What if we've spent 200 years making people fit the system, then called the people who couldn't fit it the problem? This question, posed by Australian leadership advisor Mike Meyer, has unexpectedly resonated across the globe, with 92% of its reach coming from outside his existing network, and interest spreading across Australia, the UK, and the US. The question challenges the very foundation of what we consider 'normal' and suggests that maybe the problem isn't the people who don't fit, but the system itself.
Meyer's earlier hypothesis that 40 to 50% of the population could be neuro-complex sparked debate, but the conversation it opened is far more interesting. 'What if neurodivergence isn't suddenly exploding? What if we're simply getting better at seeing people who were already here?' This idea has resonated well beyond his usual professional audience, crossing countries, industries, and networks. Meyer believes he knows why: 'What if "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, narrowly defined, or rarely diagnosed. They didn't suddenly become neurodivergent when their children or grandchildren were diagnosed; they were already here. The world they grew up in was shaped by the industrial age, which demanded uniformity: turn up at the same time, sit still, follow the process, work the same hours, 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. 'This is the catalyst moment to question what we have been calling normal.' Meyer, who wrote Weird is the New Normal: The Unlikely Path of Leadership, has spent years challenging conventional ideas about leadership and difference. What has changed is the moment: '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.'
Meyer is not suggesting everyone is neurodivergent or that 40 to 50% of people are disabled. He is asking something much 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. 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. 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 conversation began with an article titled We're Not All Neurodivergent. So Why Does It Suddenly Look That Way? and the original hypothesis is explored in Beyond Diagnosis: What If We've Been Counting the Wrong People?.
