I was talking to a friend recently. I was telling them that I felt like maybe I was hallucinating my diagnosis because so many people around me also had been diagnosed.

She pointed out that we both like to be around people that understand. They don’t get mad when we interrupt each other because they are struggling with the same thing.

She was so right.

Also the definition was formalized. Grouping certain human traits and calling it by a common name wasn't a thing before.

But we only can know the yellow. I wouldn't be surprised if the blue line had a positive slope over a ten thousand year scale. We are less and less fit for the environment we make.

Women who were interested in STEM were also called witches back then too.

So, not trying to step on any mines here, and I get this is literally only a 2D representation of a phenomenon.

But what jumps out to me, is how "neurodivergence" is being defined kind of ahistorically. It supposes that neuro divergence is an essential, natural quality in humanity. That has real problems when we try to describe objective reality, especially the parts of us that aren't tangible.

Did ancient people mostly have 2 arms and legs, 10 fingers and toes at birth? Yeah, by all accounts. Were ancient people as intelligent as modern people? That question gets a little funky, because who and what gets defined as intelligent, is really historically and geographically dependent. European kings sent away to the most far flung monasteries to bring in trusted advisors who spoke multiple languages and could write awesome cursive; at the same time Fibonacci was bringing algebra and the foundations of calculus home from Turkiye and publishing them in Italy as brain teasers. Now cursive is worthless except as a craft, maybe some marketing, and calculus became the intellectual basis for the industrial revolution.

So if "neuro divergence" can be defined historically like intelligence, which in some ways the graph itself supports this claim, then we can't rely on an idea of human nature to make a point, especially since we are talking about scientific medical detection of a concrete divergence or disorder.

So like, what is divergence? What is being diverged from? The baseline has always been a vibe.

I've read studies that show better outcomes, increased happiness, better social integration measured among children and students with autism who spent time working on farms around animals. Structured, satisfying, hands on work, that used to make up most of the population. Now farmers is a micro minority, either owning land and charging people to work it, or working land for not enough money -- hard, degrading, difficult, exceedingly dangerous work.

Other factors like screen time, social media, increase in dietary simple sugars, all show measurable changes in behaviors of people with ADHD, social anxiety, autism, bipolar, borderline disorders. Academics like Michel Foucault have studied how mental health treatment and psychiatry (additionally schools, and hospitals) are directly descended from the development of mass imprisonment and incarceration during the industrial revolutions in England, France, Germany, etc.,

Foucault also reviews sources that show more kind and forgiving attitudes in society toward people with severe social dysfunctions and intellectual disabilities. I wouldn't go nearly as far as saying that people with disorders and divergences were better off -- I believe that the medieval monastery was a "safe" place for a lot of people with what might now be described as neuro divergent, but also acknowledge the medieval church exploited poverty and mental illness for official and unofficial purposes.

But it does raise the question of how people, who may be intellectually "equal," when raised under different conditions develop quite differently. And the way our current system functions, it uses value judgments and certifications, etc., to slot me into a specific place. But once in that place, i have to almost be a certain kind of person in order to succeed. The role isn't suited to the person filling it, but to the needs of the organization. And usually the org needs to make money.

If there is greater social stigma towards disorder and divergence than there once was, that plays a major factor in whether people even want to be diagnosed. Lots of people have commented on self identification with neuro divergence as being a "tik tok trend" or some such. But a friend of mine, in an unofficial obit she wrote for someone older, made a point to say that previous generations looked at MH like it meant you were off to meet the business end of an ice pick.

For myself, learning I have ADHD and treating it has been holistically helpful. I'm open about it with people, we will see if it bites me in the ass.

I just worry a bit about the framing of "people have always been this way." While I agree it is true in a way; I think our society is extremely stressful and toxic.

And then to say that the baseline of neuro divergence is unchanged throughout time buys cover for people who are responsible for the environmental changes making people unwell, and getting richer because of it.

The people who say that can't read graphs.

As a trans, let me warn you about the pathologization of normal human social patterns.

Also the un-taboofication of it... see, the "left-handed epidemic"

We can't know whether the prevalence rates have changed or by how much an dita foolish to assume it's only because of better awareness. The world we exist tin has changed immensely and we are subject to to the affects of those changes.

I saw the big font item and thought this would be about colon cancer. Then I zoomed in.

The food supply is radically different to 50 years ago, let alone 100, 1000 and 10000 years ago. There is reason to believe brain structures are changed by diet.

I'm sure there were undiagnosed autistic people throughout history, but I reckon the glut of diagnoses now is due to food

Ed. Right. So the highly processed food and ubiquitous sugar couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. I'm so glad that Lemmy people know so much that they can exclude this hypothesis so easily and without even commenting

Does this graph account for the huge lack of available diagnosis?

We've been on waiting lists for YEARS that only grow and grow to get a 2 hour appointment with someone who can diagnose us with ADHD.

It'll never happen, I'm sure. The government would rather not put resources into diagnosis, so they can claim almost nobody has ADHD, and not provide any support or recognition for it.

Why is the time arrow squiggly?