Four models

 A rough overview and gross oversimplification of four paradigms of mental difference, written as a handy summary since I get asked about it a lot.

One is the strict behavioral/moral model paradigm. This view completely disregards brains and mental inner states in general, and is focused solely on socially normative behavior. In this view, every individual has a moral obligation to obey authority and to adhere to normative social standards of behavior -- in a family, in mainstream, top-down schools, and in a workplace as a successful seller of labor. Being constitutionally ill-suited for these structures is no excuse not to conform to them. People should be punished for failing to obey authority or conform to normative social standards, regardless of their brains or mental states.

The second is the mainstream medical model. This is the view that most influences public policy decisions in the U.S. In this view, there is such a thing as a normal, healthy type of brain. People with this type of brain are able to conform to social norms and authorities with minimal difficulty. There is some disagreement about what exactly a "healthy" brain is, but essentially, it is a brain possessing of qualities that proponents of this paradigm consider desirable -- so as is generally understood, a "healthy" brain is one conforming to American upper-middle-class, politically centrist attitudes, behaviors, ways of communicating, and ways of learning. According to this paradigm, deviations from this healthy, normal way of being are caused by physical illnesses or chemical imbalances in the structure of the brain. The solution is either medication to "correct" the "chemical imbalance," or behavioral therapy to train the brain to operate in more normative ways, or a combination of the two. Using these methods to achieve as close as possible to a normative brain is considered the morally correct and socially responsible course of action. And because this paradigm conceptualizes some brains as objectively defective, some people with such brains are unable to make reasoned, logical, correct decisions about their own brains, and should therefore be legally coerced into treatment against their will. This practice is considered both humane (because it is correcting an objective defect, the subject cannot possibly be unhappy with the result -- or rather, any unhappiness with the result can be attributed to the uncorrected defect, and is evidence that further coercive correction is needed) and necessary for public safety, since this paradigm also often equates violence and abuse with brain defects.

A third paradigm is the recovery model. This is similar to the mainstream medical model in its conception of what constitutes a normal, healthy mind, but differs from the mainstream medical model in that the recovery view adamantly rejects the premise that mental differences are caused by structural or chemical differences of the brain. Instead, this paradigm holds that deviations from the "normal, healthy mind" are caused by traumatic experiences, and that the solution is some form of trauma-informed therapy. Once the traumatic experiences are therapeutically processed and healed, the mentally deviant individual will "recover" to what this model posits is the default state of a normal, healthy mind. Like the behavioral/moral model and the mainstream medical model, the recovery model holds that a mentally deviant individual has a social responsibility to correct their deviance. But while proponents of the behavioral/moral model tend to emphasize obedience and conformity as virtues in their own right, and proponents of the mainstream medical model tend to emphasize the premise that mental deviants are incompetent to make their own decisions, proponents of recovery tend to emphasize "healthy relationships." The obligation to seek treatment is justified from the premise that exposure to people's mental differences (or, in the framework of this paradigm, "symptoms of unresolved trauma") cause emotional burdens to those around them, and that excising these mental traits is necessary to have "healthy," non-burdensome relationships.

Finally, there is the neurodiversity model, which is why this page exists. Under this paradigm, there is no such thing as a "healthy" or "normal" mind, and no such thing as an "ill" or "disordered" mind. There are just... minds. That differ from one another. That have different strengths and weaknesses, but that are not inherently better or worse than any other. If a person is ill-suited to a school, or a workplace, or a social institution, the solution is to change the social institution to be more welcoming and accommodating to all ways of being. Furthermore, since all minds are equally valid, all minds are equally competent to make decisions about their own host bodies. No one is better equipped to make a decision about an individual's body's or mind's best interests than that individual themself -- therefore, practices like forced drugging, involuntary hospitalization, and other forms of overriding individuals' bodily autonomy for their alleged "own good" are inherently unjustifiable.. In this view, neurodivergent people are not burdens; rather, the expectations of neuro-normative society are the burdens on neurodivergent people. It's important to note that this paradigm does not preclude the voluntary use of brain-altering medication or therapies. Rather, it reconceptualizes them as tools an individual may find useful for enhancing their quality of life, not as "treatments" for any kind of illness or disorder. It's also important to note that, under this paradigm, brains and emotional states are distinct from planned, chosen beliefs and behaviors (whether those beliefs and behaviors are good, bad, or neutral). No one's brain "causes" them to be a murderer or an abuser or a Nazi (or a kind and honorable person).

Because the neurodiversity model is the least popular and least well known of these, people who encounter it for the first time often mistake it for an offshoot of one of the other three. There are points of overlap -- like proponents of the behavioral/moral model, we acknowledge that humans have the capacity to make moral choices, and that no one's brain "causes" them to be a murderer or a Nazi. Like proponents of the mainstream medical model, we accept that physical, structural brain differences exist, corresponding with different ways of thinking, feeling, and learning, and that people cannot change their brain structure by force of will alone. Like proponents of the recovery model, we believe that forced drugging is abhorrent, and that material and social conditions are a much bigger factor in people's happiness or unhappiness than brain chemistry. But despite these superficial overlaps, the neurodiversity paradigm is fundamentally distinct from, and incompatible with, these other three. The neurodiversity paradigm is fundamentally radical, in the literal sense of "from the root." We challenge the root premise that mental difference needs to be changed or fixed, and switch the focus to providing tools that individuals can choose to use to connect their brains to their goals.