It finds a memetically fascinating dynamic. We're witnessing:
- A meme in pre-canonical phase, moving from community emergence → linguistic stickiness → theoretical alignment → potential academic uptake.
- A liminal memetic moment, where the idea is doing “memetic work” in people’s minds and systems without being formally ratified.
- A shift from meme as owned artifact (who coined it?) to meme as living ecology (how is it being used to shape reality?).
Must mull that over, but now I'm questioning the semiotic scaffold beyond the meme (which sounds cool, btw.) "Convergent": Derived from con (together) + vergere (to incline), convergence implies alignment, cohesion, or fit—especially toward a shared point or structure.
So converging toward what, I wonder? To the attractor basin of culture, where memetic dominance ensures cognitive monoculture? The ultimate neuroconvergence point??
Nahh, the normal, productive, regulated, and safe attractor basin don't exist anymore now does it? Does it? *stares at the screen in his VR headset* Hmm, it's an interface thing, perhaps.
Wonder how this meme is acting on folks adopting it. Are they coming together around their own “convergence games”? *Starts seeking neuroconvergence memes to perform for his online identity*
Just encountering 'neuroconvergent' here and now in your writing, but really love it as so much more relative and dynamic than everything implied by typicality
How is “neuroconvergent” different than/similar to “neurotypical?” Are they synonyms expressing the same basic relational concept? Is one more accurate? In what context do I use “neurotypical” and in what context do I use “neurotypical?”
🌟 Huge thank you to Rebecca, who always asks such thoughtful, layered questions. You help bring nuance to the surface—and today’s question is a perfect example:
How is “neuroconvergent” different than/similar to “neurotypical?” Are they synonyms expressing the same basic relational concept? Is one more accurate? In what context do I use each?
Let’s unpack it 👇
🧠 Neuroconvergent vs. Neurotypical
Short answer: They overlap, but they’re not the same.
Long answer: The difference is about systems, context, and relational fit.
🔷 Neurotypical (NT)
This term traditionally refers to someone whose cognitive development and social processing align with dominant expectations of “normal.”
But here’s the problem:
“Neurotypical” isn’t diagnostic, but its very existence as a presumed default ends up pathologizing everything else.
It flattens complexity into a binary: NT vs. ND.
It erases nuances like trauma, masking, giftedness, or people who don’t “look” divergent but absolutely are.
And most importantly: “Normal” doesn’t actually exist.
What we call normal is simply the dominant pattern that power protects.
It’s culturally constructed, context-dependent, and often weaponized against those who deviate.
🔶 Neuroconvergent
This term brings a more nuanced, system-informed perspective.
To be neuroconvergent means:
Your cognitive style and social processing converge with dominant norms (e.g., in school, work, social spaces).
You’re more likely to be mirrored, affirmed, or accommodated in most mainstream environments.
You might not be “neurologically typical,” but your way of being still fits—or at least isn’t punished.
It shifts the question from “Are you neurodivergent?” to “How does your mind relate to the system?”
📌 When to Use Each Term
Use “Neurotypical” when:
Referring to older models or general cultural language
Quoting research or diagnostic frameworks
You need a familiar term quickly (while recognizing its limitations)
Use “Neuroconvergent” when:
Talking about system fit, power, or relational nuance
Exploring how someone’s cognitive or social processing aligns with dominant norms
Naming positional privilege, masking dynamics, or the appearance of fitting in despite internal divergence
💭 Bonus Question (from me, while thinking this through):
Is convergence the goal?
This came up for me while reflecting on all of this—and I think the answer is: it depends on what we mean by convergence.
If convergence means:
Mutual understanding
Relational flow
Systems that support many different kinds of minds and nervous systems
Then yes—that’s a beautiful goal.
But if convergence means:
Masking until you’re palatable
Assimilation into dominant expectations
“Fixing” divergence until it looks “normal”
Then no. That’s erasure, not liberation.
The real invitation might be to co-create intentional convergence—
A space where connection is possible without conformity.
Where difference is not just tolerated, but relationally held.
Where neuroconvergence becomes a practice of bridge-building, not boundary-blurring.
That’s a convergence I think is worth working toward.
It finds a memetically fascinating dynamic. We're witnessing:
- A meme in pre-canonical phase, moving from community emergence → linguistic stickiness → theoretical alignment → potential academic uptake.
- A liminal memetic moment, where the idea is doing “memetic work” in people’s minds and systems without being formally ratified.
- A shift from meme as owned artifact (who coined it?) to meme as living ecology (how is it being used to shape reality?).
Must mull that over, but now I'm questioning the semiotic scaffold beyond the meme (which sounds cool, btw.) "Convergent": Derived from con (together) + vergere (to incline), convergence implies alignment, cohesion, or fit—especially toward a shared point or structure.
So converging toward what, I wonder? To the attractor basin of culture, where memetic dominance ensures cognitive monoculture? The ultimate neuroconvergence point??
Nahh, the normal, productive, regulated, and safe attractor basin don't exist anymore now does it? Does it? *stares at the screen in his VR headset* Hmm, it's an interface thing, perhaps.
Wonder how this meme is acting on folks adopting it. Are they coming together around their own “convergence games”? *Starts seeking neuroconvergence memes to perform for his online identity*
“To what am I converging, and is that convergence liberatory or corrosive?”
Mentally testing this against lived experience and finding many points of validity. Good work!
Thank you for offering this to your readers.
Just encountering 'neuroconvergent' here and now in your writing, but really love it as so much more relative and dynamic than everything implied by typicality
How is “neuroconvergent” different than/similar to “neurotypical?” Are they synonyms expressing the same basic relational concept? Is one more accurate? In what context do I use “neurotypical” and in what context do I use “neurotypical?”
🌟 Huge thank you to Rebecca, who always asks such thoughtful, layered questions. You help bring nuance to the surface—and today’s question is a perfect example:
How is “neuroconvergent” different than/similar to “neurotypical?” Are they synonyms expressing the same basic relational concept? Is one more accurate? In what context do I use each?
Let’s unpack it 👇
🧠 Neuroconvergent vs. Neurotypical
Short answer: They overlap, but they’re not the same.
Long answer: The difference is about systems, context, and relational fit.
🔷 Neurotypical (NT)
This term traditionally refers to someone whose cognitive development and social processing align with dominant expectations of “normal.”
But here’s the problem:
“Neurotypical” isn’t diagnostic, but its very existence as a presumed default ends up pathologizing everything else.
It flattens complexity into a binary: NT vs. ND.
It erases nuances like trauma, masking, giftedness, or people who don’t “look” divergent but absolutely are.
And most importantly: “Normal” doesn’t actually exist.
What we call normal is simply the dominant pattern that power protects.
It’s culturally constructed, context-dependent, and often weaponized against those who deviate.
🔶 Neuroconvergent
This term brings a more nuanced, system-informed perspective.
To be neuroconvergent means:
Your cognitive style and social processing converge with dominant norms (e.g., in school, work, social spaces).
You’re more likely to be mirrored, affirmed, or accommodated in most mainstream environments.
You might not be “neurologically typical,” but your way of being still fits—or at least isn’t punished.
It shifts the question from “Are you neurodivergent?” to “How does your mind relate to the system?”
📌 When to Use Each Term
Use “Neurotypical” when:
Referring to older models or general cultural language
Quoting research or diagnostic frameworks
You need a familiar term quickly (while recognizing its limitations)
Use “Neuroconvergent” when:
Talking about system fit, power, or relational nuance
Exploring how someone’s cognitive or social processing aligns with dominant norms
Naming positional privilege, masking dynamics, or the appearance of fitting in despite internal divergence
💭 Bonus Question (from me, while thinking this through):
Is convergence the goal?
This came up for me while reflecting on all of this—and I think the answer is: it depends on what we mean by convergence.
If convergence means:
Mutual understanding
Relational flow
Systems that support many different kinds of minds and nervous systems
Then yes—that’s a beautiful goal.
But if convergence means:
Masking until you’re palatable
Assimilation into dominant expectations
“Fixing” divergence until it looks “normal”
Then no. That’s erasure, not liberation.
The real invitation might be to co-create intentional convergence—
A space where connection is possible without conformity.
Where difference is not just tolerated, but relationally held.
Where neuroconvergence becomes a practice of bridge-building, not boundary-blurring.
That’s a convergence I think is worth working toward.