Talk:Neurodiversity

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Social media section unbalanced?

The social media section has a tag attached to it that states that its neutrality is disputed, which is from August 2024. What aspects of it are unbalanced and how do you think we can resolve this? LogicalLens (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I added the self-diagnosis controversy and removed the unbalanced tag from the social media section as I think the issue is resolved and nobody answered here. LogicalLens (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

quotation marks around cure and fix

Re these edits [1][2] and the use of quotation marks around cure and fix ...

I maintain that the use of scare quotes is unnecessary and contrary to MOS:SCAREQUOTES. While I agree that the concept of curing or fixing is disputed, the words in the article, and in that context in each case, have their normal meaning (and are not words-as-words), so quotation marks are not required and ought not be used. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is more that the term "cure" is inappropriate outside the medical model, so using it is misleading and suggests an objectivity of neurodivergences being disorders that underlies the concept of curing something. You can have a disorder and still think it shouldn't be cured but if it is not a disorder then "curing" it makes no sense at all. LogicalLens (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think it's helpful to look at it as a case-by-case situation. (bold added for ease of reading)

1. Template:Tq
2. Template:Tq
3. Template:Tq
4. Template:Tq

For #1 I can see an argument for keeping quotation marks, partially based on the way the Bloomsbury chapter used quotation marks (p. 373 Template:Tq). I'm not completely how to articulate the grammatical justification, but I think it's something to do with the fact that in that sentence the concepts of "cure" and fix" are being sort of questioned, so they're sort of acting like MOS:WAW.

For #2, 3, and 4 I lean towards removing the quotation marks. Based on my read of other sources and my own interpretation of the sentences, I think those are a more clear-cut case of words not being used as words.

I don't feel super strongly about any of these in either direction, just my 2 cents CambrianCrab (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

For #1, I agree with @CambrianCrab that the scarequotes should be kept and rewrote the sentence in order to remove the weasel word tag and the misconception that neurodiversity was about changing the framing of medical interventions where it is actually about changing the interventions themselves. At least one source referring to other neurodevelopmental differences is needed as the sentence refers to ADHD, dyslexia and others and the ASAN source that I copied from below only refers to autism.

For #2, I changed it to "neurodivergent people don't need to be turned into neurotypical people".

For #3, I removed the scarequotes because it refers specifically to the medical model, but @Augmented Seventh reverted it.

For #4, I changed it to "eliminated" without scarequotes, which is a more neutral term than "cure", but @Augmented Seventh reverted it. LogicalLens (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The source I'm looking at says "cure".

perhaps i was mistaken.

thanks for the heads up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We are having a conversation here about the use of scarequotes around terms like "cure". In order to avoid that, I rewrote some sentences and have explained the reasons for my more complex edit above. Not every edit that changes a sentence without changing the source is wrong. LogicalLens (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

For #2 "neurodivergent people don't need to be turned into neurotypical people" seems a bit stilted to me. What about "neurodiversity is not something that needs to be cured" Mitch Ames (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree but have changed "neurodiversity" to "neurodivergence". The previous version sounded like "people with neurodiversity" which is wrong because neurodiversity refers to the diversity of all minds while neurodivergence is a term that encompasses autism, ADHD, dyslexia etc. LogicalLens (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tqq Template:Mdash That is not a reason to use quotation marks. In fact the sentences all make sense if you remove the quotation marks because the words are being used in their normal literal senses, and the [Wikipedia article] writer is not (or should not be) distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation. That being said, in the worst case of #1, perhaps we could resolve the issue by rewording it as "... framing medical interventions as means to what they perceive as an unnecessary cure or fix." Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ohhkay I see how you're reading the sentence now and you're right, the quotation marks don't quite work in #1. The crux of the issue is that under the framework of neurodiversity, terms like “cure” aren't necessarily used in their normal literal sense, because deconstructing those terms is part of the foundation of the framework (i.e. like saying “cure” in ref to neurodiversity under this framework makes as much sense as talking about a “cure” for brown hair) My read of that sentence was that it was supposed to be a reference to that (hence why I said keep them), but Mitch is right, currently it does not. Since the sentence is already a little bit awkward, my suggestion is: Template:TextDiff Then since the next paragraph is already talking about nomenclature, we can add a little bit there about why words like cure don't really make sense under this framework. I think I have some more sources that talk about this, but I'm fairly busy lately so I'm not sure when I'll have the time to dig for them. I think the Bloomsbury chapter (the Chapman 2019 reference) talked about it a bit more too... CambrianCrab (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to "Neurodiversity advocates and organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) do not agree with using medical interventions as a way to remove neurodevelopmental differences."[3] Do you agree? LogicalLens (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with [4] - it's short and to the point. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

LogicalLens That looks great! In terms of adding to the next paragraph, the refs I had were easier to find than I expected (yay folders) but unfortunately don't mention neurodiversity so no good for this article. I re-read the Bloomsbury chapter though and found a paragraph that might be helpful CambrianCrab (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree with my change?[5] LogicalLens (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It’s not true of all such differences, though. See for example:

Template:Tq2

Spidermario (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you agree with my change?[6] LogicalLens (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! Spidermario (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Quote from Chapman 2019 pp.381-382
Template:Tq

Leadbitter paper

@Augmented Seventh, why did you revert my re-insertion of Leadbitter's paper and two other changed made by me without giving reasons for it? LogicalLens (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I thought i did give reason.

I was looking at an article being edited against the source material, and noticed edits changing meaning of sentences without supplying a source.

Essentially, i saw unsourced changes to a topic with which i am unfamiliar, and reverted to last reliably sourced version.

thanks for trying to keep the encyclopedia accurate, Augmented Seventh (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)