Recognising the Hidden Core Strengths of Neurodivergent Minds

[GHA]

My son, who is neurodivergent, told me today that his core strength compared to his peers is logical modelling. For context: his background is in international development and policy.

It made me think about how many neurodivergent people have a “core strength” like this — a natural cognitive gear they operate in without conscious effort. Often, these strengths aren’t the ones that show up in formal evaluations or workplace
performance metrics. They may be invisible to managers, educators, or even family, yet they define how that person approaches complexity, problem-solving, and creativity.

For some, it’s pattern recognition. For others, it’s spatial reasoning, unconventional synthesis of ideas, or emotional acuity in niche contexts. These aren’t just skills — they’re almost instinctive operating systems.

In many neurodivergent individuals, these strengths run parallel to challenges in areas the world puts a higher premium on — like executive functioning or conventional communication styles. The tragedy is that society often measures people by what they lack in the “standard” areas, rather than by the exceptional capabilities they bring in their own domain.

It’s a reminder that these unique operating systems don’t just deserve accommodation — they deserve recognition as the rare and powerful assets they truly are.

 

[Hypnalis]

It made me think about how many neurodivergent people have a “core strength” like this — a natural cognitive gear they operate in without conscious effort. Often, these strengths aren’t the ones that show up in formal evaluations or workplace
performance metrics. They may be invisible to managers, educators, or even family, yet they define how that person approaches complexity, problem-solving, and creativity.

I think you've been making assumptions in your posts based on a very small sample.
Most of the insights are useful and/or interesting, but I'd suggest a few more questions.

ASDs whose special interests can be monetized or otherwise leveraged IRL can achieve impressive results. Add in exceptional talents (**) and greatness is possible.

But that doesn't mean there is no risk of the "Apex Fallacy" when talking about ASD's (or, since that's currently invisible on Wikipedia /lol, think of it as a kind of Selection Bias).

(**)
I'm not sure where AF stands on IQ right now, but it's definitely an example of a very useful talent.

 

[GHA]

I think you've been making assumptions in your posts based on a very small sample.
Most of the insights are useful and/or interesting, but I'd suggest a few more questions.

ASDs whose special interests can be monetized or otherwise leveraged IRL can achieve impressive results. Add in exceptional talents (**) and greatness is possible.

But that doesn't mean there is no risk of the "Apex Fallacy" when talking about ASD's (or, since that's currently invisible on Wikipedia /lol, think of it as a kind of Selection Bias).

(**)
I'm not sure where AF stands on IQ right now, but it's definitely an example of a very useful talent).

I appreciate your point about “Apex Fallacy” and the risk of drawing conclusions from exceptional cases. That’s valid in any structured study. But I want to be clear — I’m not a scientist, psychologist, or researcher, and I’m not here to design controlled experiments or analyse representative samples.

My posts come from lived experience — years of close observation, conversations, and personal context. They’re qualitative reflections, not academic findings. The intention isn’t to establish universal truths or claim that my perspective applies to all. Rather, it’s to share patterns and nuances that I’ve personally seen emerge, even when they may not align neatly with what textbooks or clinical models describe.

I fully respect the value of structured research, but I also believe that the human mind, especially in neurodivergence, is a vast and varied canvas. Sometimes, lived insight can capture elements that professional frameworks miss — not because the experts are wrong, but because real life is more layered than any model can fully map.

 

[Hypnalis]

Your posts are mostly on-point, which is so rare in NT's that I know you've done some serious personal research.

But it's noticeably biased towards "high-end" ASDs. Which I sometimes call "HFA" or "ASD1" (because of the wording of the DSM V classifications - even ASD1 is defined as needing support, but a lot of us here never got any support at all

FWIW I quite like your process. I think we share a feeling that the serious research is still in a relatively early stage, and that it's also valuable to also look at us from a more speculative, experience-centric perspective.

Even so - the Apex Fallacy can induce errors that go unnoticed.
For example, a "fast CPU" is extremely helpful for "masking", but AFAIK that talent is distributed more or less equally for ASDs and the general population.

You might find this interesting (I haven't watched it yet though):

Simon Baron-Cohen - Wikipedia
was interviewed a few weeks ago by Voldemort's close companion on the road to perdition, who also "must not be named" (**).
I won't put the link here, but the video should be searchable on YouTube

Baron-Cohen is a prominent ASD researcher (you're probably familiar with his work already).
The first 2 or 3 minutes of the interview suggest he has a similar perspective to yours.

(**)
This is just for my own amusement: if, in AF, someone is declared to be a dangerous heretic for ideological reasons, and nobody else pushes back, I never use their name again in the open forums

 

[Outdated]

I think you've been making assumptions in your posts based on a very small sample.

This was my thought also, that although GHA's observations are very insightful there is limited interaction with the greater autistic community.

The tragedy is that society often measures people by what they lack in the “standard” areas, rather than by the exceptional capabilities they bring in their own domain.

I've seen this for myself in places that do office work or retail businesses, take a look at the physical trades and you'll find the opposite is true. The greater majority that are earning 6 figures, the elite if you like, are nearly all neurodivergent. These are the people that seem to have superhuman skills and talents and employers are happy to pay a huge premium for them because they are more productive than any 3 "normal" people.

 

[GHA]

Your posts are mostly on-point, which is so rare in NT's that I know you've done some serious personal research.

But it's noticeably biased towards "high-end" ASDs. Which I sometimes call "HFA" or "ASD1" (because of the wording of the DSM V classifications - even ASD1 is defined as needing support, but a lot of us here never got any support at all

FWIW I quite like your process. I think we share a feeling that the serious research is still in a relatively early stage, and that it's also valuable to also look at us from a more speculative, experience-centric perspective.

Even so - the Apex Fallacy can induce errors that go unnoticed.
For example, a "fast CPU" is extremely helpful for "masking", but AFAIK that talent is distributed more or less equally for ASDs and the general population.

You might find this interesting (I haven't watched it yet though):

Simon Baron-Cohen - Wikipedia
was interviewed a few weeks ago by Voldemort's close companion on the road to perdition, who also "must not be named" (**).
I won't put the link here, but the video should be searchable on YouTube

Baron-Cohen is a prominent ASD researcher (you're probably familiar with his work already).
The first 2 or 3 minutes of the interview suggest he has a similar perspective to yours.

(**)
This is just for my own amusement: if, in AF, someone is declared to be a dangerous heretic for ideological reasons, and nobody else pushes back, I never use their name again in the open forums

Thanks for your thoughtful perspective. I appreciate that you see value in an experience-centric approach. I agree that it’s worth exploring these ideas more deeply — each angle, whether research-based or lived-experience, adds another layer to understanding.