Neurodivergence and Empathy: Rethinking a Harmful Myth

Empathy is often described as the cornerstone of human connection. Yet for decades, neurodivergent people – particularly autistic individuals and those with ADHD – have been unfairly characterised as lacking empathy. This narrative is not only inaccurate, but damaging. Contemporary research and lived experience increasingly demonstrate that neurodivergence does not equate to an absence of empathy; rather, it reflects different ways of experiencing, expressing and interpreting it.

Understanding neurodivergence and empathy together requires us to move away from deficit‑based thinking and towards a relational, context‑aware perspective – one that recognises mutual responsibility, communication differences and diversity of emotional expression.

What Is Neurodivergence?

Neurodivergence refers to individual neurological differences that diverge from what society considers “neurotypical”. This includes, but is not limited to, autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia. The term sits within the broader concept of neurodiversity, which describes the natural variation in human brains across populations rather than individuals.

In the UK, it is estimated that around 1 in 7 people are neurodivergent, reinforcing that these differences are not rare anomalies but a significant part of society.

The Empathy Myth: Where Did It Come From?

Early autism research, particularly in the late 20th century, framed empathy through a narrow lens rooted in theory of mind – the ability to infer others’ thoughts and feelings. When autistic people struggled with certain social cues, this was interpreted as a fundamental “empathy deficit”.

This interpretation ignored two critical factors:

1. Empathy is multi‑dimensional
2. Communication styles are culturally and neurologically dependent

As a result, a simplistic and enduring stereotype emerged: neurodivergent people lack empathy. Modern research strongly disputes this framing.

Cognitive vs Affective Empathy

Empathy is not a single trait. Psychologists generally distinguish between:

• Cognitive empathy – understanding what someone else is feeling or thinking
• Affective (emotional) empathy – feeling or emotionally resonating with another person’s emotions

Large‑scale studies show that while some autistic people may experience challenges with cognitive empathy, many have typical or heightened affective empathy, and there is substantial variation between individuals.

Importantly, reduced performance on empathy tests does not mean reduced care, compassion or moral capacity. Measurement tools themselves are often based on neurotypical norms and can misinterpret autistic communication styles as emotional absence.

The Double Empathy Problem

A major breakthrough in reframing empathy came from autistic scholar Dr Damian Milton, who proposed the Double Empathy Problem. This theory suggests that communication breakdowns between autistic and non‑autistic people are mutual, not one‑sided.

In other words, autistic people may struggle to interpret neurotypical social cues – but neurotypical people are equally likely to misread autistic communication, facial expressions or emotional responses. Empathy, therefore, is a two‑way street shaped by differing neurological experiences.

Subsequent research has shown that autistic‑to‑autistic interactions often involve strong rapport, mutual understanding and emotional connection, further undermining the idea of an inherent empathy deficit.

Empathy, ADHD and Emotional Intensity

Empathy differences are not limited to autism. Many people with ADHD report heightened emotional sensitivity, rapid emotional responses and strong affective empathy, sometimes to the point of overwhelm. This emotional intensity can be misinterpreted as inconsistency or lack of care in structured, neurotypical environments.

Again, the issue is not a lack of empathy but a mismatch between internal experience and socially expected expression.

Why This Matters

Persisting myths about neurodivergence and empathy have real‑world consequences. They influence:

• Diagnostic practices
• Workplace inclusion
• Education systems
• Healthcare interactions
• Social stigma and internalised shame

Research shows that framing neurodivergence through a deficit model contributes to marginalisation, mental health difficulties and misdiagnosis, rather than meaningful support.

When we reframe empathy as relational and context‑dependent, inclusion becomes a shared responsibility – not a demand for neurodivergent people to endlessly “mask” or adapt.

Towards a More Nuanced Understanding

Neurodivergent people do not lack empathy. They may:

• Express it differently
• Experience it more intensely
• Struggle with socially coded displays of it
• Prioritise practical support over performative reassurance

None of these indicate a moral or emotional deficit. They indicate difference.

True empathy begins when we recognise that understanding does not require sameness – only curiosity, humility and willingness to meet others where they are.

References

1. Simply Psychology (2025). Understanding Empathy and Autism [simplypsychology.org]
2. Brett et al. (2024). Empathy and Autism: Establishing the Structure and Different Manifestations of Empathy, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders [link.springer.com]
3. Fatima & Babu (2023/2024). Cognitive and Affective Empathy in Autism: A Meta‑analysis, Springer [link.springer.com]
4. Milton, D. (2012). On the Ontological Status of Autism: The Double Empathy Problem, Disability & Society [reframinga…ism.org.au]
5. National Autistic Society (2018). The Double Empathy Problem [autism.org.uk]
6. Crompton et al. (2021). Overcoming the Double Empathy Problem, Frontiers in Psychology [frontiersin.org]
7. Royal College of Nursing (UK). What Is Neurodiversity? [rcn.org.uk]
8. Acas (2025). What Is Neurodiversity at Work? [acas.org.uk]
9. Hume & Burgess (2021). Autism, Trauma and Affective Empathy, Autism in Adulthood [pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]