Being is not unanimous. The world is presented as coherent, and is shaped by our internal relationship to it. This is always in a dynamic relationship, and in cases of mental breakdown the mind attempts to manipulate the world, whilst getting continously fed data from the senses, resulting in a fragmented world that is always dynamic and changing. In cases of sanity, the world maintains a strict coherence, sometimes to the detriment of our empathy to others. Our world is seen as the the world and not as a world, therefore, anamolous actors participating in a world with perceptibly different phenomonological features feel "out of reach", and are typically psychologically or physically compartmentalised, especially in situations of majority and minority. This experience allows us to participate in the fantasy of the solidity of our own reality, and not fall prey to the concept that the world is always informed by the products of consciousness, which acts as a filter between raw sense data and the sense-making faculty of the mind.
Neurodivergent being is a being that is constantly aimed at the possibility of this solidity, whilst continually experiencing the edges of this solidity frittered. It is important to note that as a fuzzy unity the neurotypical person does not experience the world in unity with its group; however, it becomes clear that many typical neurotypical people share the premise of their world as concrete. The explanation of any presentation of the world is typically met with an a-priori steadiness, a willing explanation presents itself to any situation or environment, and judgements are not suspended. They exist either in the known or the unknown, with the latter felt affectively as an inconvienience or uninteresting.
This is not to say neurodivergent people experience ontological unsteadiness unanimously. The neurodivergent has a lifetime of experiences of fragmentation, of irreconcilable faux pas, of social mishaps and misrecognitions. Experiences, relationships and social environments are not felt as known or unknown, but are instead the domains of inclusion and exclusion. One is either “in on the joke” or “left out of the party” at a transcendental level. The former is a product of a well concieved social situation. Where intentions or conversations fit neatly into a prior model, the situation is preconcieved, and is therefore replicable. The latter is the principal determinant of ontological instability – there is a misconception of a piece of a puzzle being missing, a fundamental insecurity laid bare.
The model cannot account for the situation, and collapses into incoherence. In those without advanced coping mechanisms, the uncovering of this insecurity in a public setting is felt as an assault on the self, especially in cases of identification with prior models of social situations, whose identification can raise to the level of a total internal schema. The individual retreats to internal systems to steady themselves against the rocky tides of an existential threat.