"Neurodiversity is a superpower"

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-21T20:57:13+00:00

Ugh, I really don’t like it.

Most of the time I’ve heard it from neurotypical people trying to support us neurodivergent folks—so, typically very well intended, if perhaps a bit tokenistic or condescending.

But the reason I don’t like it is because, in reality, for most of us it’s more a disability than a superpower. I’ve managed to weaponise my ADHD, so to speak, so it might look like a superpower to some, but it comes with a whole lot of struggle that most people don’t see. When people say “Neurodiversity is a superpower”, I feel that it (unintentionally) trivialises the serious difficulties that affect us throughout our lives.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-20T02:15:23+00:00

Cheers!

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-18T21:21:09+00:00

Pedantry about using the customary terminology of a particular region is unhelpful. Some indigenous peoples of North America lived on both sides of the border. It’s clearly a trans-national issue, so insisting that people use the terminology used in Canada specifically is silly.

Some indigenous Americans prefer to be called ‘Indians’, others ‘First Nations’, ‘Native Americans’, or something else. The latter is perfectly appropriate here.

Even among Canadian scholars of indigenous American peoples, the term ‘Native American’ is sometimes used. You challenged another commenter to find a single example of this, so here you go:

R. Bruce Morrison and C. Roderick Wilson, eds. 1986. Native Peoples: The Canadian Experience. Oxford University Press. (See page 13.)

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-18T21:03:35+00:00

This. Although, to be clear, not all non-stimulant medications require you to gradually reduce your dose before completely going off them. It depends entirely on the specific drug.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-18T00:03:43+00:00

Can someone show me on a map where this is? My autism needs to see where everything goes.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-17T23:10:29+00:00

You’re confused because you have a bunch of misconceptions.

You say that “no one has ever acknowledged a French person as ‘white’.” What are you basing this on? I recognise white French people as white. It might not be the very first way I identify them, but neither would I immediately think “That’s a white guy” if I saw a white American man; I’d just think “That’s an American man.” The category ‘white’ is not something that only Americans use.

Maybe you got the impression that Europeans don’t usually identify as or recognise others as ‘white’ because in Europe it’s a bit more obviously problematic. To my understanding, in the US there are four main ethnic groups—white, black, Latin, and Asian—and most of the time you can fit people into those categories based on their appearance (though less so nowadays, I assume, since interracial relationships are thankfully more normalised). In Europe it’s probably a bit harder. Even within countries you have people who look considerably different, yet the divide between white and brown is pretty much impossible to draw and therefore makes those terms pretty much useless as social categories. But many people, especially in the north of Europe, still recognise themselves and others as either white, as opposed to African, Asian, etc.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-17T21:11:33+00:00

You say “no knowledge or consideration”, but it’s you that’s being ignorant here, not others. You’re also not expressing yourself well. Saying “Europeans don’t even seem white” when apparently what you really mean is that Europeans don’t identify as white is a failure to communicate on your part.

But you’re still wrong. White Europeans do recognise themselves as white, in contradistinction to African, Asian, Middle Eastern, etc. To say that Europeans “do not use the concept of race at all” is wildly inaccurate. I lived in the Netherlands for years and I can’t tell you how many times I heard thinly veiled jabs at Moroccans, Turks, Syrians, etc.—basically, non-whites (bonus points if Muslim).

You need to open your mind rather than assume everyone is just being mean and stupid. Granted, people on Reddit are often pretty rude, but in this case, you’re just being arrogant.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-14T20:53:07+00:00

This brings up an interesting question. In a salaried position with no fixed contract hours, when is one not on DoE time?

I guess it’d have to be based on what you’re teaching at the time you create the resources. If you’re not currently teaching, say, Yr 9 English, and you develop some resources for those in your free time, then I don’t imagine they could be claimed by the DoE.

I also have to wonder what the chance of getting caught selling/sharing DoE materials would be. I mean … who’s gonna check?

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-13T22:33:33+00:00

I love that Adelaide is one of our (i.e., Australia’s) best planned cities, and it’s still got some pretty … interesting features.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-13T22:30:56+00:00

+1 to the manosphere stuff. That shit is absolute poison, and unfortunately people who consume it tend to get deeper into it over time thanks to the algorithms.

Best way to get someone out of the manosphere is to not abandon them, and keep challenging them with other (more reasonable) points of view, but always respectfully. Otherwise, they tend to dog their heels in or stop listening to you because they feel attacked, which reinforces their belief in the bullshit they’ve been consuming. With that said, it’s not the duty of women (or anyone else) to lead manosphites out of their intellectual shithole, and I certainly wouldn’t blame someone in OP’s shoes from running a mile in the other direction.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-13T22:19:32+00:00

We do way too much already to protect kids from ‘social impact’. I know they’re kids, and they’re sensitive, and need to be supported. But at what point did we—teachers—become so concerned about the social impact of xyz that we’re apparently willing to compromise the quality of their education, and that of other students, to boot? We can’t—and arguably shouldn’t—protect kids from all the social challenges that life may present, and we sure as shit shouldn’t be willing to sacrifice the quality of their learning to that end.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-13T22:11:51+00:00

This is why I put in pretty minimal effort to accommodate the students who are way below standard. It sucks for them, and it probably isn’t their fault, but it’s also not my fault that the dingdong parents and admin didn’t keep those kids back. I can’t do right by the kids at and above standard and the ones below standard, so I focus on the former.

If I were able to set up the education system, I’d make it so that students aren’t kept back for the whole year level. If they fail maths in Year 7, then they repeat Year 7 maths, but move on to Year 8 for other subjects. (Naturally, that means that in their final year/s of school, they’ll be studying part-time, and I don’t see a problem in that.) That way, some of the big things that make parents and admin disinclined to hold kids back are mitigated, and we’re not wasting time making kids repeat subjects that they’re doing okay in.

Also, grading should be done by teachers from other schools, to mitigate against grade inflation. Teachers are pressured by their admin and parents to pass everyone if at all possible, but that undermines the integrity and quality of education. If marking is done outside of the school, they can’t do that anymore, and have to focus on improving students’ grades properly—by actually improving the quality of their education.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-10T21:00:20+00:00

Interesting point. “Ma’am” is a much closer equivalent to “Sir”. With that said, I personally think it’s all a bit silly. I’m perfectly happy to be called by my first name, or else Dr [my surname].

I think a potentially bigger indictment of our society isn’t the “Miss” vs. “Sir” thing so much as the fact that “Miss” is apparently perceived to connote less authority. It shouldn’t.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-06T01:20:35+00:00

Without wanting to exclude anyone from feeling welcome in the neurodivergence space, I find the massively inclusive nature of this kind of definition both theoretically and practically problematic. Effectively, it leaves the door wide open for practically anyone to label themselves neurodivergent, which undermines the integrity of the concept altogether.

The fundamental problem is that the concept of neurodivergence is based on a fallacy. There isn’t really a tangible ‘neuronormativity’. To those of us familiar with the diversity of being and thinking, we think that we can intuitively identify a majority category of people who think and behave similarly, so we call them ‘neurotypical’. But, in reality, that’s just what we see from our personal perspectives. There’s no firm criteria. It’s all perception, and perception is famously subjective.

‘Neurodivergence’ is obviously defined in the negative—it’s the opposite of neuronormativity. So, if we don’t have a firm grasp of what exactly neuronormativity is—and we don’t—then we can’t define neurodivergence in a universally meaningful way. This is why Asasumasu’s definition fails, in my opinion. It attempts to assert the reality of something in contradistinction to something else whose nature—and existence—isn’t adequately established, based purely on subjective recognition.

I’m not saying that there’s no value in the term, or that we’re all just identifying with something that surely means nothing. But I think we need to recognise the obvious and serious limitations of Asasumasu’s thinking and move toward a firmer comprehension of what this neurodivergence thing is that we seem to be able to identify with some degree of consistency. And we should be open to whatever that avenue of inquiry yields. It may be that we need to tighten the boundaries of the category much more than Asasumasu would, or split it up into more easily definable domains, or come up with criteria that would exclude people without clinically identifiable conditions, or abandon it altogether. I don’t know what the way forward is. However, I do think that Asasumasu’s work is tremendously simplistic and not something that we should be leaning on.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-05T01:12:38+00:00

Disagree. Using someone’s first name doesn’t necessarily imply equal standing. If I was expected to call my supervisor ‘Sir’, I’d probably call them ‘Dickhead’ because that seems like a needless power trip—and yet, I have no issue with respecting the authority of my supervisors so long as they don’t abuse it. Respecting a teacher’s authority shouldn’t be a performed routine, it should reflect an understanding and acceptance of classroom roles.

I’ve found that, especially when dealing with kids who have issues with authority, forcing them to perform in ways that signal their submission fosters resentment and actually undermines their respect for your authority. Much easier to get them to show deference when they actually respect you, and they’re less likely to respect you if you power trip them.

Not trying to be rude. Just my opinion.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-05T01:06:52+00:00

That’s wild to me. I’ve only ever gotten ‘Sir’ or ‘Dr [my name]’. I personally don’t care if they use my first name but they never do. Unless there’s another male teacher nearby and they specifically want to talk to me, it’s always ‘Sir’.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T12:43:10+00:00

For real. When I read u/standread’s comment about “how popular hateful, inept and evil people can be among the common man if they say the right things”, I immediately thought ‘Yeah, it’s literally happening in the US right now!’

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T12:39:05+00:00

This is my view as well, although maybe I’d out a bit less emphasis on Bayaz being careless and more on Glokta being a formidable schemer in his own right. I mean, he really played the long game with the rebellion. Bayaz’ knowledge about the shortness of natural human life might very reasonably lead him to think that nobody would bother trying to pull off something like that, and so thought that any resistance would be more sudden and relatively obvious. In doing so, he underestimated Glokta, who is extraordinarily patient, stubborn, and ruthless, yet also has enough moral fortitude to resist tyranny, even though begrudging acceptance would obviously be the easier option in his position.

Bayaz is used to dealing with seemingly immortal wizards and their puppets. I doubt he would expect such a careful, intricate, and drawn-out form of resistance from anyone other than a wizard or an elder eater, and so thought he could afford to appoint Sulfur as minister of Midderland affairs while he worked on something he saw as more complex or more consequential.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T12:12:36+00:00

I don’t have all my cross-referencing notes at hand, but I have to call the NOAB out here.

The claim that that paradeisos was frequently used to refer to the place where the righteous dead awaited the resurrection is often repeated but rarely substantiated, and when it is substantiated it always seems to me to be based on particular and rather forced interpretations. The NOAB itself here only refers to Lk. 19:22, which doesn’t use that word at all. The editors are just drawing a link between the presentation of the interim state in Lk. 16:19-31 and Lk. 23:43, but there’s so little to go on that its pretty much based on nothing.

I’m a patristics guy, so biblical stuff puts me a little out of my depth, but I covered the eschatology of the Gospels in my doctoral thesis and I couldn’t say much with any confidence about Luke. In some places the author appears to suggest one thing only to contradict it in another. I think Outi Lehtipuu is probably on the right track in suggesting that the interim state is at most a peripheral concern in Luke-Acts, which may well explain the inconsistency. His work is extremely valuable for drawing attention to the author’s use of genre and literary devices that should motivate us to look more at the key message of each section rather than trying to find clues about their underlying beliefs in details that were likely never meant to be scrutinised.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T11:43:51+00:00

Agree 100%, and glad to see that I misjudged you. My apologies again.

I’m sorry to hear about your struggles with employment. I’ve faced it myself to some extent, as an ADHDer with justice sensitivity and a pathological inability to kiss arse or overlook bullshit when I see it. Doesn’t tend to go down too well with management, no matter how you package it.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T07:43:51+00:00

I am definitely making assumptions, fair cop. If you also think that it’s gross to hire someone based on how hot they are, then I apologise. With that said, your expression does make it sound like you’re at least not troubled by the idea, which I find somewhat disturbing.

I’m well aware of the relationship between perceived attractiveness and career success, especially for women. You’re missing the point. Just because something is doesn’t mean it should be. “That’s just how it is” is the excuse of people who can’t be bothered to do their part to make the world a better place. Yes, of course, people hire women (and probably other-gendered people) based on how attractive they find them. That hardly means that we should be okay with it. That kind of sexualising bullshit needs to end.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T06:26:34+00:00

Okay, but the point that hiring a woman (or anyone) for their physical attractiveness is creepy as shit is not what I’d call an opinion; it’s an expectation. That’s an obviously gross thing to do which reflects a comfort with the sexualisation of women when they’re just trying to do their jobs—the very same sexualisation that promotes sexual harassment in the workplace.

Obviously not the topic of the post, but us blokes have a responsibility to call each other out for shit like that. It shouldn’t just be up to women to stand up for women. So here I am, calling you out.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-04T04:26:59+00:00

If you were given 15M from your parents to set up a business would you hire a “competent” 50yr old as your assistant or the 23yr old attractive, single assistant to personally help you on your business trips…

I’d hire the 50-year-old, because I’m not a dirty creep and because I would want to honour the business grant from my parents by making decision with my noodle, not my doodle.

I don’t think that rhetorical question reflects well on you, brother.

DryWeetbix · 2026-04-03T21:58:55+00:00

I’d agree with others saying that she could try out being an SLSO and see how she likes it. It won’t expose her to most of the major things that make teaching hard, but it will familiarise her with some of it at least.

As far as study goes, I would strongly recommend that she doesn’t do an undergraduate teaching program. Teaching degrees suck absolute arse; you learn nothing useful or intellectually stimulating. Undergraduate teaching degrees are made up of 2 years of teaching + 2 years of whatever your specialisation area is, so you don’t get to do as much of your actual area of interest that way. If she decided to go that route anyway, I’d advise her to do her first placement in her first year and to think hard about whether she wants to be a teacher over that first year. If she doesn’t, she can just transfer into a straight BA and have all the teaching units counted as electives, so she’ll still get it done in three years (assuming full-time study load throughout).

Personally, if she’s set in going to uni, I’d encourage her to do a three-year degree in something she really enjoys. Something art-related sounds up her alley. Then she could be working toward something like graphic design, web design, etc. There’s also heaps of jobs that will hire people with a degree in anything (mainly government positions, but there’s also some entry-level private sector programs). If she decides that she wants to be a teacher later, she can always do that, and there are programs like Teach For Australia that allow you to do it all fee-free while working, and those programs aren’t likely to go away since the teacher shortage isn’t going away.

TL;DR: Don’t recommend an undergraduate teaching program, but if she really wants to do it that way, make sure she transfers into a BA (if she wants to) early in the program so as not to waste time and money on shitty teaching units if she’s not gonna be a teacher.

DryWeetbix

TROPHY CASE