If NT is a snowflake, someone with an actual disorder is a piece of hail, or a speck of dust.

NT is the large part of the bell curve. It’s called typical because they share mental ability traits with over 80% of the rest of humanity.

> The notion that a neurotypical person exists is kinda silly.

Supposedly they don't. Mental health professionals could probably diagnose neuroses or psychoses in most adults.

In an N-dimensional system, as N goes up, every member in a normally distributed population is increasingly likely to be at an extreme along some dimension (this is related to the fact that a hypercube's volume is disproportionately close to edges and corners as dimensionality goes up). Even if you just stick to the big 5 psychological breakdown, the probability that someone is in the middle 80% on every measure is only about 1/3, so it's not surprising that most of us are a pretty big distance from normal overall.

I completely agree.

> The notion that a neurotypical person exists is kinda silly.

It's not at all silly. Not more than what's a good car. For some, a Toyota model is a good car. For some, a Mercedes model is a good car. A Dodge is a good car too perhaps. But a boat is not a good car. A Formula 1 engine is also not a good car.

Your statements are inexplicably linked to your own biases. They are true for you, but only you.

An F1 car wouldn’t work for a family with kids but I’d love to daily one of those.

Nothing is absolute. Nothing is typical. An “NT” person in Japan is not the same as one in the US. Where do you draw the line? I posit you don’t. There isn’t a line. There isn’t a typical case. We are all so vastly different, often in ways we cannot see or understand.

> An F1 car wouldn’t work for a family with kids but I’d love to daily one of those

Even assuming you could handle it (which is a huge assumption), you can not drive an F1 around on city streets. Ground clearance means will get hung up on the first driveway or minor road work you run into.

Not with that attitude you can’t.

I didn't say F1 car.

Of course there are differences, but in terms of large traits and behaviors over the majority of the population there are a lot of similarities. Saying no one is NT hurts those who absolutely aren't.

“No one is neurotypical”

“I’m not neurotypical. That statement hurts me”

“It seems that we are in agreement on your first statement. Please help me understand how the second statement can be true.”

Given that diagnoses are based on physiological divergences that make it difficult to function in society, a neurotypical person is one who does not have these traits, which is most people.

Originally it was a way to differentiate between autistics and non-autistics, and then suffered language drift. It would probably have been better to just start off saying NA for "non-autistic".

It didn't just mean Non-Autistic though, people who are non-(autistic, bipolar, schizophrenic, adhd, etc, etc, etc.) are NT.