. bad" mindset and adopt a more nuanced, systems-based understanding:

1. Recognize the Full Spectrum of Diversity:
2. Reframe Disorder as Context-Dependent:
3. Focus on Adaptation, Not Labels:
4. Embrace Trade-Offs:

Advocacy for a Complexity Lens

Advocacy rooted in complexity recognizes that diversity and disorder are not opposites but interrelated aspects of the same spectrum. This approach:

• Honors the lived experiences of individuals who navigate challenges that might traditionally be labeled as "disordered."
• Moves beyond stigma without creating new boundaries of inclusion and exclusion.
• Focuses on systemic solutions, addressing environmental mismatches, energy demands, and stress dynamics rather than imposing normative standards of "normal."

By rejecting the "good diversity vs. bad disorder" dichotomy, we can create a more inclusive and accurate framework for understanding human variation. Diversity is not about dividing traits into acceptable and unacceptable categories—it’s about recognizing and supporting the full spectrum of human complexity.