What if neurodivergence isn't the exception, but the norm?

xxx

A rising number of diagnoses

Research into neurodiversity is gaining momentum, and diagnoses continue to increase. Studies suggest that roughly one in five or six people has a different neurotype. In reality, the number is likely higher, as these figures are largely based on formal diagnoses and recognition within healthcare systems. People who show clear traits but function well enough not to seek support are often left out of the statistics.

Not a disorder

The concept of neurodiversity was introduced in the late 1990s by Judy Singer, challenging the dominant medical view of autism and ADHD as disorders or deficits. Instead, she proposed a new perspective: differences from the norm should be understood as natural variation, not pathology.

A few years later, Kassiane Asasumasu coined the term neurodivergence to describe individuals whose neurocognitive functioning diverges from prevailing societal norms. In doing so, she broadened the scope beyond autism and ADHD. Today, the term can encompass a wide range of differences from what is considered “normal.”

But what is “normal”?

Within this framework, people are often divided into two broad groups:

Neurotypical (or neuroconventional) individuals, whose cognitive functioning aligns with societal expectations and who generally experience little friction in navigating social systems.

Neurodivergent individuals, whose cognitive, sensory, or neurological functioning consistently differs from those expectations, regardless of cause or diagnosis.

This distinction highlights a deeper issue: societal expectations are built on a narrow set of norms. We are expected to be predictable, efficient, and direct in our communication. Emotional restraint is valued, as is the ability to handle crowds and constant stimuli. Attention, memory, and concentration are expected to be stable, and social cues should be understood intuitively.

A flawed foundation

People whose cognitive styles align with these norms tend to move easily through the structures and systems of modern society, because those systems were designed with them in mind. But that may be a flawed foundation.

Modern humans have existed for around 300,000 years. Only about 12,000 years ago, with the agricultural revolution, did humans begin to settle. The factory model of repetitive labour emerged just 250 years ago during the Industrial Revolution. And the office-based, desk-bound work culture and education systems that require children to sit still and focus on one task at a time have developed over the past 150 years at most.

A world turned upside down

In this relatively short span of time, traits that may once have been advantageous, such as intense focus or rapid pattern recognition in complex, stimulus-rich environments, have come to be seen as deficits. Those who struggle within today’s systems are labelled as the exception.

But what if neurodivergence is actually the norm? That possibility would fundamentally reshape how we think about work, education, and society itself. Instead of designing systems for the “average”, we would build them around variation and diversity.

Rather than prioritising predictability and standardisation, we would emphasise adaptability, context, and complementarity. Not everyone would be expected to think or work in the same way; strength would lie in how different approaches support one another. This would mean less rigid control and fewer uniform frameworks, and more flexibility and customisation. Fixed job descriptions might give way to modular work, where tasks are tailored to individual strengths.

Learning from nature

Instead of forcing people into predefined systems, we should design systems around people and the full range of human diversity. This idea is not radical; it mirrors how nature works. Monocultures exhaust the soil and become increasingly fragile, while biodiversity strengthens ecosystems, making them more resilient, productive, and sustainable.

As Alexander den Heijer put it: “When a flower doesn’t bloom, you fix the environment in which it grows, not the flower”.The same principle applies to people.

This article was originally published in Dutch on MT/Sprout, the most popular business and management platform in the Netherlands.