top of page
Search

Shifting Perspectives on Neurodiversity: A Strength-Based Model

Writer's picture: Logan RhysLogan Rhys

Updated: 1 day ago

The Human Struggle with Balance and Its Impact on How We Define Cognition

Throughout history, human societies have struggled with balance and moderation, often swinging between extremes rather than embracing nuance. This pattern is evident in our collective thinking, where we frequently replace one rigid framework with another, rather than developing a truly flexible, adaptive perspective.


This tendency is particularly visible in how we define human cognition and mental health. For centuries, we have classified cognitive differences through binary models—either normal or abnormal, typical or atypical, neurotypical or neurodivergent. While these distinctions have helped validate and empower marginalized individuals, they still rely on a hierarchical framework that assumes a dominant standard from which others "deviate."


At the same time, a broader cultural shift toward personalization—seen in healthcare, education, and even consumer services—suggests that one-size-fits-all approaches are becoming obsolete. Just as medicine has begun embracing individualized treatment plans based on genetic and biological differences, mental health must move toward a contextual, strength-based model that recognizes cognitive variation as natural rather than abnormal.


This blogpost explores:

  1. How the binary classification of cognition reinforces outdated assumptions about human intelligence and behavior.

  2. Why we must shift toward a spectrum-based, strengths-oriented model that eliminates the need for a “norm” altogether.

  3. The implications of this shift for mental health diagnosis, treatment, education, and workplaces—and the policy changes required to make this vision a reality.


By moving away from hierarchical and deficit-based models and toward contextual and functional understandings of cognition, we can create a world that values all cognitive styles for their unique contributions rather than measuring them against a singular standard.


The Icarus Analogy: How Our Binary Thinking Limits Cognitive Understanding

The myth of Icarus is often told as a cautionary tale about the dangers of overambition—flying too close to the sun and paying the price. But equally important is the lesson of Daedalus, who warned his son not only against soaring too high but also against flying too low, lest he crash into the sea. The true wisdom of the story lies in the challenge of balance—avoiding both reckless excess and restrictive limitation.


Human societies, however, have historically struggled with this principle of moderation. Rather than seeking balance, we tend to swing from one extreme to another, rejecting old paradigms only to replace them with new, equally rigid frameworks. This is evident in our understanding of cognition and mental health, where we have alternated between overpathologizing cognitive differences and overcorrecting by creating new categorical identities.


For centuries, cognitive differences were dismissed or medicalized—seen as disorders that needed to be cured or controlled. The rise of the neurodiversity movement has been an important corrective, challenging the assumption that there is a single "right" way of thinking and advocating for the recognition of neurological variation as part of the human experience. However, in an effort to challenge stigma, the conversation has often landed in another binary framework: neurotypical vs. neurodivergent. While intended to empower, this distinction still implies a central norm from which others deviate, keeping us locked in a paradigm where some minds are "standard" and others are "different."


This binary structure reflects our broader cultural struggle with nuance. Just as societies often alternate between glorifying and condemning individualism, tradition, or technological progress, we now see a similar pattern in mental health discourse—first viewing difference as a problem to be fixed, and then as an identity that must be protected. In reality, cognition exists on a continuum, shaped by evolution, environment, and individual experience. Instead of defining minds as typical or divergent, we should be asking:

  • In what contexts do different cognitive traits thrive?

  • How can we design environments that support a variety of thinking styles rather than forcing conformity?

  • What happens when we stop treating cognitive differences as deviations from a norm and start recognizing them as adaptive specializations?


Just as Icarus' downfall was not simply flying too high, but failing to navigate the full range of possibilities, our understanding of cognition must escape the trap of rigid categorization and embrace a more fluid, context-based framework. Instead of defining minds by their proximity to an arbitrary norm, we must recognize the full spectrum of human intelligence—not as divergence, but as distinction.


Why "Neurodistinct" is a More Accurate and Inclusive Term

The term "neurodivergent" has been embraced by many individuals and advocacy groups as a powerful identity—one that fosters community, solidarity, and self-acceptance. Any proposed shift in language must acknowledge and respect this existing framework, rather than risk alienating those who have found empowerment in it.


However, the term still implies deviation from a norm, reinforcing the very hierarchy it seeks to dismantle. "Neurodistinct," by contrast, offers a neutral and affirming way to describe cognitive differences without referencing a central standard.


Key Advantages of the Term "Neurodistinct"

Removes the Deviation Narrative: Recognizes that all cognitive styles are part of human diversity rather than a divergence from a norm.

Encourages Context-Based Thinking: Frames cognition in terms of function and adaptability, rather than pathology.

Promotes Inclusion Without Othering: Instead of suggesting some people need to be accommodated because they diverge, it encourages environments to be designed with cognitive diversity in mind from the start.


This does not mean rejecting "neurodivergent" as a term but rather expanding the vocabulary so that individuals have more ways to describe themselves without reinforcing binary classifications or deficit-based thinking.


Implications for Mental Health, Education, and Policy

Mental Health Diagnosis & Treatment

  • Shift from categorical disorders to functional, spectrum-based models that prioritize adaptation and support over pathology.

  • Expand non-medical interventions (e.g., sensory therapies, movement-based therapy, nutritional psychiatry) as standard treatment options.

Education Reform

  • Move away from one-size-fits-all learning models toward personalized, multi-modal education.

  • Provide universal cognitive accommodations rather than requiring students to prove disability for support.

Workplace & Social Policy

  • Redesign hiring practices to assess cognitive strengths rather than conformity to traditional corporate expectations.

  • Implement policies that allow flexible work environments, self-paced workflows, and sensory-friendly spaces.


The Future of Cognitive Understanding

Breaking free from rigid binary classifications in mental health and cognition requires a shift in language, policy, and cultural perspective. By embracing "neurodistinct" as a term that recognizes cognitive diversity without hierarchy, we take a step toward a future where:

  • Cognition is understood as fluid, not binary.

  • Mental health care is personalized and contextualized.

  • Education and workplaces are designed for cognitive inclusion, not just accommodation.


This is not just a matter of semantics—it is a necessary paradigm shift in how we define intelligence, mental health, and human potential. A society that defines intelligence by conformity will always limit its own potential—true progress begins when we stop measuring minds against an illusion of normality.

7 views0 comments

留言


bottom of page