by Lori Hogenkamp, founder Center for Adaptive Stress

The moment we start questioning the medical model of pathology, a predictable counterargument emerges: Aren’t many of these issues just caused by trauma?

This is an important question, and one that many leading voices in psychology and medicine—including Gabor Maté, Bessel van der Kolk, and Peter Levine—have explored in depth. Trauma, stress, and early adversity have profound effects on the brain and body. They can rewire stress responses, alter immune function, and increase vulnerability to chronic illness.

But does this mean that neurodivergence itself is just a trauma response? Is autism, ADHD, or sensory processing sensitivity simply the result of stress and developmental insult?

The short answer: No. And here’s why.

The Trauma Model vs. The Complexity Model

There’s no question that trauma, stress, and adversity shape the nervous system. Gabor Maté, in The Myth of Normal (2022), argues that many modern illnesses—including autoimmune disorders, mental health conditions, and addiction—can be traced back to early stress and emotional wounds. Similarly, Bessel van der Kolk’s The Body Keeps the Score (2014) explains how traumatic experiences become embedded in the body, affecting both physiology and cognition.

These perspectives have helped destigmatise mental health issues, showing that behavior and illness don’t occur in a vacuum—they are responses to life experiences. However, this trauma-based framework often collapses too many distinct phenomena into a single narrative. It assumes that all divergence from statistical norms is the result of damage, rather than natural variation.

Complexity Science Offers a Different Explanation

Neurodivergence is not just the result of stress, trauma, or adverse experiences. Instead, it reflects an emergent pattern of cognitive and physiological organization—one that exists independent of trauma but is deeply affected by environmental fit and stress-energy dynamics (Sterling & Laughlin, 2015).

Here’s what the complexity model of neurodivergence explains that the trauma model does not:

1. Neurodivergence is Not a Disorder—It’s an Evolutionary Trade-off

If neurodivergence were solely a trauma response, we would expect it to be randomly distributed across populations. Instead, we see highly heritable patterns of cognition, perception, and information processing associated with autism, ADHD, and dyslexia (Del Giudice et al., 2018). These traits have persisted through evolutionary history not because they are dysfunctions, but because they offer adaptive advantages in certain contexts (Crespi & Badcock, 2008).

Autism, for example, is strongly correlated with heightened pattern recognition, systemizing cognition, and sensory processing sensitivity—traits that could be highly advantageous in environments that require precision, deep focus, and novel problem-solving (Mottron, 2011). ADHD traits—such as impulsivity, rapid attention shifts, and high energy variability—align well with **hunter-gatherer survival strategies, where adaptability, novelty-seeking, and quick decision-making were essential (Jensen & Anand, 2018). Dyslexia, often framed as a learning disability, has been linked to enhanced big-picture thinking and spatial reasoning, skills that may have historically benefited problem-solving and innovation (Boets et al., 2013).

If these traits were simply the result of trauma-induced dysregulation, we wouldn’t see consistent heritability patterns across generations or distinct cognitive strengths associated with neurodivergence. Trauma may exacerbate certain traits or lead to maladaptive outcomes, but it does not account for the origins of neurodivergence itself.

2. Trauma Responses Are Reversible—Neurodivergence is Developmentally Stable

One of the key distinctions between trauma-based adaptations and naturally occurring neurodivergence is that trauma-based changes are often reversible with healing, whereas neurodivergence is a stable, lifelong cognitive and sensory framework.

Trauma fundamentally alters stress reactivity, nervous system regulation, and behavioral patterns, but with the right interventions—such as somatic therapy (Levine, 1997), polyvagal regulation (Porges, 2011), or trauma-informed psychotherapy—many trauma-related symptoms can be significantly reduced or resolved.

Neurodivergence, on the other hand, does not “heal” because it is not a wound—it is a structural difference in brain function (Mottron et al., 2014). While neurodivergent individuals can develop coping strategies, optimize their environments, and improve regulatory stability, their core cognitive architecture remains consistent over time. An autistic person does not “become non-autistic” through therapy. An ADHD brain does not “rewire” to function like a neurotypical one after healing from childhood stress.

The confusion between trauma-based dysregulation and neurodivergent cognitive architecture often arises because both can lead to similar regulatory struggles—such as sensory overload, emotional dysregulation, or difficulty with executive function. But their origins, mechanisms, and responses to intervention are fundamentally different.

3. Trauma Can Amplify Neurodivergent Struggles—But It’s Not the Root Cause

If we shift the focus from origins to outcomes, the intersection between trauma and neurodivergence becomes clearer: trauma makes it harder for neurodivergent individuals to self-regulate, but it does not create neurodivergence itself.

Neurodivergent individuals are often more vulnerable to the impacts of trauma because they have higher baseline sensitivity to environmental input (Bölte et al., 2021). An autistic child, for example, may struggle with sensory integration in everyday life—add an unstable or high-stress home environment, and this sensory overload may escalate into severe anxiety or shutdown responses. Similarly, an ADHD child who already experiences fluctuating attention states may become more dysregulated in chaotic or neglectful environments, leading to compounding behavioral struggles.

This is where trauma does play a role—it doesn’t create neurodivergence, but it can push neurodivergent individuals into maladaptive high-entropy states (McEwen & Wingfield, 2003). In an environment that fails to meet neurodivergent regulatory needs, chronic stress leads to heightened allostatic load, increased immune dysregulation, and energy inefficiency, making self-regulation even harder (Sterling & Laughlin, 2015).

However, this doesn’t mean that removing trauma or stress will make a neurodivergent person function like a neurotypical one. What it does mean is that supportive, adaptive environments help neurodivergent individuals reach their most stable and functional attractor states—not by “fixing” them, but by removing unnecessary environmental mismatches that create distress.

The Bigger Picture: A Complexity Approach to Health

The trauma model and the complexity model aren’t at odds—they just answer different questions. Trauma research helps us understand how stressors shape nervous system regulation and how healing can occur. But complexity science explains why neurodivergence exists in the first place, why it persists across generations, and why certain regulatory challenges emerge under environmental constraints.

Instead of trying to fit neurodivergence into a damage-based framework, we need an approach that:

• Recognises neurodivergence as an emergent cognitive and sensory architecture, not a pathology.
• Acknowledges that trauma can amplify distress but does not define neurodivergence.
• Focuses on creating adaptive environments rather than forcing neurodivergent individuals to conform to neurotypical norms.

The real takeaway? Neurodivergence is not trauma. But trauma-aware, complexity-based approaches to health can help neurodivergent individuals thrive—not by changing who they are, but by understanding how to optimise the conditions they exist within.

Trauma Model vs. Complexity Model of Neurodivergence

A side-by-side look at two frameworks for understanding neurodivergent conditions