The problem with the “big three” in neurodivergence

Is dyspraxia the unintentional victim of a rhetorical device?

The rise in awareness of neurodiversity has been one of the 2020s’ most welcome social shifts. But too often it’s the same three forms of neurodivergence that are mentioned: autism, ADHD and dyslexia. 

Tourette’s, dyscalculia and dyspraxia (developmental coordination disorder or DCD) receive far fewer mentions – meaning far less understanding and awareness by the general public. This means more people living with these conditions risk slipping through the diagnostic and support nets. 

I’ve recently begun to wonder whether there’s a far from intuitive contributing factor: that something as simple as the language we use when we write and talk about neurodivergence may be part of the answer.

Think back to when you studied English as a teenager. Remember the language and structural devices you were taught? I just used one – a rhetorical question.

Another of the most powerful is the ‘rule of three’, also known as a ‘triplet’.

This stretches way back to the classical world. The Greeks used it two and a half millennia ago. The Romans too. Caesar’s ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’ is surely the most famous phrase from the annals of Ancient Rome. 

Autism, ADHD and dyslexia form a neat trio. They trip off the tongue as easily as Crosby, Stills & Nash – or liberté, égalité, fraternité.

Add Tourette’s, dyscalculia and dyspraxia and suddenly you have a sextet. Harder to say, longer to write, less memorable. 

It’s easy to imagine a reinforcing feedback loop here. The more the ‘big three’ are repeated, the more the trio becomes the default reference for neurodivergence. It becomes harder for the likes of DCD to get a look in. This is an amplifying dynamic that systems thinkers call ‘success to the successful’.

You see the big-three references everywhere. Take this example from an inclusivity speakers’ website:

“Conditions like ADHD, autism, and dyslexia fall under neurodiversity. Business leaders must actively support neurodiverse employees with inclusive policies.”

It would be too simplistic to say the rule of three is the reason for the neurodivergence hierarchy, but it may be a reason. At secondary school we learn that the way we structure language helps determine what we remember. It may also shape what gets overlooked – and who gets overlooked as an unintended consequence. 

For years, disability advocates have expressed concern about a hierarchy in healthcare, where physical health conditions trump their mental-health counterparts. I fear the calcification of similar inequity within neurodiversity.