Category: Neurodivergence

If we are different, what is normal?

All my life, I have danced to the beat of a different drum. Being autistic, albeit undiagnosed, explains that. One characteristic I have discovered about my autistic thought is that it loops and swirls. And therefore, is very oppositional to the concept of the “average woman”, let alone the “average man”. And that the word normal is actually rooted on a carpenter’s square? that is singularly offensive, to me.

A long time ago,in a journal, I wrote about the original meanings of suave, debonair, seeing them as singularly male descriptives, yet in origin, they means very different things. Suave from Latin suavis, meaning agreeable or sweet. The Collins dictionary, today, defines it as “(esp of a man) displaying smoothness and sophistication in manner or attitude; urbane”. Debonair, from Old French via Latin, meaning of good lineage, good family. The Collins dictionary, today, defines it as suave and refined, carefree; lighthearted; courteous and cheerful; affable. The way language shifts means it is alive. I would not describe anyone as suave to mean “agreeable or sweet”. The same way I would not use ‘sophistication to mean lies, a la sophistry.

But I take a great deal of umbrage that ‘normal’ is derived from a carpenter’s square.

Human nature, thought and existence is not nicely squared up at 90 degrees. Therefore, to me, normal is a most disagreeable word. Yet it is at the root of our modern society, in concept and in fact.

Yet. I. WILL. REBEL. I will colour outside the lines. I will step outside the box. Always have, always will.

Yet it strikes much differently, knowing I am autistic. Of course, unmasked me colours to my lines, has a different shaped world outside the box. Always have been, always will be.

In this post, ChatGPT clearly elucidates all that I detest about the construct of “normal”.

What is normal? A deceptively simple question, yet one that sits at the heart of how society constructs meaning, power, and identity. If neurodivergence is, by definition, a divergence from a supposed norm, then where, exactly, is that norm located? And more importantly—who gets to decide?

For every dys (dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia) and every hyper (hyperlexia, hyperfocus, hyperempathy), there is an implied middle—a so-called equilibrium against which all deviation is measured. The problem with this concept is that it assumes a fixed, objective standard from which some people stray too far in one direction or another. But what if the middle is not a universal truth, but rather a cultural construct?

This question isn’t just theoretical; it has real consequences. The way we define normal determines who gets access to resources, who is marginalized, who is celebrated, and who is pushed to the fringes. The idea of normalcy is woven into education systems, workplace policies, and medical diagnoses. But before we can deconstruct it, we need to ask: where did this concept come from?

The Origins of “Normal”

The idea of normality as we understand it today is relatively recent. In pre-modern societies, there was no singular standard against which all people were measured. People existed in a web of different roles, each with its own expectations. A person’s value was often determined by their contribution to the community rather than their adherence to an abstract standard.

That changed in the 19th century, when statistics and industrialization reshaped our understanding of human difference. The word normal comes from the Latin normalis, meaning “made according to a carpenter’s square,” implying a rigid, straight, and measured standard. In the early 1800s, the Belgian mathematician Adolphe Quetelet applied statistical analysis to human populations, developing the concept of the “average man” (l’homme moyen). His idea suggested that the most common traits in a population were inherently the most desirable. This was one of the first steps in transforming what is statistically frequent into what is morally and socially ideal.

By the late 19th century, the growing fields of psychology, eugenics, and medicine took this concept further. Intelligence testing, psychiatric diagnoses, and public health measures all began reinforcing the idea that deviation—whether in intellect, behavior, or ability—was something to be managed, corrected, or eliminated.

In short, the definition of normal was not discovered—it was invented.

The Tyranny of the Middle

The middle is often framed as the ideal—the place where abilities and behaviors are neither too much nor too little. The Goldilocks zone of human cognition and behavior. But this notion of balance is not neutral—it is, in fact, a value judgment. To be in the middle is to be acceptable, to be unremarkable in a way that requires no intervention.

Yet, for neurodivergent people, the middle is a mirage. It does not reflect an authentic, lived experience but rather a societal expectation imposed from the outside. It is an abstraction that exists only in statistics and policy, not in real life.

This is where injustice creeps in. Because the idea of the middle is tied to the concept of deviation, and deviation carries weight—often, the weight of being deemed broken, disordered, or in need of fixing.

Consider the term twice exceptional (2e). A person is deemed both gifted and disabled because their abilities do not neatly average out to “normal.” A child may be hyperlexic—reading fluently at age three—but struggle with motor coordination or social interaction. A teenager may have exceptional mathematical ability but need accommodations for ADHD. Instead of being seen as whole, they are labeled with contradictions. Their strengths do not cancel out their struggles, nor do their struggles erase their strengths. But the system demands categorization.

The irony is that the middle, this supposed point of balance, is itself a fabricated benchmark. The real human experience is not a bell curve but a vast, multidimensional landscape.

The Harm of Standardization

The tyranny of the middle becomes most evident when we look at how systems—education, work, and daily life—are designed to favor predictability over individuality.

1. Education: The Myth of the Average Student

• Schools are built around the idea of an “average learner,” despite overwhelming evidence that no such student exists.
• Neurodivergent students are often either left behind or forced to conform through rigid behavioral expectations.
• Gifted students with executive dysfunction are labeled lazy, while autistic students are told they are “too smart” to need accommodations.

Sir Ken Robinson famously said, “We are educating people out of their creativity.” In many ways, we are also educating people out of their natural cognitive styles, demanding compliance over curiosity.

2. Work: The Standard Worker Model

• Productivity is measured in hours at a desk rather than the quality of output.
• Social networking and performative teamwork take precedence over genuine contributions.
• Office environments are designed for extroverts, penalizing those who work better in solitude.

Imagine if workplaces were built around different cognitive strengths rather than forcing all employees into a singular mold. What innovations have we lost because the right minds were placed in the wrong environments?

3. Everyday Life: Sensory and Social Norms

• Many social expectations (eye contact, small talk, body language) are culturally specific, yet enforced as universal.
• Public spaces are designed for neurotypical sensory tolerances, often overwhelming autistic individuals.
• The assumption that everyone should thrive in the same conditions leads to needless suffering and exclusion.

“Fixing” vs. Accepting Neurodivergence

At the heart of this discussion is a fundamental question: is neurodivergence something to fix, or simply a different way of being?

The medical model of disability frames neurodivergence as a disorder—something to diagnose, treat, or correct. The social model of disability, by contrast, suggests that the real issue is not the neurodivergent individual but the way society refuses to accommodate difference.

The neurodiversity movement challenges deficit-based models. It suggests that cognitive differences are just that—differences, not inherent flaws. The problem is not the divergence itself but the way in which society demands conformity to an arbitrary middle.

Beyond the Binary of Normal and Abnormal

Perhaps the real question is not “Where is the middle?” but rather “Why do we need one?” The idea of a singular equilibrium point is an illusion. It does not account for the fluidity of human experience, the spectrum of abilities, and the shifting nature of what society deems valuable.

Instead of measuring ourselves against a fictitious middle, what if we embraced multiple fulcrums—each valid in its own right, each a center of gravity for a different way of thinking and being?

This would not mean abandoning structure but rather restructuring—not bending neurodivergent people to fit the world, but bending the world to include them.

Conclusion: The Right to Exist Outside the Middle

Neurodivergence is not a deviation from the middle. It is a center in its own right.

And perhaps, in the end, the real injustice is the insistence that we must all balance on a single point, when we were never meant to.

The full chat with ChatGPT is here.