I've grown to dislike the term "neurodivergent". People seem to think of it as equivalent to "neurodiverse", which is a valid and useful term, but it is totall

I've grown to dislike the term "neurodivergent". People seem to think of it as equivalent to "neurodiverse", which is a valid and useful term, but it is totally different, and problematic. The difference is that a population is "diverse" whereas an individual is "divergent". To discuss the "neurodiversity" of a population is to recognise the enormous range of different aptitudes and ways of being across that group. It's an inclusive way of thinking and matches reality as I see it. To describe an individual as "neurodivergent" is to imply a "normal" group from which that individual "diverges". It usually also implies a second "divergent" group to which they belong. It's related to the "condition-isation" we also get in language, where you don't simply think a particular way but "have something". I don't merely struggle to imagine visual imagery, I "have aphantasia". I don't merely get annoyed by small, repetitive noises, I "have misophonia". As a child, I was diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome. I mostly grew out of it in my twenties, but I still 'tic noticeably at times. Back then my 'tics were severe, sometimes extreme, and could be disruptive in lessons. (But no, while I did have vocal 'tics I did not "have coprolalia". Only around 10% of Tourette's "sufferers" swear compulsively, not that you'd think so based on the way it's portrayed in the media.) To have a label attached to this "condition" helped in some ways: a particular teacher who was visibly annoyed by my vocalisations was more tolerant knowing I "had a condition" that caused them (although perhaps he himself should have been given dispensation as someone who "had misophonia"); drugs and therapy were tried, which didn't help but could have done. However neither I nor my peers ever saw me as different to them, and these benefits could have accrued just as well without the label. Indeed, I've known plenty of people without the diagnosis who would have benefitted at least from a greater understanding that some of their behaviours are compulsive and difficult to manage. Grouping symptoms into syndromes surely has some value in medical research, but a neurological syndrome like Tourette's or OCD or autism isn't like a hepatitis infection. The underlying mechanism isn't understood and the symptoms are things that are seen to a greater or lesser extent throughout the population. Drawing a sharp distinction between those who "have a condition" and those who "are normal" seems counterproductive. The more "diverse" a population is, the less it makes sense to think of any individual within it as "divergent", and real-world human populations are incredibly neurodiverse.