Dec 23, 2025
HECTOR HERRERA
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from France
seen from Spain
seen from Türkiye
seen from France
seen from Spain
seen from France
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from France
seen from Russia
HECTOR HERRERA
HECTOR HERRERA
HECTOR HERRERA
Many users now describe themselves as “neurodivergent”
By: Hector Herrera
Published: Jan 22, 2025
I’ve noticed that in recent years, a therapeutic attitude has crept into spaces that were once resolutely professional. Where LinkedIn profiles once focused on skills, accomplishments, and career trajectories, they now frequently feature personal narratives, emotional disclosures, and identity labels. This shift is emblematic of a broader cultural phenomenon: the blurring of the boundary between the private self and the professional persona.
While some view this trend as a form of authenticity, it also reflects a deeper and more troubling development—the therapeutic worldview, which prioritizes vulnerability and personal struggle, is colonizing the workplace. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the increasing prevalence of “neurodivergent” as a self-descriptor on LinkedIn profiles.
It has become increasingly common to encounter acquaintances and colleagues on LinkedIn who describe themselves with the term “neurodivergent.”
This peculiar insertion into professional biographies—wedged between achievements and job titles—always gives me pause. There is something strikingly out of place about a label that is predominantly used in the therapeutic lexicon now paraded as a badge of identity on a platform ostensibly designed for networking and meritocratic evaluation. And yet, the phenomenon has spread with alarming speed, turning what ought to be a showcase of professional competence into a form of confessional theatre.
I cannot help but feel a twinge of discomfort when I see it.
What purpose does it serve? To declare oneself “neurodivergent” in such a public and professional space seems more performative than pragmatic. Are these individuals signalling that they possess a unique perspective they hope will intrigue potential collaborators? Or is this an attempt to preempt criticism, cloaking oneself in a shield of perceived vulnerability? Neither explanation is particularly satisfying, and both leave me unsettled.
When Identity Takes Center Stage
Coined in 1998 by the sociologist Judy Singer (who is herself autistic), the term “neurodivergent” was, until around 2010, confined to therapeutic and academic settings, where it served a purpose: to describe cognitive variations that might require understanding or intervention. Its migration to LinkedIn (and other professional portfolio sites), however, signals a profound cultural shift. Professional profiles are now expected to convey not just expertise but also personal struggles, as though one’s challenges were as relevant as one’s accomplishments.
This tendency seems to reflect a creeping therapeutic culture, the sort that Abigail Shrier has eloquently critiqued in her book Bad Therapy. Shrier’s argument is simple but devastating: therapy, once a tool for individual healing, has become a breeding ground for identity creation. People are encouraged to view themselves through the narrow lens of diagnosis, which they then project outward into the world. Similarly, Carl R. Trueman, in The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, expands this critique into a broader cultural context, arguing that the modern obsession with “authenticity” has turned inner feelings and identities into the primary source of meaning and worth.
Consider, too, the staggering increase in the number of children and adolescents in therapy over the past three decades (a lot of them entering the workforce now). According to data from various studies, the percentage of young people engaging with mental health professionals has soared, partly driven by greater awareness but also by an expanded range (some might say concept creep) of diagnostic criteria. While therapy has its merits, this trend has contributed to a culture that normalizes seeing oneself through the lens of a diagnosis. For many, especially those raised in this therapeutic environment, the label becomes a primary identity—a way to distinguish oneself or claim social capital.
What Shrier and Trueman make clear is that this shift doesn’t necessarily empower individuals; instead, it locks them into narratives of fragility, perpetuating a sense of dependency on external validation.
When “neurodivergent” appears on a LinkedIn profile, it feels like the professional manifestation of this trend. What was once private has been rendered public, not in service of collaboration or achievement but as part of a cultural performance that prioritizes identity above merit.
Yet what strikes me most about this phenomenon is how profoundly unprofessional it feels. LinkedIn, as I understand it, is a space for showcasing what one does, not what one is. To see professionals foregrounding their neurodivergence is to see the erosion of a fundamental boundary: the one between personal identity and professional competence.
The Fine Print of a Diagnostic Identity
It is not that I doubt the sincerity of these people. Indeed, I suspect many of them genuinely believe that this label enhances their profile, signalling creativity or resilience. But there is a burden that comes with wearing a label so prominently. As Jordan Peterson has often observed, the stories we tell about ourselves can either liberate or imprison us. To lead with “neurodivergent” risks making that identity the defining feature of one’s professional life, overshadowing every other aspect of one’s character or capability.
Peterson would argue, and rightly so, that such self-labelling often abdicates responsibility. By declaring one’s neurodivergence, one implicitly asks others to adjust their expectations or make allowances. This may feel like a small thing, but it carries significant implications for workplace culture. If every individual foregrounds their struggles or diagnoses, how can organizations maintain the shared standards and mutual accountability that professionalism requires?
Moreover, what does it say about the person’s confidence in their abilities? The best professionals I know are those who let their work speak for itself. They do not ask to be understood in advance; they ask to be judged on the merits of their contributions. To lead with a label like “neurodivergent” risks undermining that meritocracy, inviting others to view one’s work through the prism of diagnosis rather than achievement.
==
It's always helpful when people make their red flags as red and as flaggy as possible, and fly them nice and high.
🚩🚩🚩
Making excuses up front for why you can be expected to underperform, or giving clear indications you will be a raging narcissist saves everyone from wasting their time.
Boceto 78
Autor: Héctor Herrera Formato: 75 x 50 cm
Fuente: Archivo Héctor Herrera
Cajas de fósforos de la Compañía chilena de fósforos que circularon con ilustraciones de Héctor Herrera en una de sus caras.
Lanigrafía con diseño de Héctor Herrera. Colección particular.