Beware of the Neurotypical Ableist

It might NOT be the same people.

But it seems like it's the same people.....

The ones who anger over the use of the word narcissism or narcissist outside of official clinical conversation (because it's incredibly hurtful to people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder) are the same people who throw around the word neurotypical as if it applies to some kind of awful, cruel, unsympathetic person that could never understand how difficult it is to be neurodivergent.  

There's a so-called neurodivergent umbrella that holds a lot of people underneath it.  

Listed under this umbrella: ADHD, ASPD, DID, OSDD, BPD, NPD, Dyslexia, CPTSD, Dyspraxia, sensory processing disorder, Dyscalculia, PTSD, dysgraphia, bipolar, autism, epilepsy, OCD, ABI, tic disorders, schizophrenia, misophonia, hpd, down syndrome, and synthesia.   

How many people do not fall under the umbrella?

I'm not just talking about people officially diagnosed or even self-diagnosed.

How about all the people who have the traits but just never really consider attributing the condition or disorder to themselves?  Or maybe they considered it briefly and then moved on to think about other things....because they're just not really that interested in psychology.  

How many people would fall under the umbrella if they stopped masking?

Neurotypical might not always be about BEING neurotypical.  It might be about WANTING to be neurotypical and clinging to that mask.  

There's a part of me that believes there is no such thing as a neurotypical person. Another part of me argues with that and says...well, there probably are a few people who don't fit under the umbrella,

But if there's only a few, how would that be typical?  

I think it's much more likely that most (or all) of us are neurodivergent. And I'd probably vote to change the word neurotypical to neuro-expected.  There is a certain way society expects us to feel and act...and there is variation to how much each of us values those expectations, how much each of us follows those expectations, and how much each of us struggles to follow those expectations.  

Circling back to the narcissist thing.  It's this feeling I get from some people online that someone diagnosed (professionally or self) with NPD is deserving of more compassion and consideration than someone who hasn't yet undiagnosed or unidentified themselves with the shameful condition of being neurotypical.  

I've come to hate the word ableist.

No. That's not right.

That implies I liked the word and then grew to hate it.

I don't think I've ever liked it.  But with my diagnosis adventures this year, I've tried to be okay with it.  Because it's very often used in the autism community.  

I think I could grow to like the word if it was used to apply to all of us.  

My guess is if you got into a deep conversation with most people using that word, they would agree that disabled people too can be ableist. 

BUT...I think it's seen more as a common affliction of the abled that in rare cases can also afflict the disabled.  Kind of like insulin malfunction belongs to diabetics but some of us non-diabetics sometimes have a bit of a problem with it.  

The question I have is who is disabled and who is not disabled?

I think a lot of people who have parked themselves under the neurodivergent umbrella would count themselves as disabled.  And then if it's disabilities in general, we have to widen the umbrella to include ALS, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, asthma, heart disease, blindness, deafness, autoimmune conditions, Cystic Fibrosis, cancer, chronic skin conditions, gout, diabetes, mobility disorders, Meniere's disease, POTS, Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, addiction disorders, migraines, lyme disease, Parkinson's Disease.  

How many people do not have one of the above or one that I've forgotten?  And we can't exclude all the people who struggle with these disorders but haven't gotten a diagnosis. Or how about the people with very rare conditions that don't have a name yet?  

I witnessed an argument on Twitter between two people about whether it's ever okay to make jokes about disability.  Person A said yes it's okay. Person B said it was not okay.

At one point, person B angrily said something like, I am here as a disabled person telling you it's not okay to joke about disability, and that it hurts me, and you're still having the nerve to disagree with me.

I then joined the conversation and asked Person A  whether they have any disease, disorder, or condition that makes life more challenging for them.... whether diagnosed or undiagnosed.

Person A answered yes.

Why did person B assume that she was the only one with a disability in the conversation?  Was it because it allowed her to believe that her opinion about humor was more valid?  Would she have felt equally comfortable debating someone who also was open about having a diagnosis?

Circling back AGAIN to narcissism. 

I saw an argument today that it's not okay to use the word narcissist or narcissism outside of psychiatry, because the word originated from psychiatry.  Or something like that.

Even if it did originate from psychiatry, within psychiatry it exists outside the disorder. Some psychiatrists have seen it as something that exists in all of us to various degrees.  

Language is constantly evolving.  (What used to be what we did to to Poodles to make them look stylish is now what Disney World is doing to children by no longer saying "Girls and Boys" during shows)

Maybe the people holding up that neurodivergent umbrella will be the winners when it comes to the word narcissism.  Maybe it will get to the point where it's universally offensive to use the word narcissist or narcissism outside describing someone struggling with NPD.  

I hope, though, that it doesn't turn out that way.  I hope that the majority of society will accept the use of the word narcissism whether it's to describe a healthy elevated self-esteem, an annoyingly elevated self-esteem, a harmful-to-others elevated level of self-esteem, or someone who struggles with a personality disorder.  

Shit, though.  I'm picturing a day where people cry ableism if you say something like....

 I'm so anxious about going back to school.

Excuse me! That's very ableist. It's offensive to people who suffer from anxiety disorder.

OR....

I totally panicked when I thought I had forgotten my dad's birthday.

Excuse me.  That's very ableist. It's offensive to people who suffer from panic attacks.

I'm so depressed, because my best friend is no longer speaking to me.

Excuse me. What you mean is you're sad.  You're being ableist to people who suffer from depression.

I was so obsessed with Australia.

Excuse me. That's very ableist. You're minimizing the experience of people who struggle with obsessive compulsive disorder.  

But see with that last one, I have been diagnosed with OCD!  For me, it's quite possible to see the word obsession as part of something I struggle with while also being able to accept the word in a non-clinical context.  

P.S-I'm going to stop with my rigid rule of including a photo in every post, because it's probably actually the thing that has been causing my blogging-block.  Also, I thought I was being cute by posting totally unrelated photos.  But I've looked back at those posts...and I'm cringing more at it than self-adoring.  

P.S (2)- I'm not really up to arguing about any of this, so I'll probably not respond to angry-disagreement. Though I will appreciate you helping me with my algorithm.  If you don't want to help someone who has angered you so much, I suggest you not leave a comment and instead suggest you say your piece on your own blog...or whatever platform you have.   

P.S (3)- If you are diagnosed (self or professionally) with NPD and are an example of what I heard about today...people with NPD that are not abusive.  If you have lived-experience in this and have a blog or have written in some type of platform, I'd be interested in gaining more insight into your feelings and experiences.  If you'd like to leave a link in comments, I'll take a look.  I can't say you'll change my opinion above. But I can't say for sure that you won't.  And I really don't want to be the type of person who absolutely refuses to even entertain an opposing viewpoint.   

Read my novel: The Dead are Online 

Empathy and Arrogance

I've been listening to a book I'm liking a lot—What are you Going Through by Sigrid Nunez.

I just heard a quote in the book that I love:

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who upon seeing someone else suffering think: That can happen to me.  And those who think: That will never happen to me.

The first kind of people help us to endure.  The second kind make life hell.

Note: the narrator of the novel says she heard this elsewhere...from someone famous.  But she's not sure who, and this is her paraphrasing.  

I doubt any person is 100% the first kind of person or the second.  But I think people do lean one way or the other. I'm glad to be able to say that I lean very much towards the first one.  I have a very active imagination, and I'm an anxious person.  

Politically speaking, I think left-wing people are going to lean more towards being the first kind and right-wing people more towards the second.  

I remembered learning that Republicans are less likely to believe that luck plays a part in what happens to us.  I Googled and saw this study.  It's called Locus of Control. Democrats have more of an external one, while Republicans have more of an internal one.

I then had to Google locus of control to make sure it was referring to the thing I thought it was.   

And yeah. It is. 

So Republicans tend to believe if a bad thing happened to you, it's because you made the wrong choices, didn't work hard enough, didn't take care of yourself, etc.  Democrats tend to look at factors that might get in the way such as which family you were born into, your genetics, random bad luck, lacking certain societal privileges, etc   

Do all Democrats, all the time, think with sympathy: that can happen to me?  Definitely not.  The proof is on Twitter with all the ridiculing of Donald Trump about wearing diapers or holding a water bottle strangely.  It's pretty apparent that they don't ever consider that one day, THEY might have an incontinence problem or a disability that makes it hard to hold onto things.    

But in terms of issues like healthcare, refugees, civil rights, etc....I think Democrats want, develop, and push policy with the mindset of...This might happen to me one day or to someone I love.  

In a way, that almost sounds self-centered.  And it kind of is. Maybe.  If you look at it in a certain way.  But it's also about putting ourselves in somebody else's shoes.  

And putting ourself in somebody else's shoes becomes an even stronger mode of compassionate thinking if we truly realize that those someday could become our shoes.   

I think it also can be applied to charity...at least charity directed mostly at humans.  I think both the left and the right donate.  But I think the left more likely is to donate with worry, empathy, and that idea they should help, because one day it might be themselves who need the help.  I think the right is more likely to donate because it provides evidence to themselves, society, and sometimes the Supreme Being they believe in, that they're good people.  

Getting back to footwear.....

Republicans are more likely to idealize the boot strap mythology.  Work hard and you can get through anything.  So where does charity fit in there?  Why help people if the ideal is for them to totally help themselves?

And if we help someone while believing firmly that people should be able to pull themselves up from the bootstraps, what are we thinking about that person while we help them?  Can there be genuine empathy?  Are we looking down at the person?  Judging them?  Feeling superior to them?  

In a recent texting conversation with my (part Republican) family, I tried to sell them on a modified boot strap policy: Lift yourself up from your bootstraps...IF you have boots...and if the straps are strong.  If you don't have boots, we will buy you some.

If I had heard the passage in the book before sending that text, I probably would have added. We will buy you some, because we understand fully that one day we might be the one who have lost our boots. 

  

Note: It is also important to keep an understanding that some things are much less likely to happen to us, because of our ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.  So then the thinking can take the direction of I can imagine this happening to me IF I had been born into difference circumstances.  

 

How would our world change if we knew for sure there was life after death, and it was easy for our dearly-beloved to talk to us via the Internet?   

The Dead are Online, a novel by Dina Roberts