On pathological psychology (e.g. ND-NT) and the alternatives that exist

[Carl-Richard]

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.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

Generally, I might add that questioning how things are framed, like I'm doing here, is a brilliant source of autonomy. It puts the power of reality (as far as it is framed, which is often) in your hands. This is a lot of what Leo preaches and is concerned about with notions like conformity, becoming epistemically independent, intellectually sovereign. Whenever you encounter a frame that you might consider problematic, ask yourself "how does this frame make me feel?". "Do I agree with this frame?" "Is there a better way to frame the same things?".

Because frames tend to connect to other frames, they tend to smuggle in things that might not be necessary or relevant for the problem you're trying to address. I've tried to provide a frame that I think is more relevant for many people and which explains why so many people have had such a negative reaction to @Cred and his let's call it neurodiversity educational crusade.

And this is not me saying my frame is necessarily better for you. I'm saying you should question the frame and ask "if" it is better for you. I am not doing like @Cred and insisting that you should adopt my frame. Those who know Spiral Dynamics know that this does not work. You have to meet people where they are at, and address their actual needs, not enlighten them with a view that might not fit them.

@Leo Gura A video on frames and how being aware of how you frame things is beneficial (and how to be aware of it), might be good.

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Cred]

38 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

achievement-oriented behavior gets intermingled with "narcisstic coping"

No no no no no no that's not my point at all.

My view of narcissism is extremely nuanced, since I deeply studied and observed the behaviour of my step dad who is a narcissist.

I'm planning to go into more detail in the future. Thanks for bringing it up so I could clear up the misunderstanding

[Cred]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

his let's call it neurodiversity educational crusade.

How DARE you accuse me of this!!!!!!!!

No it's totally true I can't disagree with this lol

[Cred]

By in large, I agree with your points. 

The reason why it's so hard for me to ditch the negative language is because I want people to find the right resources and there simply is more research/content talking about these concepts than for any new made up ones.

I get, that this might make me seem like I have an inflexible frame, but that's simply not true.

I'm completely for completely reinventing the term neurodivergency on this forum from a high consciousness perspective moving forward. After all, where else would that ever happen, if not here.

Edited 12 hours ago by Cred

[Cred]

I'm with you that using negative language can be problematic, bit I also see subtle problems with your frame.

For example if you tell someone they are gifted and passion oriented, they might say:"That sounds super super great!" and then move on with their day all confident but not looking deeper into what this entails.

Later, they might subconsciously think "if I'm gifted which is nice and passion oriented which is nice, then why do I have so much trouble in life? Surely it can't be bc of these super duper great aspects of me?"

But this is just a very minor critique. You are still correct with your core point.

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Cred said:

I'm with you that using negative language can be problematic, bit I also see subtle problems with your frame.

The negative language is one thing, another thing is the typologizing and absolutizing (diagnosing); you are "this thing" and it has these specific criteria. A different approach is "how much of these traits do you have?", or "what specific goals do you have?" and the person fills in the blanks. The former is a subtle distinction (and the "neurodiversity spectrum" idea could seem to support this, but in reality, people typologize themselves despite this).

I have very deliberately challenged typologizing "introversion" when it comes to myself, because I know the traps my mind creates when I go in that territory. I generally avoid describing myself as a thing. There is a saying "I don't care about who you are, only what you do".

 

48 minutes ago, Cred said:

For example if you tell someone they are gifted and passion oriented, they might say:"That sounds super super great!" and then move on with their day all confident but not looking deeper into what this entails.

Later, they might subconsciously think "if I'm gifted which is nice and passion oriented which is nice, then why do I have so much trouble in life? Surely it can't be bc of these super duper great aspects of me?"

Or you can say "do what you want, do what you are good at, and do it in an environment that supports these things". If that is not happening, that can explain why you have so much trouble in life. And if you can't figure out why those things aren't happening and you've really tried your best, then consider that you have some dysfunction that needs special care.

But even in that case, challenging the dysfunctionalizing and typologizing framework is helpful. You don't have to call yourself "autistic" to go to a psychologist to get help with your concerns (and yes, it can be an uphill battle to deal with diagnoses from the people trying to help you, but that is a microcosm of life and people always "diagnosing" you for various things and you having to say "no you're full of shit").

Edited 11 hours ago by Carl-Richard