A provocative question about neurodivergence and disability has unexpectedly gone viral, with 92% of its reach coming from outside the author's network and interest spreading across Australia, the UK, and the US. The question, posed by Australian leadership advisor and author Mike Meyer, asks: "What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem?"
Meyer, founder of M31 and author of "Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership," raised the question after suggesting that 40 to 50% of the population could potentially be neuro-complex. While the statistic sparked debate, Meyer emphasizes the deeper conversation it opened: "What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?"
The idea has resonated far beyond Meyer's usual professional audience, crossing countries, industries, and networks. Meyer believes the reaction stems from a growing recognition that "normal" was never as normal as we thought. Neurodevelopmental differences are strongly hereditary, yet generations of adults grew up when autism, ADHD, and other differences were poorly recognized or narrowly defined. They didn't suddenly become neurodivergent when their children or grandchildren were diagnosed; they were already here.
For much of the past 200 years, schools and workplaces were designed around the needs of an industrial society: turn up at the same time, sit still, follow the process, work the same hours, and communicate the expected way. These systems worked, but Meyer argues 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."
The world those systems were built for is changing, creating more room for people to work, communicate, lead, and contribute differently. Meyer is not suggesting everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. He is asking something more uncomfortable: how much human capability have we overlooked because our definition of normal was too narrow?
"For some people neurodivergence is profoundly disabling. We shouldn't pretend otherwise," Meyer said. "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. Change the environment, and you don't change the person's neurology. You change the collision."
The popularity of the conversation suggests people are ready to ask bigger questions about neurodivergence than simply how many people have a diagnosis. "Maybe the 40 to 50% hypothesis turns out to be wrong. I want people to challenge it," Meyer said. "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 article that sparked the conversation, titled "We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way?" is available on M31's website and LinkedIn. The original hypothesis, "Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?" can be read here.
