Our workspaces and tools are designed for a specific cognitive profile:
On-demand sustained attention
Stable working memory
Tolerance for low-stimulation repetition
Linear prioritization
This profile is common, but it isn't the gold standard—it's a statistic.
The term "neurotypical" doesn't describe a brain that works well; it describes a brain whose functioning aligns perfectly with the implicit assumptions of its environment. Conversely, "neurodivergent" doesn't describe a broken brain, but one whose functioning mismatches those assumptions.
It is not a difference in capability. It is a difference in context fit.
The Runtime Problem
Consider a standard engineering scenario: an application crashing in production isn't necessarily bad code. It might be perfectly written, just intended for a different runtime.
No engineer would call an ARM binary "deficient" because it fails to execute on an x86 architecture. We just recognize it's on the wrong hardware. Yet, we evaluate human brains as if there were only a single valid instruction set.
What this means for tech teams
The developer who "lacks rigor" on boilerplate tasks might be the one who spots the critical architectural flaw everyone else missed.
The teammate whose ideas "go in every direction" might generate the breakthrough connection a highly structured sprint planning would have crushed.
The builder who "can't stick to the process" might simply be someone who has never had a process built for their specific architecture.
The question isn't: should we accommodate neurodivergent people?
The question is: how much innovation are we losing by forcing every profile to run on the exact same runtime?
Top comments (0)