An Australian leadership advisor's provocative question about neurodivergence and societal norms has unexpectedly captured global attention, with 92% of its reach coming from outside his existing network. The question—"What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?"—has sparked conversations across Australia, the UK, and the US, according to a press release.
Mike Meyer, a leadership advisor, keynote speaker, and author, raised the question after earlier suggesting that 40 to 50% of the population could be neuro-complex. While the statistic drew debate, Meyer believes the underlying conversation is more significant: "What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?"
Meyer argues that for much of the past 200 years, schools and workplaces were designed for an industrial society, prioritizing punctuality, conformity, and predictable behavior. Over time, he says, society 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 stated.
The reaction to his question suggests many people are ready to challenge long-held assumptions. Meyer, who authored Weird is the New Normal, says the current moment is a catalyst: "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."
He emphasizes that he is not claiming everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% are disabled. Instead, he questions how much human capability has been overlooked due to a narrow definition of normal. "For some people, neurodivergence is profoundly disabling. We shouldn't pretend otherwise. But for others, part of the problem may have been the collision between the person and a system built around somebody else's way of functioning," he explained.
The conversation has resonated beyond Meyer's usual professional audience, crossing industries and networks. He believes the popularity indicates a readiness to explore deeper questions beyond diagnosis numbers: "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."
Meyer's original article, titled We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way?, and his earlier hypothesis, Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?, are available for further reading.
