Understanding and Misunderstanding Neurodiversity and Its Complex Meanings

In the biological world, diversity is not an exception but the rule. From towering trees in a forest to the smallest insects underfoot, ecosystems thrive because of the intricate interplay of diverse organisms. Neurodiversity, at its core, operates on the same principle. It represents the full spectrum of cognitive and neurological variation present in humanity. At the biological and ecosystem level, neurodiversity encompasses everyone—every brain, every mind, every unique contribution to the greater whole. Yet, when the term enters advocacy and social justice spaces, its meaning often narrows, creating confusion and debate about what it truly represents.

The term "neurodiversity" emerged as part of a movement challenging the pathology model of disability, which views conditions like autism or ADHD as deficits to be fixed. Instead, advocates promote the social model of disability, which focuses on removing societal barriers and recognizing that challenges often arise not from individuals themselves but from environments ill-suited to their needs. In this context, "neurodiversity" frequently becomes shorthand for the movement—a way to describe and validate the experiences of neurodivergent individuals whose minds function differently from societal norms.

Here lies the first source of confusion: in its advocacy usage, neurodiversity begins to refer not to everyone but specifically to those labeled neurodivergent. It becomes juxtaposed somewhere between “normal” and “pathological,” neither entirely fitting into either category. Advocates argue that neurodivergent individuals aren’t pathological, but neither are they considered “normal” by societal standards. They are often described as “just different,” a classification that defies easy explanation and further muddies the waters of understanding.

This tension becomes particularly pronounced in therapeutic, medical, and workplace contexts, where the terms "neurodiversity" and "neurodiverse" are often applied to individuals rather than the broader spectrum of human variation. Professionals in these fields might describe someone as "neurodiverse" or say they "have neurodiversity," inadvertently shifting the term’s meaning away from its original inclusivity. Meanwhile, advocates frequently correct this usage, emphasizing that neurodiversity describes a collective state rather than an individual trait. However, these corrections often lack a connective way to bridge the broad biological understanding of neurodiversity with its more focused advocacy applications.

To resolve this confusion, it is useful to introduce the concept of "bio-neurodiversity." This term reframes neurodiversity in its original ecosystemic context, emphasizing the full spectrum of natural human variation in cognition and behavior. Within this framework, differences are not viewed as problems but as adaptive responses to environmental and social pressures. These variations, referred to as "emergent neurotypes," highlight the dynamic nature of human evolution. Every neurotype, from the so-called typical to the highly divergent, contributes to the complexity and resilience of the human species.

Bio-neurodiversity also offers a new way to understand the role of pathology. It reframes neurodiversity as "cooperative neurodiversity," emphasizing the interconnectedness of neurotypes through the lens of stress and energy dynamics. This perspective recognizes that no neurotype exists in isolation; all variations interact within a larger system, contributing to collective resilience and adaptation. Pathology becomes relegated to cases of single causality—instances where something has gone truly wrong, such as a brain injury, a virus or a degenerative disease. Most differences, however, are not pathological but reflect the trade-offs and protective mechanisms that emerge when pushing the envelope of evolution and energy. Diversity inherently involves a degree of disorder because innovation and adaptation require exploring the boundaries of what is stable and predictable.

However, alongside protective mechanisms come costs and recalibrations. These can sometimes diminish functionality or lead to ineffective inflammation, unpredictability in maintaining homeostasis, and distress across immune, cognitive, digestive, and metabolic systems. Such challenges often arise not as failures but as the side effects of systems navigating complex trade-offs to adapt and survive. Disorders, in this light, are better understood as protective mechanisms—strategies the brain and body use to sense, respond, and survive within complex systems, even if those strategies come at a cost.

This shift from viewing difference to embracing diversity has profound implications. It challenges outdated binary models of "normal" versus "disordered" and instead frames the brain as a complex, adaptive system where variation is not only natural but essential. Disorders, rather than being seen as failures, become expressions of trade-offs and energy strategies that prioritize certain strengths or protections at the cost of others. For example, heightened sensory processing might enable greater environmental awareness but also lead to overstimulation in certain contexts. These trade-offs are not flaws but integral aspects of bio-neurodiversity.

By adopting this perspective, we can hope to move beyond the limitations of both the pathology and social models. Bio-neurodiversity recognizes the interconnectedness of all minds and values every variation as part of the broader human ecosystem. It shifts the conversation from one of deficits and fixes to one of complexity and contributions, encouraging a holistic view that embraces the richness of neurotypes in all their forms. It would also allow us to start intervening on a systems level to address unnecessary or overwhelming allostatic loads that arise from neglecting stress mechanisms tied to single-source causation models, which dominate our current scientific framing.

Ultimately, the confusion around neurodiversity stems not from any inherent flaw in the term but from the complexity of the systems it seeks to describe and the diverse purposes it serves. In advocacy, the term must be precise to address specific barriers and injustices. In biology, it must be expansive to capture the full breadth of human variation. By embracing concepts like bio-neurodiversity and emergent neurotypes, we can bridge these perspectives and create a more inclusive, nuanced understanding of what it means to nurture the diversity of minds. Neurodiversity is not just a word; it is a conversation, an evolving idea that invites us to rethink our assumptions and expand our vision of human potential.

1 in a series of 3 articles...

Glossary of Terms

Neurodiversity: The full spectrum of natural variation in human cognitive and neurological functioning. Originally a biological concept, it is often used in advocacy to describe the rights and inclusion of neurodivergent individuals.

Neurodivergent: A term describing individuals whose cognitive and neurological functioning differs from societal norms, often including conditions like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia (plus up to 300 more!).

Bio-Neurodiversity: A framework emphasizing the ecosystemic perspective of neurodiversity, recognizing all neurotypes as part of the dynamic and adaptive continuum of human evolution.

Emergent Neurotypes: Adaptive variations in cognitive and neurological functioning that have evolved in response to environmental and social pressures.

Pathology: Conditions of single causality where something has gone truly wrong, such as brain injuries, viral infection or degenerative diseases, distinct from natural variations or individualized responses.

Allostatic Load: The cumulative physiological and psychological cost of chronic stress or repeated stress responses.

Emergent Allostasis: The dynamic process through which systems adaptively recalibrate to maintain energy balance and functional stability under changing conditions.

Dis-Allostasis: A state in which a system's adaptive mechanisms for maintaining balance and energy regulation are overwhelmed or misaligned, leading to maladaptive outcomes, inefficiencies, or prolonged instability.

Protective Mechanisms: Strategies employed by the brain and body to adapt and survive in complex systems, often involving trade-offs that prioritize certain strengths or protections at the cost of others.