A provocative question about neurodivergence, disability and who decided what "normal" should look like has unexpectedly taken off online, with 92% of its reach coming from outside the author's existing network and interest spreading across Australia, the UK and US. The question? What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?
Australian leadership advisor, keynote speaker and author Mike Meyer posed it after an earlier hypothesis of his suggested that as much as 40 to 50% of the population could potentially be neuro-complex. The reaction exposed something much bigger than a debate about numbers. "People understandably got caught on the 40 to 50% figure. But the conversation it opened is far more interesting," Meyer said. "What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?"
The idea has resonated well beyond Meyer's usual professional audience, crossing countries, industries and networks and continuing to generate conversation. And Meyer thinks he knows why. What if "normal" was never as normal as we thought?
Neurodevelopmental differences are strongly hereditary. Yet generations of adults grew up when autism, ADHD and other differences were poorly recognised, narrowly defined or rarely diagnosed. They didn't suddenly become neurodivergent when their children or grandchildren were diagnosed. They were already here. Then there is the world they grew up in. For much of the past 200 years, schools and workplaces were designed around the needs of an industrial society. Turn up at the same time. Sit still. Follow the process. Work the same hours. Communicate the expected way.
Those systems worked. But Meyer argues we eventually confused what worked for the system with what was normal for humans. "We built a world that needed people to behave predictably, then decided the people who didn't behave that way were the unusual ones," he said. "The world those systems were built for is changing. This is the catalyst moment to question what we have been calling normal."
For Meyer, who wrote Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership, this isn't a new direction. He has spent years challenging conventional ideas about leadership, difference and what we call normal. What has changed is the moment. "The idea that weird might be normal isn't new to me. What's different now is that it feels more relevant, more visible and, perhaps, more obvious than ever before."
Normal, Meyer argues, doesn't necessarily mean natural. And that is why he believes this conversation matters now. The conditions that shaped the industrial age are changing, creating more room for people to work, communicate, lead and contribute differently. Meyer is not suggesting everyone is neurodivergent, or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. He is asking something much more uncomfortable: How much human capability have we overlooked because our definition of normal was too narrow?
"For some people neurodivergence is profoundly disabling. We shouldn't pretend otherwise," Meyer said. "But for others, part of the problem may have been the collision between the person and a system built around somebody else's way of functioning. Change the environment, and you don't change the person's neurology. You change the collision."
For Meyer, the popularity of the conversation suggests people are ready to ask bigger questions about neurodivergence than simply how many people have a diagnosis. "Maybe the 40 to 50% hypothesis turns out to be wrong. I want people to challenge it," he said. "But there's something underneath it we can't unsee. Maybe the people weren't always the problem. Maybe sometimes it was the system we were asking them to fit."
The article sparking the current conversation, We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way?, and the original hypothesis, Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?, are available online.
