Talk:Neurodiversity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neurodiversity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

The content of Neurotypical was merged into Neurodiversity on 30 December 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Neurology / Psychiatry Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disability

Neurodiversity is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Autism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dyslexia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 3 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meganvanderwiele (article contribs).

Images

@Patrickpowns, I am not convinced by certain aspects of the two images you recently inserted.

First image: it creates the impression that the disorder narrative is debated within the neurodiversity movement where there is a clear consensus among highly involved members of the movement against it (at least for autism). Also, neurodiversity recognizes inherent difficulties but views only limited parts of autism as such and prominent academics in it do not usually use the word "impairment" other than for "language impairment".

Second image: Neurodiversity proponents accept certain interventions that increase self-determination, but presenting less autistic behaviors is definitely not an accepted goal. Also, the social model does not exclude research rigor. LogicalLens (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback :)

re: second point because it's quicker, I excluded "rigour" from the social model set because the social model doesn't really seem to wade into that argument; more of an "abstain" position than a "disagree position." That is the understanding I collected from the sources I consulted; Tom Shakespeare doesn't even touch on that area in the textbook chapter/his own book. Thoughts: I could clarify in the caption that exclusion of a position from the set implies disagreement *or* abstention?

re: first point, actually on consideration I also agree. I'll spare you my extended thought process, but I tried to encapsulate a thread of debate I've seen expressed where some ostensibly-NDM debaters try to distinguish that autism is a *developmental* disorder instead of a mental health disorder. I can't find this when combing through my sources again though, so I'm happy to re-upload this with "disorder" excluded from the Neurodiversity set. Do you think it would be useful to try and include this developmental/mental health disorder distinction, if I were able to find a reputable source for that? Or is that sort of hair-splitting something that should be dealt with in text?

Patrickpowns (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrickpowns 1) That argument with the distinction between developmental disorder and mental health disorder made by a few people is rooted in a complete lack of knowledge about either model. Even medical model proponents do not call autism a mental health disorder: the DSM-5 and ICD-11 manuals classify autism as a "neurodevelopmental disorder".

2) I still think that excluding the social model from scientific rigor in the graphic is misleading even if there is a caption that vaguely relativizes it. It is exceptionally difficult to explain the different models in a graphic, in part because three models are far more complicated to contrast than two. It is an interesting attempt, but I currently think about whether a table would be better. LogicalLens (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LogicalLens

great, sounds like we're in agreement on #1 then

on #2, blah I think you're right. I'm annoyed that I spent this much time on making the euler diagram, but it *would* be easier e.g. for screen readers to just have it as a table without having a giant alt text.

I'm away from my computer for a couple more days, would you want to turn this into a table? otherwise I'll do it when I'm back.

Patrickpowns (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether this even violates WP:NOR if it is not backed up by a concrete reliable source. LogicalLens (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are listed in the image descriptions, does that help? I intentionally summarize e.g. Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited (Tom Shakespeare 2013) which I would say fits right into WP:PSTS

I've got some time today, I'll turn it into a table Patrickpowns (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patrickpowns/sandbox thoughts? I plan on improving the formatting with colour coding and font subtitling Patrickpowns (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "colour coding and font subtitling" will necessarily be an improvement - other than moving the subtitles (eg "Autism is a mental health disorder ") to a separate row, not formatted as "title" (because it is an explanation, not a title). Sentence case, per MOS:HEADCAPS, would be an improvement. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used are generally appropriate. When I have more time, I will go into the details of the table. LogicalLens (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback :)

I'll do a formatting pass then replace the images in the Neurodiversity article for now, at the very least to correct the unsupported (and wrong!) claim that the ND movement has varied views on whether autism is a mental health disorder. Then, feel free to use your time to either edit it directly _or_ ping me to better-research a specific cell/detail Patrickpowns (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

I'm toying with adding a section to the article for Martha Wells' classic Murderbot books. Prompted by the new Apple TV dramatization of the first book, "All Systems Red." Here's a nice writeup of that by a self-described neurodivergent person: https://reactormag.com/tv-review-murderbot-episodes-1-and-2/ Here's our page on the book: All Systems Red

Comments? The Reactor article is pretty cool. And I'm a big Martha Wells fan. This is one of her very best. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a fan of something is not a reason to include it in a Wikipedia article. In what way is this show/book more important than the many others that deal with neurodiversity? LogicalLens (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spikey cognitive profile

Hi, in this edit on 12 December 2024, @RIT RAJARSHI: added an image with caption "a hypothetical radar plot of spikey cognitive profile". This term, 'spikey cognitive profile', (still) isn't mentioned anywhere else on the page, and needs an explanation, in my humble opinion. Could you, RIT RAJARSHI, or anyone else, provide more information, please? Thank you in advance, Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {Ping|RIT RAJARSHI}} Since you didn't respond, I removed the image for now. Please only add it again with some explanation on the page. Thank you. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments to quote

I have made amendments to the recent addition of Travers's source. I also added a quote to this, though I still don't see why it seems to be a struggle to add criticisms of the neurodiversity movement for WP:BALANCE sake. This is the second scholarly paper that was removed, and I don't see what I am doing wrong here, especially considering that Travers is a scholar on autism. Not to mention the fact he is criticizing the main premise of the ND movement (that ASD is merely a neurological difference), though he doesn't mention it by name until page 290. Plasticwonder (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified response here with regard to the content: Your edit was a WP:SYNTH of connecting two separate statements from a book 5 pages apart that has been reverted twice (revert 1 by @LogicalLens: and revert 2 by myself) as the edit failed our policies as pointed out in the respective edit summaries. You are welcome to add content and the reversion wasn't because you tried to add criticism, but because it was synthesizing statements to create a new inference and we don't do that on Wikipedia. We rely on reliable secondary sources who may do such synthesis, but not us as editors. Raladic (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said. I closed the RfC to re evaluate the content I put forth in the future. Thanks. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The theory that autism is caused by neurological differences is not only shared by neurodiversity advocates but also by staunch medical model supporters. It is no surprise that the author only mentions neurodiversity several pages later, because it is not a criticism of neurodiversity.

You have been showing the following pattern over the past months, in this and in another article[1][2]:

1) Inserting statements that associate neurodiversity with pseudoscience and misrepresenting sources to seemingly support these statements.

2) When the issues with your edits are pointed out, you accuse others of pushing a pro-neurodiversity agenda, without seriously responding to the objections.

3) When you realize that you are not going to succeed, you pledge to pull back and remove the content.

4) You wait a few weeks in the hope that vigilant editors move away in the meantime.

5) You come back and insert similar (or even the same) problematic statements in the same or another article, all while acting like you did not know that there is anything wrong with your editing.

This means that I or another editor will have to continually check your user contributions, because it is to be expected that you will try again next month or at another point. @Raladic has already complained about your incivility, and this is another kind of unacceptable conduct. LogicalLens (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your terms. If I venture back here (which I more than likely will not, I am obviously not as versed), you will be the first one to know. Keep in mind I have been here for a little over a year and am still getting the hang of things. Plasticwonder (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC-Relevant or not

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Decided to gain more sources and improve prose before returning. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the community think that the following statement is relevant to the article:

Autism scholar Jason Travers asserted that "the notion that ASD is caused or explained by impairments or differences in brain processing", while plausible, is "largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive)", and have "many hallmarks of pseudoscience", continuing that the proponents of the neurodiversity movement "aim to undermine evidence-based treatments".^[1]

References

^ Hupp S, Santa Maria CL (March 23, 2023), Pseudoscience in Therapy: A Skeptical Field Guide, Cambridge University Press, p. 285 and 290, ISBN 978-1-316-51922-6, That is, the notion that ASD is caused or explained by impairments or differences in brain processing seems plausible. However, this perspective is largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive), has many hallmarks of pseudoscience, and has ushered in various treatments that are unsupported by rigorous experimental evidence......Sadly, vocal opposition to evidence-based treatments has become a prominent theme of the neurodiversity movement, particularly on social media and in some academic circles (e.g., disability studies; Broderick & Roscigno, 2021). In particular, some neurodiversity proponents aim to undermine evidence-based treatments rooted in applied behavior analysis.

WP:RFCBEFORE-here Plasticwonder (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as opener, per my comments above this rfc, I do not wish to repeat them, and bludgeon the process. Plasticwonder (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've update the proposed statement for grammar, to include "rather", and then extended the scope quote accordingly. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Falls at the first hurdle because the proposed text misrepresents the sources which is specific to ASD being caused by "impairments or differences in brain processing". Wikipedia's cannot smudge that into "many of the proposed theories on autism". Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, would it be easier to just add the full quotation, instead of summarizing it? EDIT: I have (just now) included direct quotation in the proposed text.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been better in a WP:RFCBEFORE. Maybe best to withdraw and reformulate. Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I am going to withdraw for know, gain sources. It will be a long while before I return here. Thanks for your advice. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

relevant but with a huge caveat though it doesn't really directly mention that the neurodiversity movement is the cause of said idea, he does not specify the source. Nevertheless, after clicking on the link I do not see the problem with at least adding the bit on the neurodiversity movement's view on treatments (though it is a comment I disagree heavily with)2403:4800:3476:B001:2048:847C:9DEF:2D77 (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I don't quite understand what improvements you want to see. Would you mind clarifying more? What is wrong with the full quotation? Plasticwonder (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUD. Bon courage (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For asking a question? Sure. Ill withdraw until the rfc ends. thx Plasticwonder (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For replying to everything. Best to be quiet on your own RfC. Bon courage (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) will reply above. Raladic (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hupp S, Santa Maria CL (March 23, 2023), Pseudoscience in Therapy: A Skeptical Field Guide, Cambridge University Press, p. 285 and 290, ISBN 978-1-316-51922-6, That is, the notion that ASD is caused or explained by impairments or differences in brain processing seems plausible. However, this perspective is largely descriptive (rather than prescriptive), has many hallmarks of pseudoscience, and has ushered in various treatments that are unsupported by rigorous experimental evidence......Sadly, vocal opposition to evidence-based treatments has become a prominent theme of the neurodiversity movement, particularly on social media and in some academic circles (e.g., disability studies; Broderick & Roscigno, 2021). In particular, some neurodiversity proponents aim to undermine evidence-based treatments rooted in applied behavior analysis.

[1]