Episode
108. Object Permanence and the Neurodivergent “Identity”
- Podcast
- Crazy Together
- Published
- May 20, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 4052
- Processing state
not_requested
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/crazy-together-7119114/episodes/108-object-permanence-and-the-neurodivergent-identity/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/crazy-together-7119114/108-object-permanence-and-the-neurodivergent-identity.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
Do neurodivergent people really struggle with object permanence? Generally speaking, no. Babies and dogs may struggle to understand that something still exists even if they can’t see it anymore (which explains the rush babies get playing peek-a-boo). However, most older children and adults – regardless of neurotype – tend to understand that mommy has not exited this earthly plain just because she threw a blanket over her head. That being said, Marcus and Esme think there is one very specific area of neurodivergent peoples’ lives where they might struggle with something similar to object permanence. Specifically, if neurodivergent people: Acknowledge they live in a world that was built for neurotypical people . . . And respond to these structural inequities by focusing on improving their “flaws” and “defects” ONLY . . . Then they are denying the existence of all the ways in which systems are structured against them. This is a natural reaction for neurodivergent people. After all, they’re raised to believe that being neurodivergent is a condition, and as such they must be “fixed” to be successful in school and at the office. But what if neurodivergence isn’t a condition? What if being neurodivergent just meant a person was different? In other words, what if neurodivergence was an identity? That’s the question Marcus and Esme explore in this episode: what would it mean if we thought of neurodivergence as an identity, and how might that change the way we think not only of our developmental needs, but of the systems and structures that weren’t built with us in mind?