On the blog of his professional website Autism in Context, Flemish lecturer and writer Peter Vermeulen makes a striking point: the idea of a “neurotypical” brain doesn’t really hold water. His central message is simple yet profound — every brain is wired in its own way, and none fits neatly into a so-called norm. In essence, neurodiversity isn’t the exception; it’s the rule.
What we’ve come to call “neurotypical” — a term that started out as satire — doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, according to Peter Vermeulen. What counts as “normal” is always shaped by culture and circumstance, making the term too rigid to be useful. Rather than drawing hard lines between neurodivergent and neurotypical, he advocates for embracing neurodiversity as a baseline for understanding the human mind — a perspective rooted in inclusion and respect.
Neurodiversity, Neurodivergent, Neurotypical…
The term neurodiversity has become something of a cornerstone in how we talk about the brain. Introduced in 1998 by Australian sociologist Judy Singer, the concept underscores how neurological differences, much like biodiversity in nature, contribute to a richer, more adaptive society. Within this framework, labels such as neurodivergent — describing those whose mental functioning deviates from socially defined norms — and neurotypical, meant to represent the standard, have taken root.
Yet, one might wonder: is there such a thing as neurotypicality at all? The notion of a “typical” brain turns out to be more of a cultural construct than a scientific fact — tangled up in statistical averages and social expectations.
Where It All Began
The word neurotypical was popularised by autistic activist Laura Tisoncik in 1998, who coined it partly in jest. She invented a fictional “Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical” (ISNT), complete with mock diagnostic criteria for a made-up “neurotypical disorder”. Her satire was a clear response to how autism was being pathologised, and ironically, the term quickly caught on in wider discussions around neurodiversity.
Over time, neurotypical evolved from tongue-in-cheek commentary into a serious descriptor for those whose brains supposedly match societal expectations. But that opens a can of worms: what, precisely, do we mean by “normal”, and who gets to define it?
The Shifting Sands of Normality
What society regards as normal has always been a moving target. Norms are steeped in history, shaped by culture, and never entirely fixed. To illustrate: until 1974, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the DSM. Fast forward a few decades, and it’s widely accepted as just one variation of human identity.
When it comes to brains, this variability holds true. Statistically, “normal” is often pinned to the bell curve — a concept where most people sit near the average, and fewer fall at the extremes. So, by this measure, neurotypicality might be defined as functioning within two standard deviations of the mean across various cognitive abilities.
But that’s an oversimplification. The brain is astonishingly intricate, with capacities spanning memory, emotional regulation, reasoning, attention, and creativity — each one varying independently. In real life, people excel in some areas and struggle in others. No one’s abilities are evenly spread out like numbers on a graph.
Nobody Fits the Mould
When you begin to account for the full range of cognitive abilities, it becomes highly unlikely that any one person ticks every “normal” box. Consider this:
- Test just 10 cognitive traits, and there’s a 42% chance someone will fall outside the norm in at least one.
- Bump that to 25 traits, and the figure jumps to 75%.
- Go to 50 traits, and nearly everyone — about 92% — would be classed as neurodivergent in some respect.
This illustrates just how shaky the foundation of neurotypicality really is. If anyone did fit all the criteria of a so-called normal brain, they’d be so rare as to be, paradoxically, atypical themselves.
The Trouble with Classification
Terms like neurotypical and neurodivergent can be helpful for shining a light on bias or gaining support. However, they risk entrenching a binary that doesn’t truly reflect human complexity. By treating neurotypicality as a default, we subtly imply that any deviation from it is “other” — which only reinforces the very marginalisation the neurodiversity movement seeks to undo.
Human behaviour is fluid and context-driven. Someone may seem neurotypical in one environment but be considered neurodivergent in another. Cultural norms shape what’s seen as “typical” behaviour — and these norms vary widely. What counts as ordinary social interaction in one place might look entirely different somewhere else.
A Spectrum, Not a Split
Rather than boxing people into neat categories, the spectrum model offers a more faithful reflection of reality. No two brains function identically. Each person’s mental make-up is a unique blend of strengths, challenges, and learned adaptations.
Diagnostic systems like the DSM aim to provide structure by grouping traits into conditions such as autism, ADHD or dyslexia. These frameworks are useful for getting support and guiding research, but they’re hardly flawless. They change with time, shaped by new science and shifting values.
At the heart of it, neurodiversity is the standard. By embracing the idea that every brain works differently, we can move away from reductive labels and towards a deeper appreciation of how humans think, feel, and experience the world.
In Conclusion: The Myth of the “Typical” Brain
The term neurotypical, although created with good intent, is built on shaky ground. It assumes a neurological “norm” that very few — if any — people genuinely match. Whether viewed through cultural, statistical or scientific lenses, the notion simply doesn’t hold up.
Instead of drawing a line between “typical” and “atypical”, we should be recognising the full scope of human neurodiversity for what it is: the true norm. Just as biodiversity keeps ecosystems alive, neurodiversity keeps our societies resilient, empathetic, and rich in perspective. That, ultimately, is the kind of normal we should all be striving for.
The European Autist 