Neurodivergent is a term that is often used to define specific clusters of traits that are found primarily in psychiatric diagnoses such as Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neurotypical is therefore the term used to denote the others who presumably have brains that function “in typical ways.”
Flickr.com: Scott_trip2
These clinical terms have found their way into social critique suggesting that the modern and colonized world benefits the neurotypical majority and harms the neurodivergent minority.
This premise is based on the belief that the modern world automatically favours some brains and not others. It additionally bifurcates all of the wondrous variation of neural development and expression into us and them.
The bottom line is that the strictures of the modern world only truly favour the extremely wealthy—the world is designed for the flow of obscene amounts money and unfathomable power to rest exclusively with this group. Forbes estimates there are shy of 2800 billionaires in the world today. That is 2520 men and approximately 280 women who have such outsized leverage they can create the illusion that the way the world works is the way most people want it to work.
In fact, the obscenely wealthy have managed to foster infighting and silos which serve to deflect us all from the fact that 2800 of 7.8 billion will never represent the majority’s best interests. Neurotypical is sometimes used as a snarl word among many snarl words that have cropped up in the last few years: Karen, snowflake, okay boomer…And of course ‘neurodivergent’ may just as easily be used as a snarl word because it is the intent of the speaker that drives whether the word “snarls” or “purrs”.
“Snarl word” is a term coined along with “purr word” by S.I. Hiyakawa in 1964. Dr. Hiyakawa put forward that both snarl and purr words are used as a substitute for serious thought and well-reasoned argument. I would suggest both are used to virtue signal to others and to reinforce alignment in the group.
Purr words that have cropped up include: hero, angel, warrior and survivor.
What I would like to explore in this piece is the nuanced look at how many different kinds of brains end up harmed by the modern world in the hopes it might help those who would not identify as neurodivergent in the clinical sense, uncover that their brains also may not be suited to the requirement to cater to the excessively wealthy. None of this investigation is meant to become the Pain and Suffering Olympics where you can only win gold by minimizing (or equally bad, comparing) the pain and suffering of others.
Whether you are good at set shifting, masking and emotional work or not, it has little influence on whether you deal with discrimination due to your neurodivergent ways. If you do deal with discrimination, abuse and/or exclusion at work, you can additionally be made to feel that everything rests on getting better at set shifting, masking and emotional work and that truly adds insult to injury.
Set shifting, masking and emotional work are survival mechanisms designed to try to avoid an immediate existential threat. These skills are suitable in kin and tribe settings for social primates and have been co-opted into capitalist systems and organizations in ways that, you guessed it, favour the obscenely wealthy.
What is set-shifting? If you take on a different tone, use different language, change the pitch of your voice, or your eye contact and body language when you deal with a client as compared to a colleague as compared to a boss, that is set-shifting. This ability is also called cognitive flexibility—you can essentially go with the flow. If the boss shuts down your idea; if your colleague seems distracted and unable to engage in your need to discuss your project; if the client is not listening to your solutions at all, and you change direction in response, then you are cognitively flexible.
Many who are clinically identified as neurodivergent are supposedly cognitively inflexible and cannot readily set shift.
But let us delve into this a bit more. First of all, I should just point out that the World Economic Forum in 2020 (the Gathering of the Squillionaires) declared that cognitive flexibility is one of the top skills needed to excel in a 2020 workplace.
That should trigger some suspicion as to why this skill is deemed so indispensable. In point of fact most real-world examples of cognitive flexibility in the workplace actually denote social flexibility (or really a sophisticated hierarchical deference). Cognitive flexibility is defined as an ability to engage your cognitive functions to identify that you are not achieving success in one direction and then to make appropriate adjustments to become successful in a new way.
Success in the workplace only occasionally has anything to do with the work. I prefer the term set shifting because these are social constructs you predominantly manage and not tasks or cognitive processes alone. You are not just rummaging around in your cognitive executive functions in the brain; you are engaging significant emotional functions as well. And all that re-arranging is energetically draining.
So, if you happen to be someone labeled as cognitively inflexible, it might be worth re-evaluating that label. Maybe the issue is that the motivation for changing direction is not compelling in the first place. If the boss just flushed your objectively useful and excellent work, rolling with it might be appropriate for success but it is very cognitively twisted to accept that flushing good and useful work is the definition of tangible success.
So whether you are good or bad at set shifting, it is going to exhaust your neural landscape when there is a demand placed on you to perform set shifting for murky and not terribly logical reasons.
By contrast, set shifting when your partner has had a gawdawful day, is likely less energy depleting because the cognitive and emotional demands are in line with existential bonding and support—the foundation of being a social primate.
Next week we will look at masking. You will never know how many people privately align with what they openly agree with in a workplace setting.