Activated by Light; Unbound by 'the Nots'.

*****

Due to different circumstances, we all have limited knowledge, awareness, and education in different ways. This is the same case for our parents, their parents, their parent's parents (and our extended families included). As a result, there's a social conditioning or practice that takes place to help us make short cuts to getting things done in the best way for those in charge to manage their role and responsibilities in relation to everyone they're connected to. As a result, when things or someone seems to be making managing seem or feel more difficult, it's not uncommon for the authority figures in our lives to resort to "quick fixes" to get everyone in formation or alignment.

Often this doesn't include making concessions or considerations for those who may be experiencing certain things differently (divergent) than the majority; more so on a sensory level which links to our neurological system and our biological system (and vice versa). Simply put, we all remember family members or childhood friends who came across as "picky eaters", or those with allergies, or those who cry or anger easily etc. We all can think of a family member or childhood friend who tended to enjoy engaging socially with people and those who preferred to retreat to more quiet spaces. We all can think back to people in our early lives who enjoyed doing repetitive or technical things like playing video games or a sport at length, or being immersed in some type of art for hours, or those who enjoyed being outside doing specific activities more than others.

While on the surface, most of us didn't question why most were not doing the same thing. We generally just thought "that's just the way they are" because we didn't have the space, teachings, or knowledge to help us better understand the divergence we were observing. Especially if there were no safety concerns.

However, there is always a "why" tethered to the choices, preferences, interests (etc.) that each person and child becomes preoccupied with, drawn to, or unbound to (resistant of). The related why's are based on the core of our being (which is also nuanced); the essence of who we are and as we're wired to be.

While the "why" may not be of interest to most people, including those in our families or friendship circles (at any given point of our lives), knowing the related "whys" is integral to our personal wellbeing as it allows us to access related information that we can leverage to enhance, elevate, and expand the quality of our lives (which includes the quality of our relationships and interpretation of the world around us).

Getting more clear on the related "whys" also helps us understanding the nuances related to the terms "neurotypical" and "neurodivergence". In many ways, in my opinion, common conversations about these references (and the people they're used to describe) do not include accessible information.

Again, "quick fix".

People generally think if someone is "different" or not able to fall in line, even when strategies are used to help get them to conform or assimilate, there is an automatic thought that someone is wrong or off with them. It's typical for people to jump to the assumption or conclusion that the way most people think, behave, and express themselves is "better", or best, or comfortable for everyone. Those who hold such beliefs fail to consider the fact that, not necessarily intentionally of course, that we're all not designed the same. This means, we're all not processing information the same even if we come from the same family, or have the same ethno-cultural background, or if we're of the same race or gender (etc.). Our physical features do not define, dictate, or control the way our body senses, interprets, or processes the environments we're in, the people we communicate with, or the even the foods (and other things) we consume.

Additionally, even if or when it appears most think and process certain things the same, related observations may be inaccurate because not everyone knows "why" they think, behave, and express themselves and some think, behave, and express themselves like most because strategies used to get them to do so works (mainly because they're wired in a way that makes conformity or assimilation easier for them than those designed differently). Even when most people don't want to conform or assimilate, most do.

Another reason why this is the case is because most people don't wants to be the "black sheep" so people will even pretend to be okay to conform and assimilate as a way to avoid being labelled or seen as problematic.

For those who have a more divergent sensibilities (if you will), again not better just different than most, even pretending to conform and assimilate can be very difficult. Not because they don't want to, but because they simply cannot make override their sensory system the way others can.

Think of it like this.

Most people think 20/20 vision is equivalent to the best or perfect ratio for eyesight. Most people want to believe they have 20/20 vision, if most people are asked what their vision ratio is, most will say 20/20 (even if they say in one eye). Some people have to wear glasses or contacts and believe these tools (if you will) help them have 20/20 vision. And most people who believe they don't have 20/20 vision, and those who know they need glasses or contacts (but refuse to wear them), use strategies to navigate life as if they have better vision than they do (ie: people will squint to read, they'll avoid driving in certain conditions, they'll choose certain seats that help them see more clear, etc.).

Why? Because nobody wants to be or feel like the black sheep. This archetype, while it generally applies to family and other systems, it actually applies in every case where people have a trait or characteristic that can be interpreted as a "problem" or hinderance for conformity.

Now, while I know some people know this (but it's not the typical majority), perfect vision is not 20/20. The best eye sight ratio reported by a human was actually a 20/5 ratio. The related numbers in any case of vision ratio generally only references one's ability to clearly see things at a close or far range, In other words, these ratios help determine one's visual acuity; how much detail one can sense (pick up) in comparison to most.

Another way to look at it is the ratio of vision helps determine the divergence (difference) of one's ability to see clear, close and far, in contrast to most people (those who make up the majority of a typical population). However, the ratio does not account for all measures (or capacity) for vision. The test used to determine one's visual acuity doesn't test for colour blindness, or visual depth perception, or how well (if at all ) someone can see through their peripheral vision; the test also doesn't determine how well people see in darkness, or in the rain or snow, or how well their eye coordination is. So we can see that while the sense of sight is generally measured or thought of in a very general and limited way.

Now, apply that idea of a ratio to all our other sensory points (the common one's we know, sight, smell, taste, touch, hear, and throw in intuition for good measure). However, we have up to 20 sensory points that can be activated at any given time by the stimuli we are exposed to (by choice or otherwise).

For people who are designed with more divergent sensibilities, this means they sense things through their various sensory points not at a 20/20 ratio like most, but at different ratios than most. In some cases, they may sense things at a 20/5 ratio depending on their innate design.

I share this because some of my sensory points are not 20/20 and haven't been that ratio since I was a child (before my teen years as example). My closest relatives can attest that I likely was the most "sensitive" of my siblings; I was quiet or "shy", and I also showed signs of having the most allergies to things than anyone. This isn't to say that my siblings weren't sensitive, or reserved, or sensitive to allergens. It's more so to say that our ratios were different in such a way that I would respond to things my body was sensitive to in a more noticeable way. As I grew up, there were periods of my life where I attempted to "fit in" (think squint) to appear like I was sensing things 20/20 like most, the outcome of these failed efforts were very clear. This is when we see rebellion (or, rather, our body or sensory system resisting or rejecting what doesn't feel right in relation to our design).

Like most who do "self work" as in self exploration and introspection, the "whys" of my thinking, behaviors, and expressions (the most consistent of course), began to make more sense to me. Including me being unbound to the nots I've encountered in life that are imposed on people to help "get us in line" to conform to a social order. While most may respond in a typical way to such strategies, the practices won't resonate the same or produce the same responses because we all have divergent sensibilities. This means we're all not taking in and processing stimuli (or information data points) the same because we're not all designed the same, so we can't. For some of us, in some ways, our sensory points may be like most (similar to those who 20/20 vision). However, in some areas, our sensory points are 20/10 (or better). So the information people like myself take in, just in general (since we were children), is at higher acuity than most which means we notice more details than others in many contexts and this often is not factored in by those imposing certain "nots" on us. Especially if those "nots" may cause some unjust limitation, or if those "nots" may cause our systems to perceive danger, or if those "nots" may fail to meet a logic our brains need to be determine compliance or not. We all know those children who always ask "why" (verbally or non verbally) when they are given information. In family circles, especially for parents, these children can sometimes be described as precocious or simply naturally curious. These kids represent a segment of children who are asking for details to be provided to them to help them make a logical connection in their processing sequence. While this may seem contradicting to what I stated above, let me clarify. When someone is picking up more data points than others (ie: those with sensory points that are functioning at a higher acuity than others), this doesn't mean they always know the "why" behind the related data points (information) they're noticing. Especially as children. Yet, even as adults, earlier it was noted that most people don't inquiry or explore "why" they sense certain things that produces the related verbal or non verbal output (behavior or communication). The "why" is critical in being able to make sense of the world around us and this is demonstrated even by the curious or precocious child who is inquisitive and questions the information they notice (directly or directly) so they can make the related connections to the world around them. Unfortunately, not all people around children are able to clarify things, including "the nots" children notice, especially children with a higher acuity in certain areas. This can create friction or conflict when those around the child aren't able to provide context or nuance to the "why" that some children need (more than others) to produce a favorable and logical output. I remember many "nots" imposed on me, directly or indirectly (verbally and non verbally), and at various time reflecting back, I recall the times I wished those messages included the context and nuance. While that doesn't necessarily mean the extra information would have been accepted as logically sound, it would have at least provided a starting point that could be built upon. Instead, I began to seek other sources of information. This, of course was met with "nots" because social orders are not about transparency or ensuring everyone has access to needed or helpful information. Social orders are simply mean to make people easier to manage (or in some senses, control).

At different times in my life, I've had people attempt to make me feel like I needed to "shrink" or reject my different (divergence) for acceptance and to secure a place of belonging in groups. While I really enjoy people and social gatherings (I am a community builder and social architect so being around and engaging with people comes second nature to me), I am also always in tune with "why" I am enjoying a related social experience and "why" I may not be. I am also always mindful of "why" others may be enjoying a related social experience and "why" they may not be. And, as in non neurotypical form, I also am curious about how these "whys" intersect and influence each other.

As well, I am also assessing whether those within the social engagement may be attempting to strategically get people people to "conform" or assimilate to a way of being that makes it easier for them to manage or navigate the interactions.

Not because there is a deviance to those doing so, it's more so because that's how most people are; because people are wired to resort to a "quick fix" (think of those who squint to see better rather than going to get classes, an eye exam, etc.) when it comes to social order and placing people. Even if and when doing so can cause people to feel uncomfortable so that others feel comfortable.

Part of the issue with this is that most people are not interested or curious about learning "why" certain patterns of behavior, such as conformity or the inability to easily conform, happens. Most people are not aware or of the consciousness to even consider why they think, behave, and express themselves in certain ways (as a starting point). Often conversations about empathy, love, respect and different types of togetherness are promoted as standard practices in our day-to-day lives. However, if people are disconnected or unaware of "why" they may feel or not feel certain things, how can one truly know if they are being empathetic, respectful, loving or that they're making it comfortable for people to be in gatherings with them? If most people are thinking they're seeing things 20/20, or believe that's the perfect vision, then how often is the typical person off when it comes to what they believe they're seeing if a better vision ratio is 20/10 (and they didn't or don't know that)?

While many, and I am not judging I am simply sharing an observation, are preoccupied with typical conversations, curiosities, preferences (etc.), those who are not of the same design are thinking about the information we learn from each other based on our divergence (our differences). Not in a critical way, but in a curious way because what we learn from our difference arms us with knowledge to better make sense of ourselves, each other, and the world around us.

Not in quick fix a way. But, in a more comprehensive, purposeful, and meaningful way. From there, people can choose to do with their findings what they may based on their evolved archetype.

The "black sheep", who can often be described in some spaces as a bohemian (as they tend not to be conformists), are knowledge holders. While they may not always have the language or references to explain why they may not like or feel comfortable in certain spaces, around certain people, or after they consume certain things (etc.), and why they may not be able to express why they are drawn to immerse themselves in certain activities (especially if there's repetition involved), by the very nature that they're unbound by knots (a play on words macrame) meant to try and get them to conform, is information to learn from. Not to criticize or punish.

Divergence (difference) is not a disorder or dysfunction. Many of typical people pride themselves on being different or unique on the surface, for likes, attention, and validation. In said contexts, there is value placed on appearing or thinking a "divergent" (or non typical) way. Appearing like one came up with a new style, or way of doing something, or a new way of communicating something (especially in social circles, at work, or in creative spaces) is praised and celebrated. In those ways, differences aren't considered disordered or dysfunctional. People actually make a lot of money by introducing new ideas, products, or expressions (etc.).

So how is it that the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to divergence we see in children, or in people in our families or social groups, or people in our ethno-cultural communities (more generally)? Why is difference only seen as a strength or a highly valued ability when it comes to social or monetary currency, and not in relation to who people are outside of those constructs?

I am so fascinated by divergent sensibilities partly because for the majority of my childhood and adolescents, there was a lot of shaming related to my sensitivities and interests that were not always typical of most like me yet as I aged and began to deep dive into "why" I enjoyed or disliked certain people, places, and things (more generally) unlike most in my family or different social groups, I came to realize that we're all simply not experiencing, sensing, or processing things at a 20/20 ratio.

And, as a result, some of us will be more bound to certain traditional or cultural beliefs, practices, rituals (etc.) than others and some may be able to pretend like they are better than others (even when they also are designed to process things at a 20/10 (or higher) ratio).

Especially if they're more spiritually inclined and more predisposition to be influenced by blood memory (genetics an epigenetics).

With that said, when you see people who appear, think, speak, or behave "different" (divergent), remember, it's not that they're disordered, dysfunctional, or rebellious. Not everyone is trying to be "different" for the reason some try to to gain some social or monetary currency (in exchange for presenting something unique and/or appearing that they have a rare way of thinking than most typical people). Some simply are different based on the way the design of their being. And while it may seem easy or preferred for people like that to override their differences, it's not.

It's like asking someone who can see things more clearly, near and far, than most to pretend they don't see the beautiful colours, details, and textures (etc.) on a more broad spectrum than others and to not enjoy or leverage the fact that they can for health and wellbeing reasons (and in other ways).

It's also like asking people who can see exceptionally well, at a 20/10 ratio or better, to work on a low resolution computer or in a dim lit room; or to ask someone with a more limited vision capacity to describe colours and details of a painting, or of a beautiful landscape, or the textures of a tree or flower (or even a face).

Then apply that same premise of that scenario to people who can sense sound, touch, feelings (more broadly), taste (etc.) at a ratio of 20/10 or better.

How reasonable is it to expect or ask said people to conform or pretend they aren't sensing certain things at a more expansive or enhanced (divergent) way than most?

I truly believe conversations about how we sense things in the world are very underrated. We see people with sensitive systems, and people who are very detail oriented, and those are prefer to consume things that are more organic in nature (than not) and most people pass these things off as quirks or narrow them down to things that are more unnecessary than not.

Wherein the nontypical people amongst us are hold knowledge most people aren't curious about because most people don't even think about what information and knowledge they aren't accessing because they don't notice (because they're thinking, operating, and experiencing life like most in relation to the idea of a 20/20 ratio).

Yet, there's so much more details to take in from this beautiful and delightful world and all those within it. With this, I invite you all (who've read this in full or in parts) to be more curious about those in your life to expand your sense of awareness of them, yourself, and all the related "whys". Try this instead of the default "quick fix" which is often going to provide inaccurate feedback because that strategy wasn't taught to consider the whole person (including, and most importantly, their design and what sources in nature activates them). At Boho & Knots, our offerings are intended to help build more sensory awareness and enhance the collective consciousness around these related topics. While neuroscience and neurodiversity can seem clinical and or far removed from pop culture, most people are engaging in topics and related conversations using different language and terms. As such, we also want to use our platform to help make having conversations about the mind-body connections more accessible and relatable. That is one of the reasons macrame is so central to the work we do as it is not only a beautiful art form, but it serves as a gateway to help improve sensory engagement & integration in the spirit of wellness. ~ BK