[paul cotter (OP)]

The term neurodiverse is in common use lately. I believe it is the latest attempt to define all aspects of human nature as pathologies. Personally I am very distractible and tick a lot but not all of the boxes for adhd. However, we are all different with various quirks, talents and defects and if this trend continues we will all be classed in some way less that the ideal( but non-existent ) human creature. 

[alancalverd]

It's a fatuous term because it encompasses every entity with a neural system - not every amoeba (apart from priests, politicians and slime moulds) responds in the same way to a given stimulus.

The problem with newspeak is that it takes as axiomatic that any adjective describing a deviation from the norm is in some way unacceptable and discriminatory, so you have to invent a word that implies a flat distribution of whatever quantity you are talking about, despite any actual evidence.

A couple of excellent examples of neurodiversity are Chuck Yeager (US war hero and test pilot), whose visual acuity and persistence were exceptional, and Steve Smith  (Australian batsman - sorry, "batter" nowadays)  who always seems to be twitching and a few milliseconds ahead of the ball.

[Bored chemist]

The problem with newspeak is that it takes as axiomatic that any adjective describing a deviation from the norm is in some way unacceptable and discriminatory,

That's the exact opposite of what recognising neurodiversity is about.
"Neurodiversity is a proposed framework that argues there is intrinsic diversity in human brain function and cognition, and that certain things currently classified as neurodevelopmental disorders are differences and disabilities but are not necessarily pathological."

[paul cotter (OP)]

BC, we are all a bit odd, so are we all neurodiverse? In that case the term loses it's meaning. Alan, you mentioned slime mould, fascinating creatures(?). They can behave as a multicellular organism when conditions suit and when it doesn't suit the individual cells can go their own way.  It would not be a good scenario if your cells decided to up sticks and head off! I would reckon slime moulds were early examples of multicellurarity.

[alancalverd]

we are all a bit odd, so are we all neurodiverse? In that case the term loses it's meaning.

Exactly my point - the term has no value. Same as "on the spectrum" - it means everyone.

[Bored chemist]

BC, we are all a bit odd, so are we all neurodiverse? In that case the term loses it's meaning

No
The difference is between "some people are 'different' " and "some people are 'wrong' ".

There are spectra of intelligence and height; everyone is on them somewhere.
Does that mean that height and intelligence are meaningless?

[alancalverd]

I'm told that following a national census the Australian government managed to define the average Australian woman with considerable confidence, by age, income, possessions, number of children, etc., and then conducted a countrywide search for such a person for the basis of some proposed national TV campaign, but were never able to find one.

Such pointless statistics are not confined to the southern hemisphere. For purposes beyond mere human understanding  but something to do  with radiological diagnosis, the European Union defined an average patient as weighing 75 kg. This is a  large woman or a small man and therefore wholly unrepresentative, but estimating the radiation dose delivered to this mythical creature is a statutory requirement for every x-ray department, costs millions, and has absolutely no value beyond job creation.

The existence of a spectrum is obvious, but stating that an individual is "on the spectrum" is meaningless because everyone is!

[Bored chemist]

, but estimating the radiation dose delivered to this mythical creature is a statutory requirement for every x-ray department, costs millions, and has absolutely no value beyond job creation.

What would the alternative cost?
Are you saying that no assessment of the dose should be made, or that doing a more detailed assessment of the patient would somehow be cheaper and involve fewer people?

[alancalverd]

The overriding requirements in the use of ionising radiation are "justification"  and "optimisation" - ensuring that the probable outcome is net beneficial, and using the lowest dose that can achieve the desired outcome.

We can estimate the dose delivered to any given patient, but you can't undo it, and, sensibly, there is no statutory limit. Imaging technology has pretty well reached the quantum limit -  the incident dose is determined by the clinically required resolution of the image. But the insanity remains: we know the required dose is bimodal (men and women are still different, despite wokeism) and heavily skewed, but we spend many profitable hours calculating the dose to this mythical "average patient" as if it mattered.

Umpteen years ago I asked the professor of neuroradiology why the doses he delivered to his patients were higher than those of his registrars.  He said "I only do the difficult cases". What matters, in my opinion, is not what dose of radiation, antibiotics, or oxygen you administer to a hypothetical and absurd average patient, but the variance of dose, which speaks to the extent to which you have personalised the diagnosis and treatment to the individuals in your care - i.e. your professionalism and effectiveness.

[Bored chemist]

It's not my field.
How often do you do this pointless calculaation?

but we spend many profitable hours calculating the dose to this mythical "average patient" as if it mattered.

[alancalverd]

Believers do it at least once per year for each diagnostic x-ray machine, as part of their religious duties.

There are some 30,000,000 radiological examinations per year in the UK, say with an average of 2 exposures each. Assuming you have a reasonable spreadsheet that accounts for patient weight (most don't) and someone has weighed every patient, it takes an average or 2 minutes per patient to acquire, check and enter the data (I have done it, just once, for a very small hospital) that costs the NHS something like 60,000,000 pounds* per annum (for some reason this updated forum software doesn't recognise the UK pound symbol and I can't be bothered to convert to dollars) to collect data that has no meaning or predictive or preventive value.

Every so often the Believers gather (at your expense) in conferences and discuss their numerical findings, but nothing new ever seems to come from it, nor can it, because (a) we have no measure of benefit and (b) most of your diagnostic radiation dose is delivered in the last year of your life anyway.

The Secretary of State for Health was required by law to publish a 5-year review of the relevant Regulations in February this year, but AFAIK it has not seen the light of day.

*enough to build 16 miles of railway at current HS2 prices, or refurbish an entire hospital.

[Bored chemist]

I didn't realise it couldnt cope with ?.

[Bored chemist]

Believers do it at least once per year for each diagnostic x-ray machine, as part of their religious duties.

OK
And
there are 1,229 hospitals in the UK
And, as a guess, a hospital has 10 Xray machines. (Please provide better data if you have it to hand)
And this magic ritual takes- again as a guess, a day. (Ditto)
That's of the order of 100,000 days.
And, as you say they collect data.
Is that the only data they collect or is it done as part of the"annual service" or some such?

Incidentally, would a passing Mod like to split this discussion off?
It hasn't seen the topic for a while.

The underlying issue; "people are different", is not in dispute anyway so I'm not sure where Alan thought this was going.

[paul cotter (OP)]

Yes I see what you mean. I put up a string of pound signs followed by "i'm rich" but the software changed it to question marks plus emojis. I then edited the post and it seemed ok. Checking back later it had reverted to question marks again. Aaagh, infuriating.

[alancalverd]

And not only pound signs. I've had some mathematical symbols reduced to worse-than-usual gibberish.