Talk:Neurotypical

I'm
I'm sorting stubs and I ran across this article. It seems fairly filled out so I went ahead and removed the stub tag Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV
The use of the word "neurotypical" represents a particular point of view. I believe this article should be re-cast as being about the word rather than about people referred to by the word. I may do this if there are no objections &mdash;Ashley Y 00:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not, actually. Neurotypical refers to those who have no neurological "disorders."  It's really quite an objective term.  Rogue 9 08:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * it's NOT an objective term. It's just a politically correct newspeak substitute for the good old plain NORMAL. Insert NORMAL everywhere and you will get the same results as for "neurotypical". It's just hypocrisy. Like "homosexual" and "heterosexual": that is objective terminology. But "homosexual" and "sexotypical" would NOT be. And by the way, neurotypical WOULD be objective, if it would INCLUDE every abberation and not be their opposite. Did I make myself clear? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, it is the term "normal" which is POV and profoundly non-objective, as it implicitly casts everything else as inferior, due to the positive connotations of "normal" and negative connotations of "not normal". Your example in fact is an excellent demonstration of this point: People generally do not call heterosexual people "normal" anymore, as it implies that homosexual, bisexual, asexual etc. people are "not normal". In the same way, non-autistic people may be called "neurotypical" or (even better, IMHO) "allistic" as that treats both as existing on the same level, neither superior or inferior to the other. This is a central defect of the article as it currently stands, namely that it does not explain the original, completely serious, point of these neologisms – the idea of decentering or challenging the norm and challenging and even changing people's perspective. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as this article states that the word "neurotypical" is used by autistics to refer to those who do not have autism, it is useful. The article's focus, however, on what seems to be an internet joke gives it a particular slant. It's fine if autistics who feel they have been the butt of jokes want to tease back, but this is not the place. BrianGCrawfordMA 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is not a "joke". It does, however, contain some degree of negative connotation - much as the phrase "you are not normal" has. Can (and does) get used like a swearword at times. When used in a group of autistic people it can just mean "not one of us" to "those weirdos (inferior is implied) who think they are normal". It's a useful word, if a little ungainly. 101.176.79.226 (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not an internet joke. Verditer (not signed in) 68.115.93.208 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, it is not a joke, and it is an attempt to remove the negative connotations of not-normal. Fustbariclation (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:20, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Lists?
One of the paragraphs in the article refers to the term 'neurotypical' coming from a group of people on a 'list'. Forgive my ignorance, but could someone who knows what this term refers to please add a short definition to the article, or a relevent wikilink? cheers Harriseldon 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
I am concerned with the neutrality of the following statement:
 * Neurotypicals tend to have more trouble understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with autistics, than most autistics have understanding, empathising, comunicating etc. with NTs. Autistics are usually able to interact with other autistics as well as NTs interact with other NTs. 

Q0 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it isn't a neutral POV. Not only is this 'fact' completely unfounded, but it could be argued that autists would have more or less trouble depending on the topic of interest, especially with other autists, as they might just ignore the other, eventually provoking a reaction. To some extent, the statement may be true, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for unfounded beliefs. And besides, what point does it try to make anyways? I doesn't seem as though it has to do with the topic at hand... So perhaps it should be removed. 1337 r0XX0r 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the theory of it goes like the following. There are an awful lot more neurotypicals than autistics, so autistics get a lot more experience of communicating with neurotypicals than most neurotypicals do with communicating with autistics.  As a result, autistics end up better able to understand, etc, neurotypicals than most neurotypicals are able to understand autistics.  It's as if there are a few Martians living here on Earth: they have a lot more experience of Earthlings than most Earthlings have of Martians!  Whether or not it really is the case that autistics are better at understanding neurotypicals than the other way around, I do not know.  But I do understand that theory behind that idea.  --Simon G Best 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's less that we understand NTs better, and more that the onus is placed on us to bridge the inter-neurotype communication gap, via masking. Autistic people tend to have a lot of experience translating their communication style into a neurotypical-friendly format, even before realising they're autistic, whereas neurotypical people tend not to have much if any experience of translating their communication style into an autistic-friendly format.  As Simon correctly points out above, the onus is always placed on a minority to assimilate into the majority's standards.  Foreigners (in his example, aliens) learn the native language, you know, unless they're imperialists. ZoeB (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

ADHD as Autism?
I would be very interested to see references for the statement:
 * 'ADHD has sometimes been considered to be a form of autism'.

I have come across much information that says they often occur together, but never that one is a form of the other. Amanita 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

a link with reference to this: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers.html

Citation needed tags
There seems to be some confusiong over this. By adding a fact tag I am not saying that I believe the sentence is false, just that it is the sort of thing which needs a citation in order to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. If a statement is doubtful then I would use the verify source tag instead as that is what should be used for doubtful statements which are not harmful. Raoul 11:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific mention of autistic humour needed?
Would it be useful to state that the term is used both in serious contexts (such as in published books by "autism experts"), and is also used in satire by autistics such as ISNT and this newer parody of psychiatric definition of autism and normality http://incorrectpleasures.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html "Neurotypical Disorder" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.174.130 (talk • contribs).

"Neurologically"?
I'll say right away I know zero about this topic -- I saw the word used somewhere so I looked it up -- but "It is a portmanteau of the words neurologically and typical" sounds wrong. Why "neurologically"? . . . why not "neurology" and "typical"? Or probably more correctly, why not simply note that the prefix "neuro" refers to the nervous system? I'm not editing the article itself because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject, but as written it just doesn't sound right, and if it's not someone ought to make a change.69.250.29.200 12:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've changed the sentence. Raoul 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallel thinking type -- a more Neutral POV
It seems that there is support in the Aspie community for the notion that Asperger Syndrome is not a pathological form of "neurotypicalism", but rather an alternate and parallel type of thought-processing stlye -- so, Aspies use the term neurotypical to convey that notion (i.e., the term isn't simply a way to be peevish).

If the notion has any merit, then there should be a list here of characteristics that distinguish Ntypical-style thought processes from Aspie-style thought processes.

For example, Ntypicals are more empathizing, while Aspies are more analytical; Ntypicals more intuiting, while Aspies more systemizing. The way the two thinking-types gather and synthesize information may be qualitatively different…? Or the way the two groups are motivated may be different, e.g., Ntypicals are more externally motivated compared to the more internally motivated Aspie…?

If Aspergers and Ntypicalism are parallel, then perhaps psychopathy is the extreme form of Ntypical thinking style, as autism is an extreme form of the Aspie thinking style…?

Looking for sources…

--Renice 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking more about this... I think the notion that this article represents is important. Asperger's as a neurodivergent-minority method of processing information can only be shown by explaining the data-processing method of the neurodivergent majority. Doing so will also illuminate the NT mindblindness that causes NTs to pathologize the AS thought-processing style.
 * --Renice 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that ASD is a pathology, something clear to those outside the circle of your aspie buddies, there's no pathologization going on here. You're falling into the trap of trying to project the source of your perceived victimization onto normal people, when the problem lies in your own pathology. It's intellectually dishonest at best--at best!--and I am also dubious as to how effective a coping mechanism it really is. Pathetic! I gleefully point out that ASD will become a thing of the past within a decade or two, as combinations of new advanced therapies become available, and embryo genetic screening becomes more prevalent.ThVa (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're telling me neurotypicals aren't a pathology? What sort of well person has problems walking into a nightclub by themselves?  Neurotypicality is a neurotic obsessive disorder whose sufferers are obsessed with conforming, worrying about what other people think, doing everything in herds and actively persecuting anyone who does not toe the line.  Everything the herd does has to be decided by committee.  They live in terror of being called "sad" and in desperate need to label and abuse others as such.  The effects on a person's ability to develop as a free spirit, to develop in depth knowledge of a subject - or often to get simple stuff done like going out to places alone, is CRIPPLING. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we are in the minority, so we don't get to say that NTs have a pathological condition. If numbers were reversed, they would be the ones with the labels. And there would be a lot less bullying, abuse (and PTSD) in the world. 101.176.79.226 (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As to OP, Eugenics is a dangerous path, especially when knowledge of genetics is in its infancy. Many scientists, doctors etc have autistic traits, or undiagnosed autism. What you are suggesting may be a good way to destroy humanity. 101.176.79.226 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just got it! Asperger's is not an "extreme male mind"; rather, TESTOSTERONE makes the Aspie male mind more obnoxious (according to social norms), just as it makes the NT male mind more obnoxious!! This is the start of a proof of why AS and NT are 2 divergent thought-processing styles!


 * Testosterone is why there's a sex difference, save for those behaviors deemed culturally acceptable.
 * --Renice 17:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific focus
I submitted this article for AfD earlier today since it seemed to be nothing more than a dicdef about a wacky neologism used by autistic people to describe non-autistic people, rife with original research. I withdrew my AfD after several people found legitimate sources using the term in a real scientific context. However I think the article needs to be seriously rewritten to focus on the scientific concept and the issues at hand, rather than on the term itself and use as a tongue-in-cheek epithet. Krimpet 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument here. --Kizor 10:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * At this date: not really a neologism any more, in regular use in respectable publications such as Scientific American etc, and certainly used in a serious, not tongue-in-cheek manner. Article certainly could use a rewrite though. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"Super-NTs"?
I have seen the term "super-NT" used very frequently to refer to people with extreme Neurotypical traits and was wondering if this should be added to this article. If so, what kind of reference or source should be cited for something like this? I'm assuming that just any old forum or blog post is NOT acceptable. --Luai lashire 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Only Way Is Essex should be used as a reference for this peice. They carry the social thing to such extremes, even labelling it as the "Pressure of Essex" to make themselves seem important. Its basically normal narcissism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Neologisms
I removed the "neologism" tag because neurotypical is in fairly common use in the scholarly literature nowadays. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008, Cashin 2008 , Shafritz et al. 2008 , and Stieglitz et al. 2008. Eubulides (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has since put it back again. It shouldn't be there, it's included in a number of published dictionaries at this point, and according to Merriam-Webster (online, at this date) is in the top 7% of looked up words. This article is full of errors and outdated information that people evidently don't want removed. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Windows NT?
Is it true, or just an urban legend that Windows NT (tm) has been named after "neurotypical" because the majority of the programmers at Microsoft are in fact autists (above all Bill Gates)and wanted to make fun of their normal "neurotypical" customers? 79.193.114.134 (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Windows NT was released before the word neurotypical was invented. Eubulides (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not found any evidence that Bill Gates has ever stated that he has any diagnosis of autism (please correct me if you know otherwise). Many people may indeed have it (or seem to), and I realise people like to diagnose others, but it's currently only supposition unless he states otherwise. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin
I don't know how/where to include it well in the text, but it might be useful to add a piece about why people came up with the word.

It is used by 'the' autistic community because the words like normal would imply that the people in the community are not normal with all negative meaning/sound. That they are different is true, but the negative sound to it is what is disliked, and therefore someone got up with the NT term.

77.168.156.173 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This disagrees with the first source cited, Sinclair 1998, which says "However, members of the ANI community are well aware that within the context of humans-in-general, we are not normal. It is not considered insensitive or pejorative to acknowledge this fact.  Most of us don’t mind not being normal and would not want to be normal.  We appreciate being acknowledged for what we are." Eubulides (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Neurological Conditions and NT
Can there please be some discussion in the article about how people with other neurological conditions (hydrocephalus, aphasia, epilepsy, the rest of Category:Neurological disorders) are supposed to be situated with regard to this label? If it's purely a binary, NT/n-NT, meaning "on the autism spectrum/not", then these other people are "neurotypical", but can we say that people with epilepsy, for instance, are neurotypical, in the sense of having the standard brain structure and/or mode of function as neurosicence defines them? No. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you will have trouble finding sources on that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And therefore the issue shouldn't be raised? Even the most lay of scientific laypeople know there's more to neurology than the autism spectrum. The implicit argument this term makes, that people post stroke have "neurologically typical" brains doesn't hold water. -75.57.7.223 (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WIthout sources on such a thing the point is moot. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word neurotypical was coined by an autistic to make it easier to refer to all non-autistic people with a single word instead of having to say "people who don't have autism or Asperger's" or an ambiguous label like "normals". It's possible that, at the time, she didn't think it would ever catch on among the wider medical/psychiatric community and the strangeness of referring to people with Down's, epilepsy, etc, as neurotypicals wasn't really an issue.  We could write into the article a sentence that emphasizes that Down's/epileptics/etc are still considered neurotypical if you think that that would make it clearer.  I believe the sources that we have explicitly define it that way, although the first link is dead and the second requires a subscription to Wiley Scientific in order to read.  —  Soap  —  22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neurotypical refers to anybody who isn't disabled on the basis of their psychology or neurology. Sociopaths are also non-NT even though I don't think they are usually considered disabled unless they have another condition. Andrea Carter (at your service &#124; my good deeds) 07:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead Links
A lot of the references on this page are dead. Tydoni (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I could wish the same about most Neurotypicals,then I wouldn't have them trying to sabotage my Asperger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.4.205 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please reinstate word coinage cross-referencing Aspies usages of words, like Mundane for "Neurotypical"
If you check talk:asperger's syndrome, talk:Aspies and talk:Damon Matthew Wise you will see considerable discussion and discovery of evidence of pre-1999 references to such cultural lingo used by Aspies, and removing Aspie cultural. It should start coming out of talk pages and come into the public area.

Aspies around the world, who have now been using Aspies, Cousins, and Auties for around 20 years have no problem using their referenced lingo. It should not be classed as a subculture, to be hidden away, but identified as a unique cultural language and meaning.

Please do the right thing and reinstate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurotypical&oldid=569577634&diff=prev — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You will need to get consensus first. Before that you will need reliable sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tips for finding reliable sources?
I would like to expand this article with some explanation of what neurotypical neurology/psychology/sociology looks like, particularly in comparison to the various neurominorities rather than in comparison to other neurotypicals. Unfortunately, most sources I've found that use the term are unsubstantiated claims from autistic activists, specifically in parody of inaccurate descriptions of autism. Any sources or advice on finding sources is welcome.Muffinator (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

"Not atypical"
Hoverbird has changed the second sentence to "However, the term eventually became used for anyone who does not have typical neurology." That is, changing "atypical" to "typical." I reverted it back, because it reverses the meaning of the sentence such that it contradicts the rest of the article. However, Hoverbird has now reverted my reversion. Rather then get into an edit war, I appeal here to other editors for some consensus. - DaveSeidel (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All is well, article is restored. Thanks, Hoverbird. DaveSeidel (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

AKA
I think that "psychonormative" is another word for this. —User 000 name 04:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent definition
It seems a little nonsensical to start the article with one definition, then several paragraphs later explain that in recent times it usually has a different definition. It would make far more sense to define it at the beginning of the article as "without mental illness or disability" and make a reference to the "non-autistic" definition as an origin. The word "allistic" has pretty much entirely replaced neurotypical as a term for "non-autistic", it's not really a relevant definition anymore. 129.10.29.29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Having spent hours reading up on this, "Neurotypical" can only reliably be defined as "not autistic", and this seems to encompass it's current technical (scientific) usage. I have been reading many recent scientific studies (mostly into autistic children) and alternatives are often "typically developing" or TD, never allistic. Aspergers etc often use NNT (non neurotypical) to describe themselves also, not "neurodivergent", at least offline. But word usage within a group is cultural, which has a tendency to shift over time, hence it's current usage having migrated to within the scientific community (though many Neurologists, understandably, hate the word). The interesting thing about this is that dividing humanity into two halves - NT and NNT is a typical example of "splitting" or black and white thinking. Which is typical autistic or defensive thinking. No one seems to have noted this thus far. I wonder if I should note this under "reception", though a reference may be tricky to find. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that's not right at all. The very early definitions were mostly about people who were not 'autistics or cousins'. That clearly included some people with, for example, dyspraxia, SCD or ADHD. By now it has a long history of excluding people with other neurodevelopental differences. Nick Walker's widely cited basic terms and conditions was first published in 2014 (and more recently in her book Neuroqueer Heresies). There are many other sources on this, e.g. the free online book Autistic Community and the Neurodiversity Movement, published by Palgrave Macmillan.
 * I've been very active in autistic communities for about seven years now, in person in the UK and online, and somewhat active for decades before that, and I don't believe I've ever come across 'NNT'.
 * The NT/ND split has never been truly binary. I think it's widely understood in autistic and other neurodivergent communities that it doesn't divide humanity neatly in two; the fact that so many outside those communities have reacted against it as if it did is an intriguing example of NT black-and-white thinking. Oolong (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a member of a group that uses NNT regularly, but then I'm in Australia, also it may just be that group. So perhaps it's scientists mostly using the term in this binary fashion, more so than the autistic community then. OK, I stand corrected. Probably shouldn't read so much New Scientist etc. LittleFuzzyYeeks (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Neurotypical syndrome listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neurotypical syndrome. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Factual accuracy disputed tag
Per my edit summary @Special:PermaLink/967702345: Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The hypocrisy when this issue is politically charged is (awful) notorious...
No more comments needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.52.106.195 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Subjectively biased article
This article is horribly biased. It is pseudo-scientific, giving a socio-political conotation to the expression. Can we agree that factually, "neurotypical" describes a hypothetical typical brain, in particular when one describes a neurological condition as a deviation from a typical brain? 77.189.67.68 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The whole article reads like badly written "original research" and needs a complete rewrite IMO. While "neurotypical" is a flawed concept, it's widespread use in certain circles means that people will go looking it up, as they may have been called NT and would like to know what it means. "Allistic" is a better word, but I have to admit I rarely use it myself. NT is a great swearword :) 101.176.79.226 (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop acting so woke 2600:1700:6730:E380:94C:2D76:E5DE:A5C8 (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Neurodiversity
I propose that Neurotypical (NT) - after poorly-sourced content is removed - is merged into Neurodiversity (ND). The two articles have an overlapping scope (WP:MERGEREASON) - NT is part of the ND spectrum, and it's the antonym of neuroatypical (I'm using neuroatypical here to avoid confusion between neurodiverse and neurodiversity) which is the core of the ND concept. NT also requires the context of neurodiversity to be understood, and the ND article would benefit from an explanation of NT (WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:MERGEREASON). --Xurizuri (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be merged. I see your point about NT being a part of neurodiversity as a whole, but I don't know if that necessarily means it shouldn't have it's own page. If someone comes across the word neurotypical and searches wikipedia for it, would it be helpful for them to be redirected straight to a general article about the neurodiversity paradigm? Or would it be more helpful for them to reach a (probably fairly brief) article which explains the specific meaning of NT within the neurodiversity paradigm, and then refers to the general article for further details?
 * I definitely see that the article in its current state is flawed. And I think if NT is retained as a separate article, there should probably also be a corresponding standalone article for "neurodivergent" or "neuroatypical" as its antonym.
 * By analogy I'm imagining someone searching for the term "woman", and getting redirected to a page for "gender". Would that page really provide the information they were looking for in an accessible way? Although "woman" is a type of gender, it's a specific and defined type that's worth separating from the article about the concept of gender itself.
 * I tentatively agree with the merge proposal, as long as there is a specific section for both neurotypical and neurodivergent for those terms to redirect to. Averixus (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We could achieve that by having it be a section, and having the article redirect to that section. And if there was barely anything written about women, then it should be under gender. For another example, neutrois redirects to non-binary gender. Regardless, a key difference is this: neurotypical, as a concept, exists only because we have the concept of neuroatypical. It is the lack of being neuroatypical (primarily, of not being autistic). Being a woman is not defined by not being a man (man as default concept notwithstanding). I tend to think of ND more in terms of personality (spectrums where a person is generally defined as having more or less of a trait), so I'll use some article examples from that topic. Take the traits of the Big Five, which is made up of 5 dimensions. Rather than having an article for each end of those spectrums, e.g. introversion and extraversion, we have one, Extraversion and introversion. Similarly, the other 4 dimensions - Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism - also discuss both ends of the spectrum. But, neither your nor my examples actually entirely fit, because not many things are genuinely similar. However, ND and NT complement each other, and an article would be more useful to a reader if it discussed both. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I'll tentatively agree with this merge. Averixus (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merging - NT should be its own section in the ND article, but I don't see the need or purpose of having it separate at this time. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 12:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merging - I think making neurotypical a section in the neurodiversity article makes a lot of sense, but I would make sure that there is a forwarder that points to it for the word "neurotypical." Jmbranum (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is key. I've followed way too many Wikipedia redirects that took me to the top of a page that was not about what I was looking up, and sometimes didn't even mention it by name.
 * I'm ambivalent about the proposed merger: I think the concept of 'neurotypical' is important, and probably notable enough to warrant its own entry, much as Cisgender and Heterosexuality have their own entries. It also has a fairly interesting (and mildly contested) history: did it originate satirically with the Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical, or was it already in use in a less tongue-in-cheek way before it showed up there? The question of what exactly it means is still deceptively fraught, too; but then, Wikipedia tends not to be very good at covering controversies...
 * I do take @Xurizuri's arguments; less redundancy is often better, and it is true that the concepts of ND and NT pretty much rely on each other to make sense. Neurodiversity should explain the concept of 'neurotypical', and probably touch on 'neurominority' and 'neuronormativity' as well. As long as NT redirects straight to a dedicated section, I guess I'm not opposed to a merger. Oolong (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neurodivergent is the antonym of neurotypical. 5.206.216.179 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging - I agree with the points discussed, and acknowledge the concepts NT and ND do rely on each other to be meaningful. Although I consider the term NT to have special notability due to the prevalence of the term "non-neurotypical" as recently as 2021.[1][2][3] This reflects a lack of consensus, among at least academia, on which terms to use. I agree that there should be a more detailed summary style description of ND on this page.
 * I also think the merge appears more appropriate in part because the NT article currently lacks coverage on the etymology of the term. Compared to the Cisgender page, the NT page is missing an etymology and history section. Compared to the Heterosexuality page, the NT page is also lacking usage statistics and classification statistics, although to my knowledge there have been no papers published specifically considering such statistics. If the NT page already had such sections I think it would be more self-evident that a merge would not be appropriate.
 * One other somewhat-notable usage of the term in academia is to term a control group as neurotypical.[4]
 * [1] Kong, Michele. "What COVID-19 means for non-neurotypical children and their families." Pediatric Research 89.3 (2021): 396-397.
 * [2] Kong, Michele, and James Willig. "The 5-Es: a model for providing care for non-neurotypical patients." Pediatric Research 88.5 (2020): 686-687.
 * [3] Drzazga-Lech, Maja, and Maria Świątkiewicz-Mośny. "Analysis of media representations of non-neurotypical students in the context of support for people with autism spectrum disorders offered by polish state-owned universities. Sociological study." (2018).
 * [4] Salis, Christos, Nadine Martin, and Laura Reinert. "Sentence recall in latent and anomic aphasia: An exploratory study of semantics and syntax." Brain Sciences 11.2 (2021): 230. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merger: I hear what Darcyisverycute is saying, but I think for the time being, a merger makes sense, as long as the term "Neurotypical" is explained adequately and the term "Neurotypical" remains as a re-direct.Historyday01 (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger. It is worth noting that the link to the "neurodiversity movement" in the first sentence goes to the autism rights movement page. Despite this, the neurotypical page makes mention of other learning disabilities: ADHD, dyslexia, etc.
 * The quintessential problem has less to do with context and more to do with outdated information in light of recent developments. Many adults with learning disabilities, ADHD primarily among them, have sought to identify themselves as "neurodiverse" and "neurodivergent" outside the autistic context, not to mention turning the concept into a social movement in the last couple years. Neurodiversity's page in its current form does little to discuss this development. Before any merger is to be considered, these developments have to be addressed. Brokenwit (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little surprised - I wasn't actively opposed to the merger, but that didn't look like a consensus to me?--Oolong (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)