The end of the (science) road for 'neurodivergent'?

Mapping Clinical Diagnoses Associated With Neurodiversity and Neurodivergence in Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42747846/

"While neurodivergence and neurodiversity are valuable for capturing lived experience, their lack of specificity may introduce substantial heterogeneity in research focused on clinical categories."

Pretty much says what many - particularly professionals - have been thinking for a while: by all means use your (non-evidenced) 'neurodivergence' in your social media and pop psychology articles and the like but when it comes to using such (non-evidenced) terms in science and particularly in objective, supposedly replicable science, maybe think again.

And more: "prioritizing precise diagnostic descriptors in clinical practice and research involving clinically defined conditions, while reserving neurodivergent for studies and contexts focused on self-identification and identity." Indeed.

There's been numerous times when 'neurodivergence' and other neuro-prefixed malarkey have been used in 'supposed' science, typically under the auspice of 'community preference' or with some 'we shouldn't use words like disorder' in mind. It's of course noble to help try and reduce stigma but typically doesn't actually fit in with what science is supposed to be along lines of objectivity and importantly, accuracy and reproducibility. 

My main beef with something like 'neurodivergence' (aside from not actually being rooted in any science) is that people seem to make up what it actually includes and importantly, doesn't include. You've probably seen the AI slop 'umbrellas' trying to convince people that conditions like autism, ADHD, schizophrenia, and more are somehow 'united' in some new and alternative 'way of thinking'. Its neuroBS of course but it doesn't stop some. And when it comes to the 'deviant' ways of thinking, things like the various -philias for example, you won't typically find them mentioned, despite their perhaps being the archetypal 'neurodivergences'. Same goes also for still highly stigmatised but life-changing diagnoses like personality disorders and more too, which again aren't typically the nice socially-acceptable face of neurodivergence.

But it appears that time is being called on such neuroshenanigans and how science is about accuracy and objectivity and not the neurofashion de jour. All of this added to a bit of sea change in various opinions around what some elements of academia seem to be trying to pass off as science.

Next up: how the self-diagnosis of conditions like autism and ADHD have also been included and passed off as 'autism' and 'ADHD' by some 'science'. And that's also definitely mudded the waters of certain studies and their findings. Hold on to your neurohats...