Neurofluidity: Playing With a Concept

Neurofluid is a word I thought of a couple of years ago while exploring the tension between "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent" categories. It's been used in other contexts, both to refer to autistic spectrum and related experiences, as well as a term which describes a process underlying neuroplasticity, in the sense of brain development and change. Due to space, I can't do justice to the rich literature on personality and mind, identity and politics, which are relevant. Emboldened by resonant reactions on social media, I wrote this.

Reflecting on my history of moving among different social groups—starting in junior high—without fully identifying with any one group, fitting in without getting captured, I realized a way to help understand another position, a third position, might be useful—held lightly. Personally, I didn’t feel like I belonged to either neurotypical nor neurodivergent/neurodiverse, nor did others I had come to know quite well.

The concepts of neurodivergence and neurotypicality felt part of a familiar tendency toward dualistic, binary, or polarizing categories I see so commonly causing problems in many areas of discourse. Growing up on concepts such as dialetical tension and Hindu non-dualism, complexity and chaos, the Taoist limitations of naming things, and the psychoanalytic concept of unsymbolized experienced and emergent thirds, Dewey's experiential view, and eschewing division, and a mistrust of excessive simplicity, a middle-ground of flowing balance—fliessgleichgewicht—feels more secure.

Toward a Definition of Neurofluidity

Here’s a working definition: "Being neurofluid means having the ability to shift between more neurotypical and more neurodiverse self-states, ways of relating, and perspectives on the world."

It’s worth noting that this concept is, as far as I know, made-up and not based in psychological study, other than my long years as a clinician, theorist, teacher, and writer—something I’ve created to help explain my experiences and those of others who don't neatly fit into, or identify with, the other categories. It's a category for no category, in one sense.

With these considerations in mind, here are a few highlights about neurofluidity.

Neither neurotypical nor neurodiverse. Neurofluid individuals don’t fit neatly into the categories of neurotypical or neurodiverse. Instead, neurofluidity represents a third vertex on a metaphorical triangle. Or perhaps it’s a dynamic vertex—a point that moves. If we were to imagine these three categories as axes in a 3D space, neurofluidity would exist somewhere in between, but it might not be entirely satisfactory to map it that way.

Triangle

Source: Grant H Brenner

3D Space

Source: Grant H Brenner

As an identity construct. If neurofluidity is unique, it could become an identity. Like many identities, it could take on stable reality through definition and shared recognition. However, without psychological research to confirm whether it’s an independent factor, the concept remains hypothetical.

Possibly merely fictitious. Despite being fictional, I’ve found the concept of neurofluidity useful for self-identification. When I’ve shared it—primarily on social media—others have resonated with it. It seems to appeal to people who don’t fit conventional norms but also don’t align with the neurodiverse label, whether defined by clinical correlations or political identification.

Putative characteristics of neurofluid individuals

Venn Diagram

Source: Grant H Brenner

• Be quirky or eclectic, but able to conform to conventional settings for the most part.
• Display traits of giftedness or "2E" (twice-exceptional), defying current categories.
• Score high in openness to experience (one of the Big Five personality traits).
• Balance between introversion and extroversion.
• Exhibit reasonably high social intelligence, even if they don’t always naturally or readily fit in.
• Encounter some challenges with social relatedness, information processing, or attention—though not generally to a clinically significant level.
• See things from a different point of view than others while also recognizing the reality of normative standards. The concept of "positive deviance" may be useful here, rather than deviance as a maladaptive, even criminal, trait.
• By definition, would not be the same as masking or passing.

Additionally, wary of overgeneralizing or being overly inclusive, they may adapt their thinking styles and emotional approaches depending on context. Neurofluid individuals might excel in both divergent and convergent thinking as situations demand. This adaptability isn’t about inauthenticity or being a "chameleon" but rather reflects a kind of pluripotentiality—the ability to operate with different "systems," so to speak. Though not necessarily in a plural or multiple sense of having different distinct personality states with varying degrees of self-awareness.

Neurodiversity Essential Reads

Neurodivergence and EQ: Emotionally Intelligent Modifications

Why Dyspraxia Is Often Misunderstood

Further Thoughts

These are some early considerations about neurofluidity. Not all of them may hold up, plenty of things may be missing or just wrong, but in the spirit of thinking out loud, articulating some possibilities.

In closing, we might ask, "What does ChatGPT have to say, when asked: 'What if someone is neither neurotypical nor neurodivergent?'"

If someone is neither neurotypical nor neurodivergent, it might suggest that their cognitive patterns or behaviors don't fit neatly into either of those categories. The terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent" are generally used to describe broad groups of people based on how their brains function or process information, with neurotypical referring to those whose cognitive patterns align with societal norms and neurodivergent referring to those whose patterns may differ in ways such as with autism, ADHD, or dyslexia.

However, human brains and behaviors are complex and don't always fit into such binary categories. Some people might have cognitive traits that don't fully align with either "neurotypical" or "neurodivergent" labels—meaning they might exhibit traits that don't fall into the common patterns of either group. This could indicate that they experience cognitive or emotional processing in ways that are unique to them, outside of established categories.

Ultimately, individual differences in cognition, behavior, and experience are vast, and it's important to remember that these labels are tools for understanding tendencies rather than rigid definitions of what someone is. People may identify with multiple or none of these terms, and that's entirely valid.

Let me know if you'd like any additional adjustments!