Neurodivergent vs Neurotypical: Who Says What is Normal?

Neurotypical, in general terms, is defined as anyone who thinks or processes information like the average person. Here is the issue with the way of thinking: there is no brain to compare every brain to, so how do we even know what is average or typical? Others may state that this difference lies within the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, but again, who says that this information is doctrine? The DSM-5 is a book that certain professionals use for diagnosis, and its information is based on the research the committee decides is relevant.

What this means is that when we look at the DSM-5, the information is stated in a way that the committee believes to be true, not necessarily based on research that's readily proven by current scientific research. As such, there could be readily available research showing characteristics of dyslexics that the DSM-5 does not use to change its narrative or diagnostic criteria, and so it is not used by those diagnosing professionals. 

Neurodivergent was first coined by Harvey Bloom in 1998 to represent the idea that each of our experiences in the world is unique. It was about embracing the diverse brain. It was not supposed to be black-and-white or an us-versus-them situation. It was brought forth to showcase that we all think differently and have different experiences. Once Harvey Bloom mentioned it in 1998, Judy Singer used this term within her thesis. As such, she is regularly recognized as an advocate for neurodiversity. However, the separation of neurotypical from neurodiverse is attributed to an autistic advocate, Kassandra Asauamasu. Furthering this, another researcher, Helen Taylor and her theory of complementary cognition, found in her research that human cognition is part of our social evolution and that we all, no matter our processing style, have a great purpose in furthering human development and culture.

Applying this to the conversation around neurodiverse spectrum situations, we must begin questioning to what extent someone would present with symptoms or traits of dyslexia, as everyone at certain times will have difficulty reading, spelling, pronouncing words, and with their working memory. With this, it is important to highlight that while others may also experience these traits, the dyslexic may experience them daily, if not hourly or even every minute.

For anything to meet diagnostic criteria, it must negatively affect an individual's life. In other words, to what degree do you meet diagnostic criteria? In the conversation about dyslexia, there are diagnostic criteria for severe, moderate, and mild cases, based on the level of errors the individual demonstrated during examination. Remember that this is just a moment or an hour; it does not reflect what occurs for the individual on a daily, weekly, or yearly basis. It does not consider whether the individual is using accommodations or tricks to help them with the material; it only considers how they perform.  

An example I have of this is when I had my assessments done: my examiner had me read a passage on the computer screen, out loud and again silently. Then the examiner asked me a series of questions based off the read passages, to assess my working memory; however, they left the written passages on the screen while I answered. At the time, I did not know what I was being tested for, so I would quickly scan the literature displayed on the screen and answer the questions. It was a method of search and retrieval, not gathering the information from my working memory. Because of this accommodation or trick I had learned, I was graded as a mild dyslexic rather than a moderate dyslexic, which would have been a more accurate assessment of my struggles. 

Bringing in the idea that we all have complementary cognition leads to the acceptance that the dyslexic mind is wired to store and process information for a reason. Allowing for the small acceptance that there is nothing wrong with how the dyslexic brain functions, as it is functioning exactly as it should, so that we can bring a new wave of thought into society.