comment: >
  
  Arguably "neurotypical" is not an achievable state of being, but a baseline used to make comparisons, and the usage of the word is a shortcut in describing people who are reasonably close to the baseline, rather than meeting the description perfectly.
context: "Typical" is just a range. It doesn't mean identical; it means within the range of most common outcomes.
  So yes, each person is neurodiverse on an individual level, but the majority of people (by definition) are neurotypical, because their diversities fall within the range of most common outcomes.
  That said, society benefits from treating everyone's neurodiversity with respect, whether people fall within the typical range or not. >
  
  Reminds me me of a fun story of the early days of the US air force. The army took measurements of all of their pilots and designed the perfect cockpit for the "average pilot" then quickly discovered they didn't have enough average pilots to put in those cockpits. >
  
  That’s why you hire statisticians to explain the difference between average and medians. The later is what often people truly want >
  
  Well in this case what they really needed was cockpits that could be adjusted within a range of "typical". And these were statisticians but the field was not as mature as it is today. >
  
  The usefulness of the concept of "neurotypical" is not that most of the population are examples of such a thing, but because it allows us to note how some people break expectations. Ultimately, it allows us to understand how some people might be differently able.
  Literally no one is "normal". Most people are *normative* in most things. Some people are very far from normal in some specific things, that have knock on effects. Charting, or even talking about these situations is greatly helped by the concept of a neurotypical.  
  The issue that no one is actually neurotypical is an example of a basic problem of averages and populations. I believe the first time it was studied was in the case of the "typical" pilot used to design seats for fighter jets in the american army.  
  The seat in question was designed to fit as many people as possible, as well as possible, by measuring as many pilots as possible and taking the average.  
  The seat fit exactly 0 pilots. This was a problem, and apparently a shock at the time.  
  The redesign instead focused on being adjustable. Here, the earlier measurements where useful, because they gave information that could be understood as pilotatypicals. The "normal" pilot is a good default setting, because most pilots will be *normative* in most ways, and thus will only have to adjust the seat slightly. pilotatypicals can then be handled seperately, perhaps by modules that can be removed when they are not needed.  
  I'm very much blurring my basic understanding of the historical issue and a solution that attempts to show why the concept of a normal anything can be useful even though any mathematician will tell you that population level statistics tell you about populations and *nothing* about individuals. Both things are true, and the usefulness is great as long as we remember them both.  
  My wife is a really good example of this. She would be understood to be "high functioning" on the autism spectra, and she *hates* the term. She believes that people conflate it with "doesn't have issues", when it's actually "incredible amounts of effort go into reaching the appearance of normal in some regards".   
  I avoid the term, but I believe shes wrong. At least, if I or my closest circle where to use it. We understand "high functioning" to mean "neuroatypical, such that some things are very hard, and instead of having spare energy or time or money resources are spent on those issues". No one is perfectly normal, but the things my wife struggles with *are not the same* as the things normative people struggle with. It would be very hard to talk about that if we didn't have a term that encompasses the issue, and therefore, the term itself helps us be more understanding than, say, our parents generation, or their parents.  
  So, as someone who is noteably neoroatypical, and married to someone who is neuroatypical, I find the term neurotypical very useful.  
  If I were ever to meet one, however, I would probably ask what planet they're from and why their concept of population metrics is so basic to the detriment of their disguise. >
  
  You're correct that many--probably most--people experience some symptoms associated with neurodivergent disorders some of the time. But that doesn't mean they aren't neurotypical--it IS neurotypical to experience this. But neurodivergent brains tend to experience those same symptoms more frequently, more consistently, and more intractably (without treatment).
  Consider ADHD as an example. In the DSM-5 there are 17 symptoms/behaviors that are associated with ADHD. I'd be shocked to find someone who claimed they have never experienced at least one of them--for example, "avoids or is disinclined to begin homework or activities requiring concentration" is a pretty common experience. Homework sucks.
  But the thing is, most people don't deal with all or even many of these symptoms, and don't experience them frequently and persistently. Which is why, for a diagnosis of ADHD, a patient must have experienced at least 5-6 of these symptoms for a period of longer than 6 months in at least 2 different settings. Also symptoms must have been present prior to age 12 (for most people the condition develops while young), and must not be better explained by another disorder (ADHD has a lot of overlapping symptoms with autism, PTSD, and anxiety disorders). If you don't meet these criteria, you don't have ADHD as it is currently understood and defined.
  TL;DR: you're absolutely right that most people will experience some ADHD symptoms sometimes. But that doesn't mean they are neurodivergent--it's neurotypical to be bored with homework, or to occasionally act impulsively, or to be forgetful now and then. But ADHD brains do more of these things more often and more consistently, and it can be very hard for a person with ADHD to overcome these symptoms by "working harder" or "trying to concentrate." >
  
  
  I'd wager that probably 95% of people fulfill at least partially some of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.
  
  That sounds like your view is standing on some very flimsy ground, no? Do you have any reason to believe this? >
  
  My belief stems from reading diagnostic criteria and applying it to the people known to me. Supposedly self-diagnosis is valid nowdays.  Sample size would be then around 100, which I admit - might still be biased and not representative of the whole society. >
  
  
  My belief stems from reading diagnostic criteria and applying it to the people known to me
  
  OK, but when your post says " fulfill at least partially some of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria" you essentially are saying "if I ignore criteria".  For example, ADHD.  It requires six or more symptoms of inattention for children under 16.  That admits that "neuro typical" people may have one or two of those things happens, and if you ignore the "six" requirement, suddenly yes, everyone is ADHD.  Because neurotypical people get distracted sometimes.  But it ignores the severity of 6 vs 2.
  It's like saying "nobody really has mobility issues" because "we all trip sometimes".  While there can be a grey area, it ignores the "well, that person with a broken leg really has a bigger difference that you who occasionally trips".
  
  Supposedly self-diagnosis is valid nowdays.
  
  But you aren't self-diagnosing, you are diagnosing other people. >
  
  
  That admits that "neuro typical" people may have one or two of those things happens, and if you ignore the "six" requirement, suddenly yes, everyone is ADHD.  Because neurotypical people get distracted sometimes.  But it ignores the severity of 6 vs 2.
  
  So, isn't the line drawn somewhat arbitrarily or at least intersubjective? That was my main point. If it is a spectrum, why is it the six requirements have to be met to be neurodiverse and not five? The line seems very blury. >
  
  Let's look for a moment at bimodal distributions (this is just an image of one.)  This is an example of a range of values that people may be in one group or the other.  There is blue on the left, and pink on the right.  The fact that we choose to draw a line in the purple doesn't mean that the people that fall under the "clearly blue" side also are "pink".  It might mean "a few people labeled neurotypical actually belong in neurodiverse" or "vice versa".
  So, why did we draw the line at 6?  Because a decision needed to be made, because, to use the blue/pink example again, people on the "clearly blue" side don't need medication, while people on the pink side, clearly do.