This seems rather disingenuous to me. It would be very remarkable if all non-neurotypical people missed the same sort of “ultraviolet” signals; the region of mind-design space occupied by humans might be pretty small, but it’s not so small that you can reduce it to a bimodal distribution without glossing over a lot of stuff.
In any case, CuSithBell wasn’t exactly shy about associating the autism spectrum with his metaphor, so unless you’re trying to argue that anyone three standard deviations ahead of the mean is necessarily on the spectrum, I’d hesitate to read too much past that.
(ETA: I am aware that “neurotypical” is normally used to mean “not autistic”. This post was written under the assumption that the parent was using it at its face value, i.e. “neurologically average”.)
No, but various kinds of non-neurotypicality are common. People with 145+ IQ are definitely not neurotypical.
This seems rather disingenuous to me. It would be very remarkable if all non-neurotypical people missed the same sort of “ultraviolet” signals; the region of mind-design space occupied by humans might be pretty small, but it’s not so small that you can reduce it to a bimodal distribution without glossing over a lot of stuff.
In any case, CuSithBell wasn’t exactly shy about associating the autism spectrum with his metaphor, so unless you’re trying to argue that anyone three standard deviations ahead of the mean is necessarily on the spectrum, I’d hesitate to read too much past that.
(ETA: I am aware that “neurotypical” is normally used to mean “not autistic”. This post was written under the assumption that the parent was using it at its face value, i.e. “neurologically average”.)
This is what I don’t like about “neurotypical”.
Would you say that there’s something like ultraviolet that 145 IQ people can’t see?