Have you ever walked out of a conversation feeling unsettled - not because the words were harsh, but because something in the interaction felt off? Like someone wasn’t quite seeing you - or worse, they were seeing something in you they didn’t like about themselves?
You’re not imagining it. There’s a quiet, often unspoken layer that shapes how neurotypical (NT)/ neuronormative and neurodivergent (ND) people relate - and it has everything to do with what is triggered inside the other person when they encounter authenticity that doesn’t mirror their own.
This is not about blaming anyone, but about understanding how deep patterns of expectation and projection can make conversations feel like conflict - especially when one person’s lived reality doesn’t fit the other’s internal map of “normal.”
Projecting Insecurity: When Differences Reflect Back
When neurotypical people meet autistic, AuDHD, or ADHD individuals - especially those who are openly authentic - something interesting often happens below the surface:
NT individuals may subconsciously react not just to what is being said, but to what the ND person’s way of thinking reminds them of in themselves.
Psychological research on projection (an unconscious defence mechanism first described in early psychoanalytic theory) shows that when people feel uncertain about parts of themselves, they can unconsciously project those feelings onto others. In other words, individuals may see in you the things they aren’t yet comfortable recognising in themselves.
When an autistic person expresses a need for directness, sensory boundaries, or emotional honesty, that can feel threatening - not because it’s threatening you - but because it disrupts a neurotypical’s internal sense of predictability, control, or social fluency.
Human brains are wired for predictive processing - we interpret others not just by what we observe but by what we expect. When someone’s neurotype doesn’t match those expectations, the brain experiences surprise - and if that surprise touches an insecurity (about authenticity, social competence, or identity), the reaction can be defensive.
Authenticity vs. Social Scripts
Neurodivergent people, especially those who are self-aware and reflective, tend to communicate directly - not disingenuously, not to antagonise, but because that’s how their internal logic aligns with their external expression. This authenticity can feel like a mirror: it reflects both who you are AND who you are not.
For some neurotypical people, this can stir discomfort - a sense that they’re being judged when in fact what they’re feeling is their own internal self-judgment.
This is not intentional hostility - it’s a clash of relational expectations. Both sides are human. Both are trying to understand each other. But the mismatch can feel like rejection rather than reflection.
The Double Empathy Problem: Not Your Fault, Not Their Fault
Dr. Damian Milton’s “Double Empathy Problem” is one of the most powerful emerging frameworks for thinking about this dynamic. Unlike old models that assumed only neurodivergent people lacked social understanding, Milton argues that miscommunication is mutual. It’s not that autistic people are inherently “bad at empathy” - it’s that two people with different neurotypes struggle to interpret each other’s signals because neither one shares the same internal reference system.
This means:
-
Neurotypical people often misinterpret neurodivergent communication as rude, aloof, or avoidant.
-
Neurodivergent people often experience neurotypical communication as vague, indirect, or dismissive.
Neither interpretation is “the truth” - it’s a relational gap, not a deficit.
This doubles back into the insecurity dynamic. When an NT person expects certain social conventions and doesn’t receive them, their brain may interpret the difference through the lens of threat, rejection, or inadequacy. This can then activate defensive patterns - consciously or unconsciously - in response to their own internal discomfort.
In this framework, it isn’t “you vs them.”
It’s difference vs expectation.
Why Interactions Can Feel Difficult
So let’s put it together:
-
Neurotypical people often have internal expectations about how social interactions “should” unfold based on shared social scripts.
-
When those expectations aren’t met - especially by someone who communicates authentically and directly - it can trigger uncertainty or insecurity in the other person.
-
Instead of recognising that discomfort in themselves, some people may unconsciously project it outward - making the neurodivergent person feel misunderstood or disliked.
-
Enter the Double Empathy Problem: communication breakdowns aren’t one-sided - they’re co-created by both parties, each trying to interpret unfamiliar patterns.
In short, difficult interactions often aren’t always about dislike - they’re about misalignment and unexamined reactions.
What This Means for Community & Connection
Understanding this doesn’t excuse harmful behaviour - but it does shift how we respond to it. Instead of internalising someone’s discomfort as rejection or judgment of who we are, we can recognise it as an invitation to reflect on the relational context:
-
What expectations are being triggered?
-
What unconscious discomfort might the other person be carrying?
-
How can we create clarity without sacrificing authenticity?
Then, in return, we can also practice patience with ourselves when interactions feel difficult — recognising that discomfort in others is not always about you. Sometimes it’s about them.
Toward Better Understanding
Neuro-affirming communication isn’t about making everyone comfortable all the time. It’s about recognising difference, naming assumptions, and refusing to reduce people to deficits. Research on neurodiversity, projection, and mutual misunderstanding (like Milton’s work on the Double Empathy Problem) shows that the gap between people isn’t a sign of failure - it’s a call for curiosity.
When neurotypical people encounter neurodivergent authenticity and feel thrown, it may reveal their own unexamined discomfort with uncertainty, directness, or social vulnerability. That doesn’t have to become conflict - it can become conversation.
Communication between different minds is like learning a new language - not deficient translation. The irritation, the confusion, the “I don’t know why they said that like that” - those are signals, not judgments. They’re not reflections of worth. They’re reflections of difference.
And difference, when met with curiosity rather than fear, is where understanding begins.
You can also access our DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS resource to accompany this blog or download it here.
