A recent article in Psychology Today challenges widespread assumptions about what it means to be “neurotypical,” sparking renewed conversation about diversity, inclusion, and the way Thai society identifies and supports individuals with different neurological profiles. The piece, written by a clinical psychology expert, questions the utility of binary labels like “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent,” and urges for a broader understanding of human experience centered on individual control, preferences, and agency (Psychology Today).
The significance of this discussion for Thailand is profound. As public discourse increasingly focuses on neurodiversity—especially in educational, professional, and social contexts—there is often an overemphasis on categorising people into fixed groups. The article argues that this inclination towards labeling may obscure the more fundamental commonality that unites all people: the intrinsic need to exercise some degree of control over one’s environment and experiences.
In Thailand, where rising autism diagnoses and growing advocacy for rights and educational opportunities for neurodivergent children remain in the spotlight (The Nation Thailand), the question of how society is organized around different ways of thinking and being is more relevant than ever. While recent Ministry of Education initiatives have promoted inclusion in classrooms, barriers persist, particularly in rural and government-run schools lacking special education resources (Bangkok Post).
Drawing from his background in education and disability support, the author of the Psychology Today piece describes working with children across the neurodiversity spectrum—including those diagnosed with autism and other disabilities. He observes that all individuals share the “controller” trait: regardless of ability or diagnosis, every person expresses clear likes and dislikes, and works to maximize things they enjoy while minimizing discomforts. This core insight, he argues, should guide the design of inclusive societies and educational systems.
One of the report’s most important points is its criticism of society’s ingrained classification habits. The act of labeling—be it as “neurotypical,” “neurodivergent,” or other binary descriptors—reflects a human tendency to sort and categorize, but can potentially hinder the formation of harmonious social environments. Instead, the article suggests, the focus should be on creating environments with greater degrees of freedom, allowing each individual to “control the things that are important to them without preventing others from doing the same.”
This vision resonates with recent research published in international journals and cited by Thai advocates. A 2024 study in the journal Autism found that supportive, flexible learning environments—not rigid standardization—were associated with improved wellbeing and learning outcomes for neurodivergent students (Autism Journal). Similarly, Thai education policy advisors have called for a paradigm shift “from deficit-based to strength-based approaches” regarding students with different neurological profiles, emphasizing diverse talents and learning preferences rather than deficits (Mahidol University Research).
Expert commentary supports this shift. In a newsletter referenced by the author, two respected public health academics—Dr. Jess Steier and Dr. Elana Pearl Ben-Joseph—emphasize the importance of moving beyond the narrative that autism is an “epidemic” to be cured or prevented. Instead, they call for “building systems that recognize, respect and support different ways of thinking and being in the world.” For Thailand, this means shifting from simply integrating neurodiverse individuals as a requirement, to celebrating their contributions and designing learning, health, and community systems that embrace variety.
Historically, Thai culture has long emphasized harmony and collectivism, sometimes at the expense of individuality. The tendency towards conformity in communication and behavior—evident in both the “kreng jai” (considerate, deferential) ethos and hierarchical classroom structures—can make it challenging for individuals who express themselves differently. Yet, Buddhism’s foundational teachings in Thailand on compassion and the inevitability of diversity serve as cultural touchstones that can help bridge gaps between traditional norms and progressive inclusion efforts.
Looking to the future, Thai policy, education, and health systems are poised at a crossroads. The growing momentum for neurodiversity rights, fueled by both global advocacy and local family support networks, is likely to intensify demands for teacher training, flexible curricula, and workplace adaptation. Moreover, digital and remote-learning technologies—accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic—open new pathways for individualized education and occupational accommodation, which may benefit neurodiverse and neurotypical Thais alike (UNESCO Thailand).
Practical recommendations for Thai families, educators, and policymakers include fostering environments with wide latitude for self-expression and participation; advocating for universal design principles in schools and public spaces; and reframing neurodiversity in positive, non-deficit terms. Encouraging children to pursue their interests—whether in traditional or non-traditional domains—instills a sense of agency. For leaders, continued funding for teacher training and mental health services, especially in resource-limited provinces, remains crucial.
Most importantly, all sectors are encouraged to move beyond mere categorization and recognize the universal human need for autonomy and control. As the Psychology Today article concludes, “Control is key to embracing simultaneously inclusion and diversity so that individuals can thrive and communities can flourish.” For Thailand, embracing this insight could pave the way for a more equitable, creative, and harmonious society.