So we've recently been introduced to the frame of "neurodiversity" (thanks @Cred, and welcome), which is implicitly (or rather quite explicitly) a pathological psychological frame, concerned with describing dysfunction or things that are broken.

Notions like "executive dysfunction" get intermingled with "passion", notions like achievement-oriented behavior get intermingled with "narcissistic coping". Those who are different in some way or another, or "neurodivergent", are proposed to disengage from "normal" society, behaviors, activities, people (those who are more alike each other in some way or another). And those who are different are encouraged to identify with various labels from pathological psychology (ADHD, autism, psychosis, etc.).

This pathological view of psychology is quite prevalent. I recently watched a video of Dr. K describing how high-achievers are "broken in the right ways". Interesting how you can take a pathological and essentially negative view of something which is so obviously non-pathological and positive. It's of course not surprising, as Dr. K is a psychiatrist, and psychiatry is in essence, in its historical root, concerned about fixing pathology, healing the sick.

And hence it frames the problem a certain way, and I believe the way you frame the problem has a lot to say for how you go about not just fixing the problem but relating to yourself and your own mind. And I believe pathological psychology can (not coincidentally) breed pathological frames of mind, of course inadvertently. Viewing yourself as broken, as something that needs to be fixed, and that is "other" than some ideal, is inherently disempowering, stifles autonomy and the feeling of being in control of your life, which as I'll get into, is one of the main drivers of health and functionality.

Now, there are cases where taking a pathological view is necessary or useful, but this ideally comes second to taking alternative frames when the pathological frames don't work. And I also believe these alternative frames can address many of the same issues as those proposed by the pathological ones, also especially the concern addressed recently by @Cred in the neurodiversity frame of "are you doing the right thing?", or "are you doing what is right for you?".

And what are the alternatives? Well, not coincidentally, there is something called "positive psychology". It is concerned with notions such as happiness, well-being, health, motivation, mindfulness, meaning, etc. Also notions like self-actualization and life purpose, familiar to those interested in Actualized.org, also fall under this category. 

You also have "salutogenic" perspectives on health, i.e. approaches towards healthcare and public health policy that are concerned about how to "increase health" rather than "fix illness" (i.e., it's about framing the problem in a positive rather than negative way). And it leads to notions such as empowerment, resilience-building, sources of social support and adaptive cognitive styles.

You of course also have more Eastern psychology and religion and also Western religion with its spiritual frameworks of moving towards Enlightenment or sacred states of being, intermingled with moral and ethical philosophy on how to live a good life (Dharma, Jesus' teachings, Buddha's teachings, ancient stoicism, achieving eudaimonia). This ties back into well-being, peak states, peak performance, flow states, sources of purpose and meaning found in positive psychology (positive psychology is in large part a recapitulation and Western rebranding of ancient wisdom).

And how do they address the questions of "are you doing what is right" and "what is right for you" or otherwise? If it is not self-evident in that you simply have to explore some of these perspectives (which I give my own orienting framework of here), I can give what I think is the most efficient, elegant or powerful model, and it's from positive psychology. You might've guessed it: Self-Determination Theory. You can choose to read more in-depth explanations of it (I will leave some links here; [1], [2], [3]), or you can simply take this summary of the model: do what you want to do (autonomy), do what you are good at (competence), and do it with the support of those who support these things (belonging/relatedness).

The question then is of course "but how do I do this in a world that is dangerous and other to me and against what I immediately want to do; taxes, bills, people who disagree, culture, law-makers, naysayers, squares, disbelievers?". Find a way to make it work, find the golden middle way. Life is not infinitely forgiving. That is the harsh reality. But once you have staked out the correct orienting framework — do what you want, do what you're good at, and do it with the support of the right people — you will sooner or later end up in a more and more suitable position, a place where you truly feel that you belong. Even if you feel that you don't fit quite anywhere, if you keep trying, you will find something, and it might find you.