If you’re neurodivergent, you get to be one of about four things, and all of them suck.
The Faker. Fakers aren’t really neurodivergent. They’re making it up! Probably for attention, or to get accommodations so that they don’t have to study so much. They are taking normal life problems that everyone has and pretending that they’re some kind of ‘disorder’, and they definitely shouldn’t seek accommodations or therapy or medications for it.
A more subtle form of the faker archetype is the idea that neurodivergence doesn’t exist and people who claim to be neurodivergent should have their experiences rounded off to the nearest neurotypical’s. For instance, think about “in my day, we didn’t call that ADHD, we called it lazy!” or “how can you be depressed? There are people out there with real problems!” A lot of advice along the lines of “why don’t you cure your depression by eating oranges and doing yoga?” falls into this category (the rest, unfortunately, comes from depressed people who haven’t quite grasped that not everyone’s brains work the same way).
Complaints about overmedication are usually playing into the Faker archetype (although not always; see Mad Genius). This archetype is one that’s very commonly internalized: many neurodivergent people (including those who are, say, having psychotic episodes) are convinced that they are actually secretly making it up and not neurodivergent at all.
The Monster. Monsters are Chaotic Evil. They are no longer able to tell apart right and wrong, and instead actively value other people’s suffering. This usually results in murder.
In fiction, the Monster is common in bad horror and thrillers whose authors don’t want to have to bother to motivate their villain. The explanation that terrorists and shooters are “disturbed” is an example of the monster archetype. On a more prosaic level, female abusers are often pathologized as having borderline personality disorder. If someone is talking about a disorder leading to lack of empathy, they’re probably using the Monster archetype.
The Victim. Victims are endlessly suffering, endlessly pitiable. Everything about them boils down to their pain. They don’t have preferences or thoughts or hobbies or facts about themselves other than their neurodivergence. They certainly aren’t happy.
I think this archetype drives a lot of “you’re not like my child.” My child is a victim! But you are blogging, you crack jokes, you have opinions, and you generally do things that are totally unrelated to how miserable you are. Therefore, you can’t be as bad as my child– even if you have meltdowns, even if you aren’t cognitively capable of working, even if you can’t speak sometimes or all the time, even if you were exactly like their child when you were five. You are not The Victim; therefore, of course, you must be The Faker.
When the victim sees fit to actually do something, they turn into their cousin, the inspiration. You think you get away from being an endlessly suffering, endlessly pitiable person whose entire existence boils down to their pain because you’ve “gotten a job” or “had a life worth living” or “climbed Mount Everest.” But don’t worry! We will frame all of your achievements as being about Your Noble Struggle To Overcome How Disabled You Are.
The Mad Genius. The mad genius is pretty much the best option you can choose and still come off as neurodivergent, which is maybe why so many people try to pass as it. The mad genius is neurodivergent, true. But they’re also talented, they provide value to other people, and their neurodivergence is intimately connected to their ability to provide value.
The archetypical example is, of course, the great artist who is Nobly Suffering For His Art. But think also of the stereotypical STEM person so consumed with great thoughts about important issues that he can’t be bothered with little things like social interaction and remembering where he put his lunch. Manic Pixie Dream Girls are a common female variation of this archetype: they might be weird, but they’re weird because they’re authentic, and their authenticity allows men to connect more deeply with their childlike selves.
Mad Geniuses are the archetype people are most worried about getting rid of through medication or eugenics– the common worries that antidepressants or ADHD meds turn people into zombies or prevent the existence of the next Sylvia Plath are a product of this archetype.
Matthew said:
On a more prosaic level, female abusers are often pathologized as having borderline personality disorder.
This nettles me. Even though there’s no formal diagnosis, I say that my ex-wife is almost certainly Borderline *not* because that’s the only acceptable way admit being abused by a woman, but because there is actual psychopathology there. I would *like* the mother of my children to get help through counseling and be able to function as a co-parent. She’s never gotten to the “admit you have a problem” step, though, and supplanting the tendency you are criticizing with one where people assume that BPD diagnoses by former partners are always pseudopsych bullshit would make it even less likely that she ever will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lambert said:
Being at school, ‘The Inspiration’ is the one which is most commonly shoved down our throats. I fail to be inspired by some guy with CP who was dragged around a load of triathloi by his dad. HE WAS JUST SITTING AROUND IN ABLOODY BOAT. His dad, on the other hand must have been incredibly strong.
LikeLike
leave me alone i don't believe in blogging said:
I think I’ve been all of these at some time/to some degree. I’m not “neurodivergent” in some pathologized diagnosis way, though.
LikeLike
Flak Maniak said:
Correct that being the mad genius is the preferred option; if you can do that at least you’ll have people’s respect, and people might give you some slack when you’re crappy at other things. License to be weird + license to fuck up at other things. And the “talented and does great things but overall doesn’t have their shit together” thing gets people’s sympathy. So yeah, I’ll take being a mad genius.
Or, I’ll have a bunch of neurodivergent friends around whom I don’t have to either try to pass for neurotypical, or try to fit some archetype. Thankfully I have wonderful people in my life around whom I can be myself and oh god I’m tearing up just writing this. Connor, Mazie, Courtney, Geordie, and all the others, thank you so much.
So, yes. My take is: Neurodivergent folk should hang around one another. We’re good for each other.
LikeLike
LTP said:
Here’s one I got in high school, with my severe social anxiety mixed in with a bunch of other emotional stuff: The Unreadable/Invisible/Ignored (I’m bad at naming stuff, suggestions?).
Basically, this type of person is mysterious and unsettling, but not necessarily in a threatening way. They often fade into the background, but even when you pay attention to them they’re rather impenetrable. Because they’re hard to get a handle on, it’s best to leave them alone, let them do their own thing, and assume they’re content with their situation.
This archetype is very good when you don’t want to interact with people, but bad when you want/need to. I felt a lot safer in high school and was never bullied, but on the other hand even the nerds and outcasts ignored me. Plus, there was a bunch of little stuff like not easily being able to find a group to work with when teachers told us to pair up with people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Autolykos said:
Try schizoid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid_personality_disorder
It’s basically what I (self-)diagnose as, though I also like to play the Mad Genius card a lot (that one kinda comes with the territory when you’re a physicist).
And yup, that was surprisingly effective at keeping bullies away – and for the few that were too thick for even this to work, there’s always Judo 🙂
LikeLike
thehousecarpenter said:
This was the archetype I fitted into in high school, precisely (today it’s probably a mixture of that and the Mad Genius). It’s nice to know that other people had the same experience–I guess by its very nature it’s not an experience that gets talked about often.
LikeLike
multiheaded said:
Sometimes I keep trying to be a Manic Pixie Dream Girl… it’s bad for me and not that helpful to others. I shouldn’t.
LikeLike
Ghatanathoah said:
I occasionally find myself channeling MPDG personality because my natural personality is extremely rigid, plan-focused, and controlling. However, I’ve realized that it’s impossible and unhealthy for me to keep every aspect of my life rigorously ordered, so I try to balance it out by being more spontaneous.
I suppose the fact that I am usually so rigid is what prevents MPDG from being bad for me. If I go too far I can stop exterting the effort and return to my normal ordered self.
LikeLiked by 1 person
veronica d said:
I would rock as a MPDG, ‘cept the part where, physically speaking, I’m honking enormous, which I think sorta undermines the whole aesthetic. But thing is, I wouldn’t actually *be* a MPDG, insofar as I don’t hook up with boring people. But that personality type? Yep. Me. Like, totes. I do it all the time.
As an aside, in her latest book Laurie Penny talks about playing the MPDG archetype as a young woman — and if you’ve ever seen her face-to-face, she is *definitely* the right physical type. (Like, OMG she is beyond adorbz.) Anyway, she dated men at the time, and was playing the dreamgirl for their benefit.
She describes it as *effective*, in that men did like her very much that way. She also describes it as soul crushing.
Anyway, food for thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fisher said:
You always struck me as more of a tsundere
LikeLiked by 1 person
multiheaded said:
Veronica: I’m already the right physical type, hehe, and if anything I often feel like the MPDG archetype could provide some limit to my rather harmful recurring thought patterns in a relationship (i.e. trying to always do all the emotional work, feeling responsible to sacrifice everything if my partner feels discomfort from an unrelated source, trouble asking for things).
…Might be part of why I am attracted to d/s so much, I guess… as a sub, my partner makes it clear that it’s okay to leave some responsibilities to him; as a dom, I feel like I have a formal way to ask something of her. Following archetypes/structures can be a source of support.
LikeLike
Rowan93 said:
I started writing a post about how these all seemed to require a level of disability that my neurodivergences haven’t given me, but I realised that just sounds like having internalised “faker” even before noticing how many caveats I was adding. And I guess also people who did have neurodivergences that weren’t really disabling at all would get the “rounded off to the nearest neurotypical” bit directed at them full bore.
But damn, how do I get from here to Mad Genius with so little talent and ability-to-get-shit-together? Is there an analagous “Manic Pixie Dream Guy” archetype I can shoot for?
LikeLike
Godzillarissa said:
This is a sincere question: How do I know whether I’m neurotypical or just “rounding off to the nearest neurotypical”/declaring myself a Faker?
LikeLiked by 2 people
shemtealeaf said:
I second this question.
Many neurodivergent people differ from neurotypical people only by degree of symptoms. This probably doesn’t apply to someone with schizophrenia, but many commonly diagnosed disorders like depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc. seem to basically be worse versions of things that many neurotypical people experience. I have pretty bad depression and anxiety, and my experiences didn’t really seem fundamentally different than experiences that my more neurotypical friends have had. My symptoms were just worse and/or longer lasting, or my coping mechanisms weren’t as good. I’ve had the same experience from the other perspective with ADHD. People I’ve known with ADHD seem to experience things that I experience as well; they just have it worse.
For disorders like these, I don’t really have a principled argument against people who ’round off to the nearest neurotypical experience’. The nearest neurotypical experience to someone with depression, anxiety, or ADHD is probably just someone with depression, anxiety, or ADHD that isn’t quite bad enough to be clinically diagnosed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
thehousecarpenter said:
I think that a lot of people probably have a mixture of traits so that the sentence “this person is neurotypical” can’t be assigned a meaningful truth value. I used to worry a lot about whether I might be actually neurotypical (despite the fact that I have an actual clinical diagnosis of autism) but ultimately I realised I couldn’t say which concrete assertions about myself I was disputing–my worry was meaningless. So if somebody asked me whether I was sure I wasn’t neurotypical, I wouldn’t be able to answer “Yes”, but I consider the question settled regardless.
LikeLike
The Smoke said:
Go see a doctor?
LikeLike
veronica d said:
As a young person, I definitely tried to play the Mad Genius, except I couldn’t really measure up to the archetype as they presented it on TV. Like, I couldn’t build rocket ships and I hadn’t figured out all of multivariate calculus on my own as an early teenager. I was obviously no savant.
But like, this was all I was and all I could be, since nothing else in my life even remotely worked. If I could not be a genius, what was the point?
Anyway, I studied my ass off, and I think I did okay. Like, I was driven by this yawning sense of inadequacy, that if I didn’t push as far as I could, all the time, then I was literally useless.
Nowadays people tell me I’m super smart, and I guess I am. I mean, sure, I’m pretty smart.
But I worked my ass off to get here.
I’m totally happy playing the “inspiration” role. I guess. It can be kinda noxious at times, but I know how to roll with it.
LikeLike
nancylebovitz said:
I’m wondering about monsters. It does seem like there are people who feel a strong drive to cause non-consensual pain. Are any of them neurotypical?
LikeLike
ozymandias said:
I’m not sure that that’s a useful distinction. Is it caused by stuff in their brain? (Duh.) Is it uncommon? (One hopes.) Is it genetic or a product of early life experiences? (Probably.) Can therapy and meds help? (I don’t know, sounds like an empirical question.) Do negative incentives for hurting people help? (Again, empirical question.) Are they marginalized by society? (Yes, but that might be utility-increasing and therefore a fairly noncentral example.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Autolykos said:
There are definitely degrees of “Monster” that qualify as neurotypical. If you doubt it, just look at all the needless cruelty school children participate in before the thin layer of paint called “civilization” is applied*. If you want to call them all divergent, there would be precious few typicals left.
*I’m reluctant to cite the Stanford Prison Experiment here because it’s pretty poor science, but studies like this make me suspect that most “normal” adults still have quite a substantial part of Monster inside, they just learned to hide it unless they can get away with being cruel.
But seriously, if that’s typical, I’m proud to be divergent.
LikeLike
veronica d said:
I’d say the whole psychopath/sociopath thing is a kind of neuro-divergence, although I’m *very* hesitant in including such folks in the general conversation about “our kinds” of neuro-divergence, for all the obvious reasons.
That said, I have read about treatment programs [sorry, no link] targeted at teens who test on the psychopath spectrum. Mostly these programs focus on life skills and learning how to deal with rules and such. Evidently the programs works, in the sense that the subjects have reduced levels of behavioral problems in school, and I guess fewer end up in jail. We can extrapolate from this that perhaps fewer commit horrible crimes.
But this cluster seems really very different from the kinda-autistic, kinda-borderline, kinda-just-freaky-weird cluster, which I think includes most of us.
Yay us!
LikeLike
Pingback: Neuroexclusion, “Neurodiversity” and Neuropluralism : The Suppressed Third Term | jonathan1723
Road to Servitude said:
Thanks for the discussion of positive/negative sterotyping; this resonated with me. I have used your idea as a point of departure for a post of my own. https://jonathan1723.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/neuroexclusion-neurodiversity-and-neuropluralism-the-suppressed-third-term/
LikeLike
Pingback: Resources on “Writing the Other” | Kink Praxis
Pingback: Depression Is Weird | Thing of Things
Pingback: Neuroexclusion, “Neurodiversity” and Neuropluralism : The Suppressed Third Term | wallacerunnymede
Pingback: Don’t Use Diagnoses As Insults | Thing of Things