As I made clear on this blog last week, I suspect I have both autism and ADHD. I said so after several years of reading and research into this issue.
One response to that came from someone called Lucy Johnstone, who, with John Cromby, has contributed to the debate on this issue through the site Mad in the UK. They have questioned the way in which autism and ADHD are understood, diagnosed and discussed, and have explicitly located the rise of the neurodiversity movement within the context of neoliberal capitalism. They suggest that the rapid growth in autism and ADHD diagnoses can, at least in part, be understood as a consequence of neoliberalism, while neurodivergence itself has, in their opinion, subsequently been commodified and marketed, making it in part a neoliberal construct.
Lucy Johntone has asked me to discuss that issue, and I may, but my thinking is taking me in a different direction. The question I increasingly want to ask is not what neoliberalism has done to neurodivergence, which is what she and John Cromby are asking. I want to ask what neurodivergence might do to neoliberalism.
Seeing things differently
Prof Simon Baron-Cohen has recently made the point that autistic people have a particular capacity to see things differently, and that this difference has contributed significantly to human progress. That suggestion matters. If everyone sees a problem in broadly the same way, they are likely to reproduce broadly the same answers. Progress frequently requires someone to notice what everyone else has missed.
This is where I think Claude Shannon's work offers a useful metaphor. Shannon helped found modern information theory. His great insight was into the problem of communicating information when a signal is surrounded and disrupted by noise. The problem is not simply whether information exists. It is whether the information that matters can still be recovered when noise interferes with its transmission. Shannon, who worked for IBM, developed this idea in the context of telecommunications, but it has ramifications way beyond that.
My suggestion is that we live in an extraordinarily noisy society. We are overwhelmed with news, social media, advertising, political claims, economic forecasts, think-tank reports, corporate public relations, government announcements, opinion polls and commentary. There has probably never been more information available to ordinary people.
And yet more information does not necessarily produce more understanding. Sometimes it does the opposite. The problem is that the signal we need to hear can disappear into that noise.
That possibility matters politically because creating noise can be an extraordinarily effective way to exercise power. You do not have to suppress inconvenient information if you can overwhelm it. You do not have to demonstrate that an alternative is wrong if you can fill the available space with claims that it is impossible, unaffordable, dangerous or absurd. This is one of the ways in which neoliberalism maintains its power.
We are repeatedly told that governments must balance their books.
We are told that taxes pay for government spending.
We are told that the national debt is a burden on future generations.
We are told that markets allocate resources efficiently.
We are told that the private sector creates wealth whilst the state consumes it.
We are told that there is no money for the things society needs.
The repetition matters. Eventually these claims cease to sound like arguments at all. They become the background noise of political life. They become what supposedly sensible people know to be true.
And then someone asks, is that actually true? That person can be remarkably disruptive.
Hearing the signal
This is where neurodivergence might have political significance that has been largely overlooked.
I am not suggesting that every autistic person possesses some extraordinary ability to discover truth. Autism is far too varied for any such claim to make sense. Nor are autistic people immune from ideology, error or prejudice. The argument is subtler than that. What I am suggesting is that some characteristics associated with autism can produce a different relationship with information.
There can be intense attention to detail.
There can be a strong desire for consistency.
There can be an ability to concentrate on a subject for extraordinarily long periods.
There can be an unwillingness to ignore an anomaly simply because everyone else appears content to do so.
There can also be less willingness to accept an argument merely because the person making it possesses status or authority.
What looks like an insignificant detail to most people can then become impossible for someone else to ignore.
Why doesn't that number add up?
Why does today's explanation contradict yesterday's?
Why is everyone making an assumption that nobody has demonstrated to be true?
Why are we told that something cannot be done when the evidence suggests that it can?
Why does everyone else seem willing to move on when the question has not actually been answered?
These can be irritating questions for those in authority.
They can also be profoundly important ones.
Pattern recognition is the key to this understanding, not who says it.
In Shannon's terminology, the noise may have overwhelmed the communication channel for most people, but some can still detect the signal. In this context, the important point is that the signal is unusual and it needs an unusual antenna to notice it. Neurodivergent people tend to have that ability
That might be one reason why people who think differently have contributed disproportionately to intellectual, scientific, artistic and social change. Progress requires somebody to notice that the accepted explanation does not work.
Adding to the mix
ADHD might add another dimension to this. The capacity of those with this condition to make rapid associations between apparently unrelated ideas, combined in some people with periods of intense concentration, means they can see patterns that conventional thinking separates into different intellectual boxes.
The combination of these characteristics in AuDHD might also sometimes produce a particularly interesting combination. The mind notices connections that others have filtered out and then refuses to leave the resulting problem alone.
These characteristics can undoubtedly create difficulties. But describing them only in terms of deficit misses something important. They can also produce knowledge, and that can result in action.
Why neoliberalism should fear difference
That brings me back to neoliberalism. Neoliberal power depends upon much more than markets. It depends upon controlling what can be thought about markets, government, money, taxation, wealth and power. It has created an extraordinarily successful system for doing this.
Universities, economics departments, think tanks, newspapers, broadcasters, financial institutions, politicians and corporations continually reproduce remarkably similar assumptions about how the economy supposedly works. That does not require conspiracy. It requires conformity.
People learn what respectable opinion sounds like. They learn which questions serious people are permitted to ask. They learn which ideas are described as credible and which are dismissed before discussion begins. They adjust what I call their priors to match these expectations. Most importantly, they learn what they are not supposed to notice.
This is why neurodivergent thinking might be much more politically significant than neoliberal accounts of neurodivergence allow.
Someone who does not process social conformity in the expected way can be difficult to discipline intellectually.
The person who notices the contradiction cannot necessarily be persuaded to ignore it simply because everyone else does.
The person who becomes intensely interested in the problem may spend years examining it.
And the person who can still hear the signal when everyone else has become overwhelmed by the noise is potentially dangerous to any hierarchy whose power depends upon maintaining that noise.
This, then, is where I depart from Johnstone and Cromby. Their work asks whether neoliberal society has helped create the circumstances in which behaviours become categorised as autism and ADHD, and whether the neurodiversity movement can, and has, itself reproduced neoliberal ideas.
I want to ask another question. What if some of the differences we call neurodivergence are not products of neoliberalism at all, but are instead amongst the cognitive differences that make resistance to neoliberalism possible?
Then the question changes completely. Instead of asking whether the neurodivergent person can function successfully within the existing system, we should ask what that person might perceive that the existing system cannot, or does not want to, see. That is a very different understanding of neurodivergence.
It does not deny disability. Nor does it deny the very real difficulties that neurodivergent people can experience in a world largely organised around neurotypical expectations. But it does reject the assumption that conformity with those expectations provides the appropriate measure of human capability.
Sometimes humanity needs the person who hears what everyone else hears.
Sometimes it needs the person who hears something different.
And sometimes, when the noise has become almost deafening, progress depends upon the person who can still hear the signal.
That might be why neurodivergence matters much more than neoliberalism would ever like us to realise.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Interesting ideas which I broadly agree with. I’ve also noticed that many autistic people seem to have a strong moral compass too. Maybe that’s a result of the things you mention.
That moral compass that you refer to is often referred to as the Justice Streak. The difference between right & wrong & the need to correct the injustice. Very common trait in ADHDers. I”m one as is my daughter & grandson. They are both diagnosed but I’ve not bothered – no point at 74.
I love this. It’s insightful and positive and it explains why my brain won’t accept what comes out of the MSM without scrutinising it first and why I’ve pretty much given up on the MSM as a source of news and useful information. From what you have written I’m seeing Greta Thunberg, who at a very young age saw things most didn’t and has refused to be silenced, and Chris Packham.
I’m still struggling with my diagnosis, partly because it wasn’t the answer to the question I was asking, and partly because I didn’t enjoy reading a 12 page report that was all about deficits. A friend who was diagnosed on the same day, and like you had long suspected it, said, Who wants to be a sheep?’. I guess I’ve always felt like salt in the wound, always seeing things differently and seeing right through ideas that were wrong or not thought through. And you are right that with neoliberalism and climate change denial we need people who see things differently and speak out. What you haven’t mentioned is the number of autistics controlling the narrative. I’m thinking Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. These are powerful people that need calling out.
It has been suggested to me that the high rates of diagnosis in the UK are because our society is particularly hard to navigate if you are neurodivergent. British people don’t say what they mean and don’t like those who do. I certainly think it’s harder to navigate the world than when I was young and life was quieter and simpler.
Much to agree with, including that the diagnosis process, which is usually based on the DSM-5, is hopelessly inadequate.
There is, for example, no AuDHD diagnosis. You get two: autism and ADHD. It ignores that they interact, and is hopelessly inadequate as a result.
I totally disagree with Uta Frith, but I do think much more research into autism and ADHD is needed. They are seen as separate distinct entities when there is considerable overlap. It should be possible to be assessed for both at the same time not the current crazy separate diagnostic systems.
Agreed
If a prime, but submerged, purpose of Austerity/Neoliberalim is the exploitation of the vulnerable and regular members of society for the benefit of the wealthy/powerful/influential, might it be expected that, as this exploitation becomes more obvious, the dominant groups will use force and persuasion to oppose/obstruct/limit groups and indivduals who, indirectly and directly, question the everyday-for-most-people realities our current version of society?
Might we have already seen the use of “legalised” force being increased as with the attempted suppression of Palestine Action protests which question some of the behaviours of the British and Israeli goverments?
If so, then might this article’s hypothesis/questioning that persuasion by inundation is also being used to oppose/repress/suppress opposition and even questioning be valid?
P. S. Might the concerted main stream media attacks on Mr. Arday have been part of the same, unstated policy, of suppresing questioning to enforce conformity/obedience/subservience?
“Critical WordPress error” in the Signs of Recession post.
????
I have cleaned it.
It now views, not quite correctly, but I am not sure why now, but can live with it.
I remember having this moment of insight in my geography class at prep school, when I realised that everything I was being taught about our economy was bullshit. I couldn’t have been more than 10 or 11 at the time, but I remember seeing the whole system, with all its flaws and contradictions in a kind of flash, clear as day, in an analysis that many of us now take for granted: the problem of infinite growth and extraction on a finite planet, and its inevitable environmental and social costs, etc., etc. Something that I now understand as pattern recognition.
Even then I knew I was an “odd” child, and was assessed by a child psychologist once, as my parents and teachers were so concerned about me. This was is the 70s, however, when current diagnoses were not available. Since then I’ve often thought I might be AuDHD, as so many of my traits map onto that diagnosis, but I’ve never followed it up because A. I don’t like labels, and B. I don’t consider that there’s anything wrong with who I am.
But to return to the point. Unfortunately, that moment of realisation left me with a deep sense of dissonance and alienation from society, since for a long time nobody else seemed to see the problems I could. In fact, thanks to the media, I was convinced I must be mistaken; that I had “missed” some essential information everyone else knew.
To see my earlier insight validated in recent years brings no sense of satisfaction, though, as the ultimate consequences of everything that I saw back then appear to be rapidly approaching.
Anyway, yes, everything you say makes complete sense to me.
I don’t think of myself as neurodivergent. Maybe a bit slow. Complex issues require time to be resolved.
A problem is identified. A question is asked. Somebody bold, confident – perhaps granted status for some reason(s) – produces an answer, asserts it and speaks with authority. Slower, more thoughtful people are immediately alarmed that it makes no sense. One doesn’t have to be identified as ‘neurodivergent’ or anything else. Answers may just need patience and a commitment to logic.
Margaret Thatcher was respected as Prime Minister – who spoke wisely about, for instance, climate dangers. She used her position – to announce policies on privatisation, tax reductions for the wealthy and much else. Her dominance in parliament encouraged her supporters (and wealthy people) to cheer her to the rafters – even though her assertions were often unsubstantiated or completely illogical.
Richard
You said
My suggestion is that we live in an extraordinarily noisy society. We are overwhelmed with news, social media, advertising, political claims, economic forecasts, think-tank reports, corporate public relations, government announcements, opinion polls and commentary. There has probably never been more information available to ordinary people.
A lot of this is either real information or the expression of a legitimate opinion however a lot in particular the outpourings of many so called ‘Think Tanks’ is not.
It is recognised that constantly shouting is abusive behaviour so I suggest in the same way that there is a section of what is put in the public domain is abusive, placed there not as valid expression of opinion or information but rather designed to bury what is?
I have a speculation. Sometimes they prove useful. For most of human history we have lived in rural communities or, more recently , crowded into cities but with human and animal interaction.
For the past few generations we now exposed to more mental and emotional stimuli which is not directly from other people- print, TV, traffic noise, screens -which didn’t affect most people a few centuries ago. Our brains are not different as far a we know but perhaps some now run the brain’s programs differently in response. That might account for no apparent physical markers.
I have wondered if a lot of children I saw who were ADHD, appeared over stimulated compared with their capacity to handle it in some circumstances. We were told by a clinical psychologist ( I admit 25 years ago) that Ritalin- a nervous system stimulant ( which sounds counter-intuitive ) stimulated them ‘on the inside’.
We still have a lot to explain.
I think that fair comment
Very interesting, thank you. Our society is certainly very noisy, compared so a few decades ago.
Yes Richard – no doubt there are many types of original and especially perceptive thinkers – including neuro divergent ones.<p>
I can’t help going back to Orwell – 1984 such a cliche but just so precient.
A few famous quotes that came to my mind whilst reading this:
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” (attributed to Mark Twain, don’t know if he actually said it…)
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man” (George Bernard Shaw)
“Nullius in verba” (Latin motto of The Royal Society, translates as “take nobody’s word for it”)
That last one was particularly influencial for me growing up. It seems to me that we live in a technological society, but not an especially scientific one, in the sense that the way of relating to the world suggested by that motto has yet to be collectively internalised (i.e. look at the argument, not the person making it, compare it againt the data, look for inconsistencies, ask why, ask if the problem has been framed optimally, ask what assumptions went into that framing, question those assumtions, etc. How many of us consistently operate that way? It is difficult!)
Thanks
I think it’s a shame we lost the term Asperger’s, and I hope it can return as a useful insight. Or something equivalent if we can’t stomach that term. Because “on the spectrum” implies a single line/connection between this and non-verbal autism, as if it’s a matter of degree. Which, I’d say, makes it a bit different from using cancer as a general term for dissociated diseases. (Although that is a good point.) This is probably a mainstream concept though and not for people working in the area. That the diagnosis has become politicised is outrageous, as with everything about sickness. Why can’t we have decent politicians?
Asperger was a Nazi
It’s not surprising the term went.
Yes of course, and “neuro-divergent” fills the gap a little, although it’s a bit vague.
Separately: I’ve just clicked send, and been sent back because I hadn’t filled in the name and address boxes. But my comment was lost. This one is very short, but the last time this happened I’d taken time to work something out and just couldn’t be bothered to do it again. Can this be changed?
My suggestion is write anything but a brief comment off line and paste it in.
I cannot change WordPress. Sorry.
I always write longer comments off line for that reason. I cannot change WordPress. Sorry.
The work of Claude Shannon, perhaps one of verey few areas of knowledge this blog refers to where there is a vague chance I understand a wee bit more than you do! Having spent my working life in the world of wireless telegraphy, Shannon is central to broadcasting, the internet, satellite communication, space exploration and radio astronomy, to name but a few current technologies.
One of my specialist subjects back around the turn of the century was the Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex (COFDM) system used for all digital, terrestrial broadcasting. It’s particular talent is focusing on current information and ignoring the potentially confusing information sent out in the past (few microseconds). The adoption of MMT and it’s ramifications has a similar problem with persuading people to focus on what is being promulgated NOW rather than the irrelevant output of past decades.
Thank you
The ” hearing the signal” section was actually quite upsetting to read. I can relate to much of it, but just don’t have the intellectual capacity to deal with questions I know need answering. Very grateful for the diagrams you produce on Facebook. Please do remember those of us and I’d doubt it I’m alone who do struggle like this.
I do remember.
I am glad the infographics work.
I am producing more than I publish right now…
There are many more to come
Best
Richard
Bananas.
All our bananas are the same. Worldwide. All very convenient, until they all die fom the same disease. A bit like when the bamboo flowers at the same time – very bad news for the local pandas because then it all dies.
I’ve never understood Fa***e’s problem hearing foreign languages on the Tube. Presumably he appreciates those abroad who speak a foreign language (English) when he does his Cottrell/Harborne-funded globetrotting.
Diversity takes a bit of adjusting to but strengthens societies. It’s what meiosis was invented for!
Much to agree with
I agree with so very much you are saying, but I am so stuck with my RD Laing views of Psychiatry /Psychology that I still have to ask Why Do We Need Labels ? As opposed to acceptance of difference ?
Because they help people understand their differences. That is why. What is wrong wth that?
Your last couple of paragraphs sounds very much like the lesson from The Emperor’s Nee Clothes. Sadly the Neoliberals and their media empire would subject that kid to a massive pile on to teach them a lesson.
I’ve been thinking a bit about this in a SEND context. It became clear in time after being in school that my child was ND. As I’ve read more into Autism and ADHD I recognised my own traits in that.
We have been caught up in what a Cerebra report named “Institutionalising Parent Blame” we seem to fit the pattern.
Past few weeks I’ve been thinking about this in the context of Austerity and Gove era educational reforms. Schools have become much less tolerant to cognitive differences, and the environment has been “exposing” ND traits and increasing SEND needs through a compliance first education.
But a cash strapped system looks for cheaper get outs other than the statutory support – this is where the parent blaming becomes a useful tool, and some parents get punished in the courts because of their children’s mental health crisis through unmet need in school and LA reluctance to provide suitable education. If parents keeps fighting to protect their child they may find the system triangulate PP/FII suspicion on them.
It leaves parents, themselves probably ND, with two choices, to accept the blame risking their child further, or to keep fighting by documenting the contradictions in the system and navigate a complex labyrinth of complaint procedures and ombudsmen all with their own narrow remit.
There doesn’t seem to be much or enough direct reporting regarding the systemic abuse parents of struggling ND children face, and the harm it’s causing, but I think it is one of the front lines of where Neoliberalism is at war with Neuro divergent people.
Your lucid argument explains why it is incorrect to say ‘neoliberalism is failing’. Unfortunately it’s been extraordinarily successful in its pernicious aims and method. And it’s one thing to be able to hear the signal against the noise and another to have the courage to persist in consistently pointing it out.
Thank you
I just have to say that the things you list as characteristics of autistic thought are things I think of as just being a thoughtful person. On the one hand, I know autism is real. On the other hand, I resist the implication that creative independent thought is a characteristic of autism. It’s something that can and should be cultivated in everyone.
But it is entirely fair to note that it appears very prevalent amongst those with neurodivergent conditions. Why else do they survive?
I recognise all of the ‘characteristics associated with autism’ that you list above and can think of instances when I have seen what appear to me as blatantly obvious errors in the information given by those who aught to have known better. I also get accused of being overly pedantic on occasions which is an inevitable result of these traits.
I have recently decided I show some of the characteristics of ‘Inattentive ADHD’ previously known as Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). A key one of which is what I always call ‘being off with the fairies’. I hadn’t thought this could fit with anything hyperactive until realising that it is the brain that is hyperactive, leaving the body to just sit or stand immobile. So I would add one characteristic to the list which is the exact opposite of one of the others:
There can be an inability to concentrate on a specific subject for even the shortest periods.
“Today we are going to discuss Attention Deficit Hyperactive Dis… Oh look, a chicken!”
This is particularly problematic with repetitive tasks. One former manager (also a very good friend) gave up on telling me to fill in job sheets for the various tasks I had completed during each day and just said ‘Tell me what you’ve done today and I’ll fill them in”. I could manage two or three at most before drifting off completely or making too many errors. The periods of acute concentration occur when a subject is totally compelling but you cannot always decide which these subjects are going to be, much as you would like to.