Judged Without a Word: The Social Execution of Neurodivergent Minds

Have you ever witnessed someone forming rigid, absolute opinions about a person they’ve never even spoken to? Naturally, to comment meaningfully on someone’s character — unless they’re a historical figure — we must have actually met them. When we rely solely on what others say, misinformation is inevitable. While personality may show certain consistent traits, relationships are, at their core, subjective experiences. This is why, particularly in couples therapy, therapists are taught to listen supportively and non-judgementally to both parties. No one is ever entirely at fault. Even in extreme cases — infidelity, for instance — we are still expected to hear the story of the person who betrayed. This is Communication 101.

So why is it that once we step outside the therapy room, we so easily jump to conclusions — especially about those who are just a little bit different from us? The purpose of this article is to advocate for those “different from us” — to raise awareness about the psychological harm and social exclusion neurodivergent individuals endure, often based on second-, third-, or even fourth-hand narratives. These are people many of us have never even spoken to — and yet we feel entitled to judge and ostracise them.

What Is Neurodivergence?

Let me begin with a relatively new term entering modern psychology: neurodivergent individuals. While not yet included as a formal umbrella category in manuals like the DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 (APA, 2022; WHO, 2022), it is expected that the concept will gradually be integrated into diagnostic frameworks.

Neurodivergent individuals are those whose brains process information, language, attention, emotions, or sensory input in ways that deviate from neurotypical norms (Singer, 1999; Armstrong, 2010). These are individuals who don’t follow predictable patterns in cognition and behaviour — instead, they move through life like unexpected rhythms in a piece of music. Like postmodern jazz.

Neurotypical individuals are those whose cognitive and social development aligns with average societal norms. Their brain development progresses along statistically common trajectories — in terms of IQ, social functioning, and even educational background. They make up the majority. In contrast, neuroatypical individuals show alternative developmental pathways — sometimes due to subtle structural or hormonal differences in the brain (e.g., intrauterine testosterone levels) (Baron-Cohen et al., 2002).

From Microaggressions to Structural Exclusion

These individuals face persistent discrimination — in schools, workplaces, and within group dynamics. They’ve often internalised this mistreatment from early childhood, normalising the cold shoulders, the ridicule, the sighs. One contributing factor may be the lack of behavioural filtering seen in some neurodivergent profiles. In psychological terms, this means lower inhibitory control. They often wear their emotions on their sleeve — a phrase commonly used in English-speaking cultures.

In fact, British culture, which places high value on emotional restraint, might even consider saying “I like you” as a bold example of “wearing your emotions on your sleeve.” Cultural perception plays a large role here.

What we label as a disorder — or, in more modern psychological discourse, as a “difference” — is deeply shaped by cultural context. A person who might be diagnosed with Histrionic Personality Disorder in Sweden could simply be seen as “passionate” in Italy (Henrich et al., 2010). Emotional expression, social pace, and even conversational norms differ vastly between East Asia and the Mediterranean.

What Conditions Fall Under Neurodivergence?

• Asperger’s / High-Functioning Autism: Difficulty with social communication, intense interest areas, reliance on routines. Now categorised under Autism Spectrum Disorder in the DSM-5 (APA, 2022).

• ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder): Challenges with impulsivity, sustained attention, and executive functioning.

• Dyslexia: Difficulties in reading and processing written language.

• Dyscalculia: Struggles with mathematical concepts and numerical reasoning.

• Tourette’s Syndrome: A neurodevelopmental condition involving motor and vocal tics (Robertson, 2015).

The Real Struggle: Misinterpretation and Literal Thinking

One of the most significant challenges for neurodivergent individuals is their tendency to interpret language literally. They may miss implied meanings or struggle with inside jokes. They are often painfully direct — not because they lack tact, but because their thinking is structured differently. This directness, when filtered through the lens of neurotypical norms, is often mistaken for rudeness or arrogance. Their expansive vocabularies and use of less common or “archaic” words further separate them from mainstream social fluency.

As a result, in professional or academic settings, they are often labeled as cold, overly formal, or socially awkward. This leads to reputational harm — exclusion from opportunities, misunderstandings in communication, and, ultimately, loss of trust or status in competitive environments.

This harm is most profound in cultures like Turkey or many Middle Eastern societies, where collectivism and conformity are emphasised. In such environments, deviation from behavioural norms can trigger swift social sanctions. Meanwhile, in places like Northern Europe, despite higher emotional inhibition, tolerance for cognitive and neurological difference is often stronger, rooted in a broader respect for individual rights.

Now let’s imagine the most privileged among neurodivergent individuals — the “Asperger-types,” the gifted minds with access to books, languages, and self-development. If lucky, they may succeed in migrating to more accepting countries, where they find belonging and recognition. But even then, success is often not fulfillment — it’s escape. The desire to belong still lingers, unfulfilled.

But what about those with dyslexia, dyscalculia, or ADHD? Those without the same verbal memory, who struggle silently in rigid systems?

Their struggle is doubly difficult — not just because of their brain’s wiring, but because society is determined to kick them while they’re already down. Judgment, exclusion, gossip — these are their everyday realities.

Neurodivergent individuals aren’t asking for pity. They’re asking for space. In a capitalist world obsessed with uniformity and performance, making space for difference is not a favour — it’s a moral obligation. If we fail to create inclusive academic, professional, and social spaces, we will continue to lose intellectual, creative, and human potential.

We don’t need a world of one color. We need the courage to let each hue shine.

Long live the countries, institutions, and communities that embrace neurodivergent minds — not in spite of their difference, but because of it.

The Intelligence We Refuse to See

Whilst reading Prof. Dr. Onur Güntürkün‘s research on the avian brain I noticed that they can be quite smart!

Neuropsychologists can train pigeons to sort images — flowers, chairs, patterns. They learn categories, even abstract ones (Wasserman et al., 2024). They grasp complexity, adapt to new rules (Pusch et al., 2024). We applaud their minds — on paper.

Yet their cousins, the chickens, remain invisible. Not mindless, just misjudged. Because if we saw their minds, we’d have to see our own contradictions.

Cognition is not a privilege of language. It is not human-only. It is not permission to dominate.

What if these studies are not just about birds? What if they’re quiet arguments for empathy — in the lab, and at the table?

Selected References

Pusch, R., Stüttgen, M. C., Packheiser, J., Azizi, A. H., Sevincik, C. S., Rose, J., Cheng, S., & Güntürkün, O. (2024). Working memory performance is tied to stimulus complexity. Communications Biology, 7, Article 1326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-05486-7

Wasserman, E. A., Turner, B. M., & Güntürkün, O. (2024). The pigeon as a model of complex visual processing and category learning. Neuroscience Insights, 19, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/26331055241235918

Why I Don’t Believe in the Title ‘Child and Adolescent Therapist’

It’s written everywhere—on clinic doors, websites, LinkedIn bios:
“Child and Adolescent Therapist.”

But as someone deeply committed to developmental neuroscience and therapeutic integrity, I’ll say this clearly:

Children and adolescents are not the same.
And pretending they are does a disservice to both.

The Brain Doesn’t Lie

A child’s brain and a teenager’s brain are not simply younger or older versions of each other. They are fundamentally different organisms in terms of structure, function, and regulation.

1. Myelination: Speed of Thought
In early childhood, the brain’s executive functions are still under construction. Myelination—the process that speeds up neural communication—is slow and uneven. Children live in the world of now, with limited foresight or inhibition. They don’t just need therapy; they need your nervous system as an anchor.

In adolescence, the emotional brain (limbic system) races ahead, while the prefrontal cortex (rational control) lags behind. This creates the infamous teenage turbulence: intense emotion with minimal regulation. Here, the therapist becomes a boundary-holder, not a co-regulator.

2. Synaptic Pruning: Jungle vs. Garden
Children’s brains are like a lush jungle—bursting with synaptic connections. They’re wide open, absorbing everything. Therapy must be sensory-rich, structured, and playful.

Teenagers, however, are pruning the excess. Their brains are streamlining—deciding who they are, what they care about, and what gets cut. Therapy here must honour identity exploration, autonomy, and cognitive sophistication. Clay and metaphor won’t reach a defended 16-year-old struggling with existential dread.

3. Limbic–Cortical Integration: Emotions vs. Reason
Children externalise emotion. Their regulation is social—dependent on attachment and sensory cues. Therapy must include the body, breath, symbol, and parent.

Adolescents internalise and intellectualise. They test boundaries. They want a witness, not a playmate. They need someone who won’t flinch at their rage, sarcasm, or silence.

The Therapist Must Choose

Of course, some clinicians do shift masterfully between child and adolescent work. But it’s rare. The posture, method, and energy required for each is distinct. Personally?

I am a co-regulator. I work best when I can meet a child in their emotional rawness, build symbolic bridges, and offer a nervous system steadier than their own.

Does that mean I don’t work with teens? Not necessarily. But it does mean I choose with intention—not branding.

Let’s Be Honest About Specialisation

The title “Child and Adolescent Therapist” may serve paperwork and marketing. But in practice, we owe our clients more precision. Children don’t need someone who tolerates play. They need someone who thrives in it. Adolescents don’t need someone who enjoys deep talk. They need someone who can survive the storm of separation and self-definition.

If we are to be ethically aligned with brain development, we must be willing to say:
“I specialise in children.”
or
“I specialise in adolescents.”
or
“I know where my skill ends—and I refer with respect beyond it.”

This is not about superiority. It’s about specificity. Children and adolescents are both sacred, sensitive stages. They deserve therapists who speak their language—neurologically, emotionally, and relationally.

Let’s stop selling ourselves short with generic titles.
Let’s claim who we truly serve—and serve them with everything we’ve got.

The Ethics of Eating Animals: A Neuroscientist’s Perspective

The meat, milk, and eggs we see on supermarket shelves and our tables every day hide the pain and suffering of billions of animals. Ignoring this reality means acting with a human-centered perspective and disrespecting the right to life of other living beings. As a neuroscientist and philosopher, I invite all sensitive individuals to think more deeply about this issue. In this article, I will go beyond anthropocentrism and discuss why we should defend animal rights. I will emphasize the moral value of animals through Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests” and Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa”. I will also address the debates on the sentience of plants, highlighting the difference between animal rights and plant rights.

Humans and Nature: A Historical Perspective

Throughout history, humanity has had a complex relationship with nature. Early humans, living in hunter-gatherer societies, were entirely dependent on nature . Natural resources were vital for food, shelter, and toolmaking . During this period, humans saw themselves as part of nature and lived in harmony with it . With the development of agriculture, humans began to shape nature according to their needs, creating a shift in the human-nature relationship . For example, about 4 million years ago, the Australopithecus species developed a skeletal structure that allowed them to adapt to changing humidity and vegetation . This adaptability was one of the first steps humans took towards altering and controlling their environment.

The Industrial Revolution increased human dominance over nature, leading to environmental problems . Factories and mines polluted rivers and air, while deforestation caused widespread environmental damage . Today, issues like global warming, depletion of water resources, and biodiversity loss reveal the extent of human damage to nature . Since 1970, we have lost about 69% of the world’s biodiversity due to human settlements, agriculture, and industrial production . This makes the Earth’s life support systems more fragile . Human activities also support species that thrive in human-modified habitats, such as pigeons in cities, drug-resistant bacteria in hospitals, and grasses in urban environments .

How did humans develop this domineering attitude towards nature? The answer lies in the different definitions of human nature and the factors influencing the human-nature relationship . Human nature can be defined in various ways, including innate abilities, tendencies and capacities, moral and ethical values, biological and genetic makeup, and cultural and social norms . Cultural values and beliefs, socioeconomic status, environmental factors, and personal experiences are among the important factors affecting the human-nature relationship . For example, while some cultures view nature as a spiritual or religious realm, others may perceive it as a resource to be exploited .

We can also look at the human-nature relationship from different perspectives. Anthropocentrism believes that humans are superior to all other living beings and have the right to rule over them . This view has been used to justify the exploitation of natural resources and environmental destruction . Deep ecology, on the other hand, emphasizes the interconnectedness and intrinsic value of all living beings . Ecofeminism combines feminist and ecological ideas to challenge patriarchal domination and promote sustainable living practices . Biophilia argues that humans have an innate affinity for nature and other life forms .

The Achuar people of Ecuador provide a different example of the human-nature relationship . The Achuar have a worldview called animism, which sees no separation between humans and nature and considers all living and non-living beings interconnected . Like many indigenous communities, the Achuar believe in the responsibility to respect and live in harmony with nature .

The evolution of humanity’s relationship with nature has also shaped its interactions with other species. For example, the co-evolution of humans and dogs increased human survival chances . Dogs helped humans with hunting, protection, and companionship . This relationship demonstrates the human capacity for cooperation and learning from other species.

At this point, the concepts of environmental ethics and animal ethics become crucial. Environmental ethics addresses human responsibilities towards nature, while animal ethics questions the moral status of non-human animals. Animal ethics debates have been addressed by different philosophical schools throughout history. In ancient Greek philosophy, Socrates examined the question of how humans should live best and emphasized the importance of reasoning . Aristotle argued that human reason is our most important characteristic and should be developed . Today, practices like industrial animal agriculture, animal experimentation, and habitat destruction make animal ethics discussions even more critical . Humans have become one of the greatest forces influencing the evolution of other organisms through activities like hunting, harvesting, fishing, agriculture, medicine, climate change, pollution, and urbanization .

By examining the historical development of our relationship with nature, we can better understand our ethical responsibilities towards animals. Humans must acknowledge that they are not masters of nature but a part of it, and show respect for other living beings. This understanding forms the basis of animal rights discussions.

Animal Liberation and Peter Singer

Peter Singer is one of the first names that come to mind when discussing animal rights. A pioneer of the animal rights movement with his book “Animal Liberation”, Singer adopts the concept of preference utilitarianism. According to this view, moral actions are those that minimize pain and suffering and maximize happiness for all sentient beings. Singer emphasizes that animals, like humans, can feel pain and pleasure, and therefore their interests should also be considered . Singer’s principle of “equal consideration of interests for all sentient beings” provides a strong argument against speciesism. Speciesism is the discrimination against non-human animals based solely on their species. Singer equates speciesism with racism and sexism, arguing that it is morally unacceptable.

Animal Rights and Philosophical Foundations

There are different philosophical approaches to animal rights. Rights-based approaches, like that of Tom Regan, argue that animals have inherent rights, while utilitarian approaches suggest that animal interests should be considered alongside human interests. The approach I want to focus on is Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests”. According to Feinberg, a being does not need to be conscious or feel pain to have interests. A being’s interests are things that matter to its well-being, and these interests can exist regardless of whether the being is conscious or not. For example, a tree needs water to grow and develop, and this water is in the tree’s interest. Even though the tree is not aware of this need, its interest still exists. Feinberg argues that animals, like humans, have interests, and these interests should be taken into account morally. As a neuroscientist, I agree with Feinberg’s view. My observation on animals confirms that they have complex emotional lives and rich social relationships. We know that they can experience emotions like pain, fear, joy, and sadness. Therefore, it is morally wrong to ignore their interests and use them solely for human needs.

Jainism offers an important perspective on animal rights with its principle of “ahimsa” (non-violence). According to Jainism, all living beings are sacred and should not be harmed. This principle encompasses not only physical violence but also violence in thought and speech. Jainism promotes veganism and a compassionate approach towards animals. This understanding of non-violence in Jainism resonates with my vegan lifestyle and animal rights activism. This philosophy, based on not harming animals and respecting them, is a great source of inspiration for me.

Plants and Sentience

A common argument in animal rights discussions is the claim that “plants also have a life”. However, this claim is not scientifically accurate. Unlike animals, plants do not have a nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain . Studies in neuroscience show that pain perception is a complex neurological process, and it is not possible to feel pain without a nervous system (Schlereth & Birklein., 2008). Of course, we should respect the right to life of plants and avoid harming vegetation to protect the environment. However, since plants do not have the capacity to feel, they cannot be equated with animal rights.

Conclusion: The Value of Animals

Joel Feinberg’s concept of “having interests” and Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa” demonstrate that animals have moral value and should have rights. Animals are not merely tools for fulfilling human needs, but valuable beings in their own right. They have interests such as not suffering, living freely, and exhibiting species-specific behaviors. As Feinberg emphasizes, these interests exist regardless of whether animals are conscious or not, and should be considered morally. Jainism’s principle of “ahimsa” reminds us that we should be compassionate and respectful towards all living beings.

We all have a responsibility to raise awareness about animal ethics and protect animals. Choosing a vegan diet, opposing animal experimentation, not supporting industries that exploit animals, and supporting organizations that advocate for animal welfare are just a few of the concrete steps we can take. Let us not forget that animals are as valuable as we are, and protecting their rights is a moral imperative.

Schlereth, T., Birklein, F. The Sympathetic Nervous System and Pain. Neuromol Med 10, 141–147 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12017-007-8018-6