What if the “over-diagnosis” debate is actually telling us something completely different?

There is a lot of media chatter about whether too many people are identifying as neurodivergent; the “over-diagnosis” debate, the idea that people are jumping on a bandwagon. But what if we’re asking the wrong question?

What if the problem isn’t the individual, but that our world is creating environments that are genuinely challenging for a lot of people? A legacy hangover from the Industrial Revolution, where productivity and efficiency were designed around an imagined “average” that is no longer relevant, and is failing us all.

Neurodivergent “symptoms” are often universal human experiences: struggling with focus, overwhelm, emotional regulation, energy, motivation, and social norms. The difference between a shared human experience and a diagnosis is often the frequency and intensity of those experiences driven by fundamentally different brain wiring.

Neurodivergent brains are often the canaries in the coal mine.

What we also know is that different brains respond differently in different environments. My own brain completes tasks very differently depending on the sensory environment, the people around me, my interest level, emotional associations and the nature of the task.

So what if this whole debate isn’t about people being “too sensitive,” “wanting an excuse,” or society “becoming too woke”? What if it’s a signal that our environments aren’t working for people and something needs to change?

Maybe this moment isn’t about labels at all. Maybe it’s a signal. A signal that our workplaces, schools, and expectations are creating unnecessary hardship. That we’ve designed systems for an imaginary average and are surprised when real humans, neurodivergent or otherwise, struggle.

Not to deny difference, but to stop treating difference as an individual failure. If no one is average, then inclusion isn’t about accommodating the few. It’s about designing systems with enough flexibility to account for the varied complexity of humans in a new age.

What would change if we truly started from the assumption that it’s our systems, not individuals, that need examining?

What possibilities could that unlock?