A provocative question about neurodivergence and disability has ignited a global conversation, challenging long-held assumptions about what we call "normal." Australian leadership advisor Mike Meyer asked: "What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?" The question, which resonated with audiences across Australia, the UK, and the US, has sparked debate about whether neurodivergence is truly on the rise or if we are simply recognizing individuals who have always been present.
Meyer's initial hypothesis suggested that as much as 40 to 50% of the population could be neuro-complex, a figure that drew immediate attention. However, Meyer emphasizes that the number is not the core issue. "People understandably got caught on the 40 to 50% figure. But the conversation it opened is far more interesting," he said. The real question, he argues, is whether neurodivergence is suddenly exploding or if we are simply getting better at seeing people who were already here.
The idea has struck a chord because it touches on the experiences of generations who grew up when autism, ADHD, and other differences were poorly recognized or narrowly defined. Neurodevelopmental differences are strongly hereditary, so those who were never diagnosed were still present. They didn't suddenly become neurodivergent when their children or grandchildren received diagnoses; they were already there.
Meyer points to the industrial age as a pivotal force in shaping our definitions of normal. For much of the past 200 years, schools and workplaces were designed around the needs of industrial society: turn up at the same time, sit still, follow the process, work the same hours, communicate in expected ways. These systems worked, but Meyer argues that in the process, we confused what worked for the system with what was normal for humans. "We built a world that needed people to behave predictably, then decided the people who didn't behave that way were the unusual ones," he explained.
Now, as the world shifts away from industrial-era structures, the catalyst moment has arrived to question what we have been calling normal. Meyer, who authored Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership, has long challenged conventional ideas, but he notes that the current moment feels different. "The idea that weird might be normal isn't new to me. What's different now is that it feels more relevant, more visible, and, perhaps, more obvious than ever before."
Meyer is not suggesting everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. Instead, he raises a more uncomfortable question: how much human capability have we overlooked because our definition of normal was too narrow? He acknowledges that for some, neurodivergence is profoundly disabling, and that should not be minimized. But for others, the problem may lie in the collision between the individual and a system built around someone else's way of functioning. "Change the environment, and you don't change the person's neurology. You change the collision," he said.
The popularity of the conversation suggests people are ready to ask bigger questions about neurodivergence beyond simple diagnostic counts. Meyer encourages challenge and debate, saying, "Maybe the 40 to 50% hypothesis turns out to be wrong. I want people to challenge it. But there's something underneath it we can't unsee. Maybe the people weren't always the problem. Maybe sometimes it was the system we were asking them to fit."
The conversation has been fueled by Meyer's online articles, including We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way? and Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?.
