neuroemergence

Because no one asked, here’s one take on neurodivergence:

We have the Latin-derived terms horizontal and vertical to describe the x- and y-axes in a two-dimensional model. The fact that there is no handy, colloquial Latin-derived word for the z-axis, or depth, suggests that writers and thinkers driving language forward are not accustomed to interacting with this cognitive and sensory space in conversation (instead, newer OED entries include “doomscrolling,” “adultification,” “rizz,” “simp,” and “brain rot”).

I posit that this is due to a pervasive paradigm of 2-dimensional cognitive and sensory models.

I propose the term “profundal” for this z-axis, derived from the Latin “profundus,” meaning deep. Horizontal, vertical, and profundal. Use them in conversation today!

In my conversations with 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional thinker-experiencers, it becomes clear what is happening. Those who are labeled “neurotypical” are 2D thinker-experiencers. Those labeled “neurodivergent” are simply 3-dimensional thinker-experiencers. The “divergence” part of the equation is simply divergence from 2-dimensional cognitive-experiential models.

“Emergence” would be a better operative term, as it suggests growth and depth.

Since the 2D paradigm is dominant and power-protective, the challenge for 3D thinker-experiencers is fitting 3D thoughts and experiences into bite-sized chunks that 2D thinker-experiencers can understand. And likewise, 2D thinker-experiencers are challenged in making their thoughts and experiences nuanced to meet the thoughts and experiences of 3D thinker-experiencers.

I’ll say the quiet part out loud: Neurotypical perceivers literally lack depth–like actually, cognitively–lack the cognitive ability to fit 3-dimensional descriptions of reality into a 2-dimensional cognitive frame. And neuroemergent perceivers navigate a huge cognitive load in trying to fit a 3D experience into a 2D frame.

No foul: we’re all just literally working with the hands we’ve been dealt.

Unfortunately, as we see happening around the world, when 2-dimensional thinker-experiencers don’t understand something, they mistrust it, and give it a label, and ask that it be changed to fit into their cognitive frame. So, 3D thinker-experiencers are labeled “divergent,” and are given helpful strategies to become 2D thinker-experiencers, like the good people in power who care so much about our collective well-being (that last bit was sarcasm, for those among us who don’t parse it intuitively. I hope it didn’t detract from the narrative. Immunity to sarcasm is actually a gift). And 3D thinker-experiencers, hoping for equilibrium, tend to go along with the program, seeing the bigger picture and not being attached to the narrative of power.

And so, 3D thinker-experiencers are pathologized. Called “divergent.” Called “overthinkers.” Called “avoidant,” “hypersensitive,” “deficient,” “introverted,” “socially awkward,” “shy,” “nonverbal,” “anxious,” “distractable,” “impulsive,” “disruptive,” “difficult,” “flat,” “overtalkative,” “interruptive,” and so many other things.

That’s what I call “hocus pocus.” It’s the little flick of the wrist that points over there and assigns blame.

But don’t think that I am suggesting that 3D thinking is better than 2D thinking. There is a place for all of us. All of Terra’s children got a place in the choir.

2D thinker: “I didn’t understand you, and so you are to be mistrusted.” The finger points outward.

3D thinker: “You didn’t understand me, and so I am to be mistrusted.” The finger points inward.

Both are wrong. Both are examples of hocus pocus.

It is only when lack of understanding is followed by a conversation that the world is united, inclusive of 2D and 3D thinker-experiencers’ ways of being.

But 3D thinker-experiencers have a lot of work to do. We must stop internalizing shame, stop retreating into isolation because we are not understood. We must connect and connect and connect in all of the ways that we know how, and all of the ways that we suspect might be possible.

The ways will be non-linear, and may not fit easily into the media, social, and aesthetic platforms we have been given–but they will have the quality of depth. They will be profound. And hopefully, they will inspire clarifying questions. Questions that resolve our differences–our sensory and cognitive differences.

Because once awareness has emerged, it can’t be fit back into the box (hint: this is a good explanation for Pathological Demand Avoidance😜).