Giftedness and Neurodivergence: Why Words Matter

The term neurodivergence has been appearing more and more often in recent years in discussions about education, psychology, and inclusion. On social media, in parent groups, and even in policy papers, you often come across phrases like: “Neurodivergent children — meaning those with ADHD, autism, dyslexia, or giftedness.”

But is that actually correct? And is it even desirable to place giftedness under the label of neurodivergence?

At Hoogbloeier®, we notice that this question is increasingly being raised — by parents, teachers, and professionals alike. At the same time, it’s striking that the terms neurodiversity and neurodivergence are often used interchangeably, even though they don’t mean the same thing.

Let’s be clear: what exactly do we mean?

To have a meaningful and accurate discussion, it helps to clarify the terms first — following, among others, the definitions provided by Van Dale (i.e., Dutch dictionary):

• Neurodiversity refers to the variation among people in how their nervous systems and brains function, and how they respond to stimuli. In other words, it describes the fact that there are natural differences between brains within a population.

• Neurodivergent (or someone with a neurodivergence) refers to an individual who differs from the prevailing norm in terms of social and/or cognitive functioning.

• Neurotypical is used as the opposite of neurodivergent: someone who functions within common social and cognitive norms — in other words, a person whose neurological or behavioral profile does not significantly deviate from what is considered typical.

In practice, these terms are often used interchangeably. People might say, “I’m neurodiverse,” when what they actually mean is, “I see myself as neurodivergent.” This doesn’t make the conversation any clearer — especially when giftedness is mentioned in the same breath as developmental or learning disorders.

In this article, we aim to create space for nuance: to honor the positive intent behind the concept of neurodiversity, while also explaining why we don’t automatically place giftedness under the umbrella of neurodivergence. In doing so, we draw on the critical reflections of occupational physician, psychologist, and giftedness expert Noks Nauta, who in her 2025 blog “The Other Side of the Concept of Neurodiversity/Neurodivergence” explores the blind spots and unintended effects of these increasingly popular terms.

Caution with labels

Although the term neurodivergent creates space for different ways of thinking and perceiving, I personally prefer not to apply it automatically to giftedness. The term suggests that the brains of gifted individuals function in a biologically or neurologically distinct way from those of neurotypical people — and at present, there is not enough convincing evidence to support that idea.

There are some indications that the gifted brain may differ in certain respects — for instance, showing more connections between brain regions or a slower maturation of the prefrontal cortex (Shaw et al., 2006) — but the findings from neurobiological research are still too limited and inconsistent to justify speaking of a separate neurocategory.

Likewise, in intelligence research, giftedness is generally not viewed as qualitatively different from average ability, but rather as a point on a continuum (Verschueren et al., 2021). That makes it difficult to define it as a distinct neurotype.

Noks Nauta also points out an important misconception in her blog: the prefix “neuro-” easily creates the impression that something has been objectively demonstrated in the brain, whereas most classifications now grouped under neurodiversity (such as ADHD or ASD) are still primarily established through behavioral observation and questionnaires.

No “neurotypical brain” as the standard

The idea of a “neurotypical brain” often creates a false impression of a norm against which everyone should be measured. In reality, every brain has a unique profile, with strengths and weaknesses that don’t fit neatly into a single mold. If we view neurodiversity as a starting point rather than an exception, we no longer have to pretend there is only one right way to think, learn, or feel — and that, to us, is a valuable shift.

Precisely for that reason, it’s important to stay sharp about language. When “neurotypical” becomes the implicit standard, “neurodivergent” can too easily turn into the label for those who deviate — even though our goal is to move away from such divisions.

By acknowledging the diversity of brains without immediately attaching a medical diagnosis, we can build bridges between people with and without labels. In doing so, we create more understanding for the immense variety in how we think, feel, and perceive — and we recognize that giftedness also has a place within that diversity, without being defined as a disorder.

The pitfall of “us versus them” thinking

I also notice that the use of the term neurodivergent can sometimes, unintentionally, encourage an us-versus-them way of thinking — as if you don’t quite belong unless you differ neurologically. And while I understand the intention behind the concept — recognition, creating space for difference, and acknowledging individual needs — it’s unfortunate when that language ends up deepening polarization rather than fostering connection.

Noks Nauta also points out in her blog that the concept of neurodivergence is in danger of becoming a kind of catch-all term: one that places serious developmental disorders, milder vulnerabilities, high sensitivity, dyslexia, and giftedness under the same umbrella. At first glance, that might seem unifying, but it also blurs important distinctions. As a result, there’s a risk that the severity of certain conditions is underestimated — “those other neurodivergent people are doing just fine, aren’t they?” — while giftedness, conversely, risks being pathologized, as if it were by definition something medically abnormal.

What does science actually say?

Yes, it’s true that gifted individuals often think, feel, and perceive differently from the majority. They tend to process information more quickly or more deeply and make rapid connections (Kettler, 2014). They may react intensely to injustice or inconsistency and often possess a rich inner world of thoughts and emotions (Piechowski & Wells, 2021).

However, that doesn’t automatically mean their brains function differently in a neurological or structural sense. The differences appear to stem instead from cognitive strengths — such as high processing speed and strong abstract reasoning — combined with intensity and complexity in thinking, and a pronounced sensitivity to context and nuance. In other words, these are functional differences, not neurological abnormalities.

This aligns with what Nauta describes: giftedness stems from a different theoretical framework — that of cognitive psychology and intelligence research — than the DSM terms, which are used to classify disorders. Combining these two worlds into a single conceptual category creates more confusion than clarity.

Since, as far as current evidence shows, the brains of gifted individuals do not appear to function fundamentally differently — or at least, this has not yet been conclusively demonstrated — identification remains primarily based on behavior and developmental advancement, on cognitive learning characteristics, and on how a child or adult relates to their environment, rather than on brain scans or neurological labels.

Future research may offer more insight, but for now this field remains very much in development. Until then, we deliberately choose caution in our terminology and clarity in our communication: giftedness is not a diagnosis, but a descriptive term for a cognitive profile.

Giftedness: not a disorder, but an invitation

The growing “neurodiversity lens” carries one significant risk: that giftedness is too quickly pathologized — as if it automatically comes with problems or dysfunction. Of course, gifted individuals can show certain vulnerabilities, such as perfectionism, fear of failure, intense emotions, or motivation issues. But that does not mean that giftedness itself is a disorder.

Rather, giftedness is an invitation:

• to look at learning and motivation with greater nuance,

• to design systems that make room for difference, and

• to appreciate the richness of diverse thinking — sharp edges included.

Giftedness and neurodivergence share common ground: both point to cognitive diversity and the need for individualized approaches. But they are not the same.

Giftedness deserves its own nuanced place within the broader understanding of human variation — not to create distance, but to deepen our insight into how diverse talent can manifest itself, in all its intensity, creativity, and complexity.

References

• Kettler, T. (2014). Critical thinking skills among elementary school students: Comparing identified gifted and general education student performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214522508

• Nauta, N. (2025). De andere kant van het begrip neurodiversiteit/neurodivergentie, persoonlijk blog, januari 2025. https://noksnauta.wordpress.com/2025/01/05/de-andere-kant-van-het-begrip-neurodiversiteit-neurodivergentie/

• Piechowski, M. M., & Wells, C. (2021). Reexamining overexcitability: A framework for understanding intense experience. In T. L. Cross & J. Riedl Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 865). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235415

• Shaw, P., Greenstein, D., Lerch, J., Clasen, L., Lenroot, R., Gogtay, N., Evans, A., Rapoport, J., & Giedd, J. (2006). Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. Nature, 440(7084), 676–679. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04513

• Verschueren, K., Lavrijsen, J., Sypré, S., Struyf, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Donche, V. (2021). Cognitieve begaafdheid en talentontwikkeling: een hedendaagse visie. In K. Verschueren, S. Sypré, E. Struyf, J. Lavrijsen, & M. Vansteenkiste (Eds.), Ontwikkelen van cognitief talent. Handboek voor onderwijsprofessionals. Acco.

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.