Transcript
▼
=== PART 1 ===
MORGAN BLAKE: So, for our very first episode of Brain Waves and Blunders, I want to start with a concept that is foundational to this entire series. Here's the thing... for so many neurodivergent women, childhood isn't about obvious struggles. It’s about becoming an invisible ninja of social adaptation. They learn, almost unconsciously, to mask their natural traits to fit in, which creates this profound, internal feeling of being fundamentally wrong or alien, even when everyone on the outside thinks they are perfectly fine.
The Missing Manual'Feeling
RILEY PARK: Oh my god, the invisible ninja. YES. That is so it. It feels like everyone else got a secret instruction manual at birth on how to be a person, and yours got lost in the mail. And you spend your whole life trying to peek over everyone's shoulder to figure out what page they're on. It's exhausting. You're kidding me, that is the perfect description.
MORGAN BLAKE: Exactly right. And the reason that manual feels missing is because, systemically, it was never written for you. Let me break that down. The historical diagnostic criteria for conditions like ADHD and autism were almost exclusively based on studies of young boys. So the entire medical framework was built to spot externalizing behaviors, while the more subtle, internalizing presentations common in girls were just... missed. Or worse, misdiagnosed as anxiety.
RILEY PARK: Hold on. So the doctors were basically using a boy's blueprint to check a girl's wiring? That's... that's actually unhinged.
MORGAN BLAKE: That is an excellent way to put it. And that is precisely what this podcast is about. We are here to decode those supposed 'brain blunders' and finally understand the journey that leads to a late diagnosis. We’re going to be pulling apart this Great Mask-erade, piece by piece.
RILEY PARK: Yes! And hopefully, you know, find our real, non-ninja selves under all the layers. It's about time we found the right manual, even if we have to write it ourselves. This is going to be fun. And probably a little brutal.
MORGAN BLAKE: It's more than just a flawed blueprint; the foundation itself was poured on biased ground. The key thing to understand is that this goes all the way back to the very first formal observations. When you look at the seminal figures, like Leo Kanner, his influential 1943 paper that first outlined what he called "infantile autism" described eleven children. Eight of them were boys.
RILEY PARK: Okay, so from the jump, the deck was stacked. Not a great ratio.
MORGAN BLAKE: Not at all. And then you have Hans Asperger, whose work was happening concurrently in Austria. His descriptions, which later formed the basis for Asperger's Syndrome, also predominantly featured boys. He described them with this very specific archetype—the "little professor" who was socially awkward but brilliant in a narrow field. This image became incredibly sticky in the cultural and medical imagination. So you have the two primary pillars of autism research, Kanner and Asperger, both building their frameworks almost exclusively from male presentations.
RILEY PARK: So if you were a girl, and you were not acting like a "little professor," you were basically invisible to the system. You just got labeled shy or anxious or... what, just difficult?
MORGAN BLAKE: Precisely. Your struggles were seen as personality flaws, not neurological patterns. And this isn't just an old-timey problem. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—the DSM, which is essentially the diagnostic bible for psychiatry in North America—built its criteria on this legacy. The early editions reflected these male-centric findings almost verbatim. A girl who was masking effectively, who was channeling her hyperfocus into people-pleasing or acing her classes to avoid negative attention, she didn't fit the picture. She wasn't the disruptive boy in the back of the classroom, so the diagnostic alarm bells simply never rang.
RILEY PARK: That is absolutely bonkers. It's like trying to diagnose a cat using a dog's textbook. They both have fur and four legs, but the mechanism is completely different. So the entire system was just set up to fail women from the start.
MORGAN BLAKE: Fundamentally, yes. It created a historical blind spot that has persisted for decades, leaving generations of women to navigate the world feeling broken, without ever having the language or the diagnosis to understand why. And that is the fundamental insight here. It wasn't an oversight; it was a foundational flaw in the architecture of diagnosis itself.
RILEY PARK: Okay, but that cat versus dog textbook analogy is haunting me. Because it’s so true. The diagnostic model was basically looking for a golden retriever who won’t stop barking and knocking over the furniture. And if you’re a cat, you know, silently judging everyone from the top of the bookshelf and meticulously grooming yourself for three hours, they just mark you down as ‘not a dog’ and move on. You’re not a problem, you’re just… a weird cat. And nobody has a textbook for weird cats.
MORGAN BLAKE: That is a surprisingly elegant metaphor, actually. The ‘noisy boy’—the one externalizing his struggles through disruption—becomes the archetype. He is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
RILEY PARK: Exactly! He’s setting off the fire alarm ‘for science,’ and everyone’s running around. Meanwhile, the girl with the same underlying neurology is in the library, having a silent, internal panic attack because she got a B-plus on a paper she spent thirty hours on. But on the outside? She just looks like a diligent student. Maybe a little intense. I’m picturing someone like… I don’t know, Marie Curie. Just surrounded by glowing rocks, hyperfocusing for 18 hours a day, and everyone’s like, ‘Wow, what a dedicated woman,’ not ‘Maybe her executive function is just a laser beam that she can’t turn off.’ The boy is a problem to be solved; the girl is a personality trait to be managed. It’s brutal.
MORGAN BLAKE: And that distinction is crucial. Her intensity is interpreted through a social and gendered lens—as conscientiousness or anxiety—rather than a neurological one. The diagnostic framework simply had no category for her.
MORGAN BLAKE: And this wasn’t just a passive oversight. This fundamental bias was actively reinforced by influential psychological theories. This is where it gets really interesting. One of the most prominent, and today one of the most heavily criticized, is the ‘Extreme Male Brain’ theory of autism.
RILEY PARK: Hold on. The ‘Extreme Male Brain’ theory? That sounds like the title of a terrible action movie from the 80s. What on earth is that?
MORGAN BLAKE: [chuckles] It does have a certain cinematic quality. Let me break that down. The theory, proposed by Simon Baron-Cohen, posits a spectrum of cognitive styles. On one end, you have ‘empathizing’—the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts. On the other, you have ‘systemizing’—the drive to analyze or construct systems, to understand the rules that govern them. The theory suggested that, on average, female brains are more hardwired for empathizing, and male brains for systemizing.
RILEY PARK: Okay, I’m already seeing about a thousand problems with this, but go on.
MORGAN BLAKE: Exactly. The theory then proposed that the autistic brain is an ‘extreme’ version of the typical male brain—exceptionally skilled at systemizing, but with deficits in empathizing. So, in this framework, autism wasn’t just more common in boys; it was conceptually framed as an amplification of maleness itself.
RILEY PARK: No way! So if a girl was autistic, the theory was… what? That she secretly had a dude’s brain? That’s unhinged.
MORGAN BLAKE: In other words, yes. That was the implication. An autistic female was seen as a neurological outlier, an exception whose brain pattern was fundamentally masculine. You can see the paradox. The very theory attempting to explain the condition simultaneously erased the authentic female experience of it. If a girl presented with strong social motivations, or a deep interest in fictional characters and relationships—which is a form of systemizing, just with social systems—she didn't fit the model. She wasn’t a pure systemizer. So she couldn’t be autistic. It created a devastating circular logic.
MORGAN BLAKE: And the consequences of that circular logic, of that foundational flaw we talked about, are staggering. We're talking about a cascade effect through decades of research, clinical training, and medical practice. The ‘boy blueprint’ became so entrenched that it created generations of oversight. Countless girls and women were left to navigate a world not built for them, with no name for their experiences, often accumulating misdiagnoses of personality disorders, anxiety, or depression along the way. But the most profound part of this story, the real historical tragedy, is that it didn't have to be this way. The key thing to understand is that the insights were there. They were just ignored.
RILEY PARK: What do you mean? Someone knew?
MORGAN BLAKE: Someone knew. In the 1920s. A full two decades before Hans Asperger and Leo Kanner published their famous papers that would define the Western understanding of autism, a pioneering Soviet child psychiatrist named Grunya Efimovna Sukhareva was documenting it.
RILEY PARK: Wait, the 1920s? You're kidding me.
MORGAN BLAKE: I am not. In 1925, she published a detailed paper describing what she termed ‘schizoid psychopathy of childhood,’ a term that sounds harsh to our ears but her descriptions are unmistakably what we would now call the autism spectrum. She described six boys with traits like social awkwardness, repetitive behaviors, and intense special interests. But here is the critical part: a year later, in 1926, she published descriptions of girls with similar traits. And she noted the differences.
RILEY PARK: Oh my god. What kind of differences?
MORGAN BLAKE: She observed that the girls, while sharing the same core challenges, often presented differently. They could be more socially motivated, more engaged with their peers on a surface level, but still struggled profoundly. Their interests were just as intense as the boys', but might be focused on things considered more socially acceptable for girls, like art or literature. She saw the nuance. She documented that the presentation was not monolithic; it was shaped by gender. Her work was incredibly detailed, far ahead of its time. She essentially laid out the whole picture, in its messy, nuanced reality, in 1926.
RILEY PARK: So… what happened? Why are we talking about Kanner and Asperger and not Sukhareva? This is insane.
MORGAN BLAKE: Well, her work was published in Russian, and later in a German journal. With the rise of the Soviet Union and the tensions of the Cold War, her research was effectively lost to the English-speaking medical establishment. It was buried by geopolitics, language barriers, and, frankly, the prevailing sexism in Western science that was not inclined to look to a woman from the Soviet Union for psychiatric breakthroughs. So, Kanner and Asperger’s male-only studies became the foundation, and Sukhareva’s more complete, more inclusive observations became a footnote in history until they were rediscovered and translated decades later. We lost more than half a century of understanding because her voice went unheard.
RILEY PARK: That is… I’m actually speechless. That’s not just an oversight, that’s a historical crime. Think of the millions of women who spent their entire lives thinking they were broken, when the answer was sitting in a Russian journal from the 1920s. That’s genuinely heartbreaking. We could have been almost a hundred years into understanding this properly.
MORGAN BLAKE: Exactly right. The loss of potential, the decades of unnecessary suffering—it’s difficult to quantify. And it created a vacuum. When the official diagnostic models and the clinical authorities fail to see you, you are left completely on your own.
RILEY PARK: So you have to figure it out yourself. You have no choice.
MORGAN BLAKE: Precisely. And that’s the critical turning point. When the world doesn’t have a blueprint for you, you are forced to become your own architect. You learn to observe, to analyze, to mimic. You build a facade, brick by brick, to survive in a world that wasn’t designed for your brain. And that process of survival, that constant, exhausting performance… that’s where the mask begins.
=== PART 2 ===
RILEY PARK: Okay okay okay—that word, "performance." That is it. That is the whole thing. It’s like my entire twenties were just one long, underfunded off-Broadway show where I played the role of "Normal Human Woman Who Enjoys Small Talk." I remember going to these networking events for comedy, and dude, it was brutal. I’d literally stand in the bathroom beforehand and give myself a pep talk. "Alright, Riley. You have three pre-approved anecdotes. Ask them about their weekend. Laugh 2.5 seconds after they finish their joke. And for the love of god, maintain eye contact, but not so much that you look like a serial killer." I had a whole internal flowchart. It was exhausting. You know who it reminds me of? It's like that episode of The IT Crowd where Moss gets the tape on 'how to be a man' and he just starts saying things like "Did you see that ludicrous display last night?" at completely the wrong time. That was me, but with, like, "So, how about this weather?" I was a social chameleon who was always, like, two shades off the color of the wall. People would be talking about their mortgage and I'd be trying to remember if I was supposed to nod sympathetically or offer a fun fact about otters. It’s this constant, frantic calculation happening behind your eyes while you’re trying to look completely relaxed and engaged. The amount of energy it takes is insane. You get home and you don’t just feel tired, you feel… hollowed out. Like you just ran a marathon in a costume that was three sizes too small.
MORGAN BLAKE: [quiet chuckle] That is a… remarkably elegant description of the process. The internal flowchart. The pre-approved anecdotes. You’re essentially describing the process of manually constructing social algorithms that neurotypical people run intuitively.
RILEY PARK: Yes! An algorithm! That's it. I was running Social-Interaction-dot-exe and it was full of bugs and kept crashing.
MORGAN BLAKE: And this is where it gets really interesting, from a psychological standpoint. What you’re describing, that social chameleon act, is fundamentally a survival mechanism. Let me break that down. In a world that is largely built around neurotypical communication styles and social expectations, if your brain is wired differently, you are constantly receiving negative feedback. You might be told you’re “too intense,” or “too quiet,” or that your questions are “weird.” So, you learn, very quickly, that your authentic self is socially penalized. Masking, then, becomes a form of self-protection. You create a persona that is more socially acceptable to avoid that negative feedback. But here’s the paradox: this very act of survival carries an immense psychological weight. The cognitive load of constantly monitoring yourself, translating social cues in real time, and performing a version of “normal” is monumental. It’s a primary driver for the high rates of anxiety, depression, and particularly burnout that we see in the late-diagnosed population. The most insidious part of this mechanism is that the mask is often… successful. Externally, the person appears capable, composed, even mature. A teacher might praise a young girl for being so quiet and well-behaved in class, or a boss might commend an employee for being so agreeable and easy to work with. That positive reinforcement then encourages the person to keep the mask on, to double down on the performance, because it’s rewarded. But that praise is for the facade, not the person, and it inadvertently reinforces the very behavior that is causing profound internal suffering and eroding their sense of self. It’s a devastating feedback loop.
RILEY PARK: Oh my god. You get praised for the thing that’s killing you. That is… that’s bonkers. It’s like giving a medal to a soldier for silently bleeding out without bothering anyone.
MORGAN BLAKE: That is a very stark, but not inaccurate, analogy. The internal cost is completely invisible to the outside world.
MORGAN BLAKE: And that invisibility is disproportionately applied along gender lines. The key thing to understand is that this pressure to mask intersects powerfully with societal expectations for girls and women. From a very young age, girls are often socialized to be agreeable, to be cooperative, to be people-pleasers. They are taught not to cause a fuss, to be accommodating, to manage the emotional temperature of a room. So when a young girl’s neurodivergent traits manifest—perhaps as intense focus on a specific interest, or sensory sensitivities that make her withdraw, or a different way of communicating—those traits are in direct conflict with the “good girl” archetype. Her natural way of being is seen as a social failure.
RILEY PARK: Okay, hold on. This is my hot-take. This is the thing that makes me want to flip a table. The "good girl" is a trap. It's the most celebrated, most praised, most desirable cage we build for women. We literally reward girls for being quiet, for not taking up space, for making themselves smaller and more convenient for everyone else. And then we have the audacity to wonder why they don't ask for help? We trained them not to! We gave them a gold star for disappearing. It's unhinged. We’re celebrating the symptom of their distress.
MORGAN BLAKE: Your frustration is entirely valid. You've landed on the core of the problem. That "good girl" who is so quiet in the back of the classroom, the one the teacher loves because she never causes any trouble? Internally, she might be in a state of constant, overwhelming sensory assault. The fluorescent lights are humming at a frequency that feels like a drill in her skull, the scratching of 20 pencils is deafening, the social dynamics of the other kids feel like incomprehensible quantum physics. Her quietness isn’t a sign of compliance; it’s a desperate attempt to hold herself together, to not shatter from the overwhelm. Her internal world is a hurricane, but her external presentation is a peaceful pond. And because she looks fine, because she is the "good girl," no one ever thinks to look beneath the surface. Her distress is completely camouflaged by her competence at masking.
RILEY PARK: Dude, that competence is the whole problem. You get so good at the performance that nobody believes you when you finally admit you’re not okay. It’s like being an undercover spy who has lived in a foreign country for 20 years and then tries to tell their family, "By the way, I'm a spy," and they're just like, "No, you're not, you're an accountant from Ohio, now pass the potatoes." I had a friend in college, the most organized, put-together person I knew. Her notes were color-coded, her schedule was perfect, she was on three different student boards. I honestly thought she was a robot. Then one day, junior year, she just… broke. Told me she’d been having near-constant panic attacks since freshman year and her "organization" was the only thing keeping her from completely falling apart. I was floored. And I was her best friend! I saw her every day and had no clue. And that, right there, is the entire story. That is why the diagnostic numbers are so catastrophically skewed. When you get that good at hiding the evidence, you don’t get a diagnosis. You just get called "anxious" or "a perfectionist." The official statistic, which is just… I mean, it’s damning, is that girls are four times less likely to be diagnosed with autism than boys. Four times! And it's not because it's less prevalent. It's because they are systematically coached, by society, to become masters of disguise. They are so successful at performing "normal" that they become invisible to the very system that’s supposed to help them. It’s a perfect, tragic catch-22.
MORGAN BLAKE: You’ve connected the dots perfectly. The social performance directly creates the diagnostic disparity. It’s not a flaw in the individual; it’s a flaw in the looking glass we use to see them.
MORGAN BLAKE: So to bring it all together, what we see is this pattern where the "good girl" facade isn't just a personality trait; it's a high-stakes, resource-intensive survival strategy. And while it might help a person navigate a world not built for them, it comes at the profound cost of their mental health and their authentic sense of self. And that internal struggle, the one that’s so effectively hidden behind the mask of competence and agreeableness, it doesn’t just disappear. It has to go somewhere. It manifests in other ways—ways that are often misread or overlooked entirely. And that’s where we see the emergence of what the clinical world often mistakes for something else, like a simple anxiety disorder, or what we’re now beginning to understand as the distinctly female presentations of both autism and inattentive ADHD.
=== PART 3 ===
MORGAN BLAKE: Let me break that down a bit further. When we talk about ADHD, the image that comes to mind is almost always the hyperactive-impulsive type, which is indeed more common in boys. It’s the kid who can’t sit still, who blurts out answers, who is a constant, visible source of kinetic energy. But there’s a whole other presentation, predominantly inattentive ADHD, which is fundamentally different. It's not a storm you can see; it's a quiet storm happening entirely inside the person's mind. The restlessness isn't in their legs, it's in their thoughts, which are racing, jumping from topic to topic, creating a constant internal static. The "disruption" isn't in the classroom, it's in their own executive function. They aren't blurting out answers; they're lost in a daydream so vivid they don't even hear the question.
RILEY PARK: Hold on, so it’s like their brain has a million tabs open, but the screen is just showing a calm, serene desktop background?
MORGAN BLAKE: That’s a very elegant way to put it. The external presentation is often one of quietness, even passivity. But internally, it's chaos. It's the immense difficulty of initiating a task, even a simple one. It’s the frustration of knowing what you need to do but being utterly unable to make your body and brain cooperate to do it. Think about the sheer amount of energy it takes to manage that internal world while also trying to meet external expectations. Because these struggles aren't visible, they aren’t disruptive to others, they are so easily missed. They’re not seen as a neurological issue; they’re interpreted as personality flaws. She’s not struggling with executive function; she’s “lazy.” She’s not lost in racing thoughts; she’s a “daydreamer” or “spacey.” This is a core part of why that manual feels missing for so many women—the manual they were given describes a completely different operating system.
RILEY PARK: So the boy gets a diagnosis because his engine is loud and smoking, and everyone can see it's broken. But the girl’s engine is just... silently seizing up, and everyone just thinks she's a very, very quiet driver.
MORGAN BLAKE: That’s a powerful analogy. And it’s precisely why the diagnostic numbers are so skewed. The system is designed to detect the loud, smoking engine. It has, historically, had no instruments to detect the silent seizure.
RILEY PARK: Okay, this is… this is getting weirdly specific. I had a friend in middle school, Chloe. And she was the "shy" one. Capital S, Shy. Teachers loved her because she was never a problem. She’d just sit in the back and draw in her notebook. But her "drawing" wasn't just doodling. It was… iconic. She would fill entire pages with these incredibly intricate patterns, like microscopic mazes. She would spend hours on one page. And we all just thought, "Wow, Chloe is so focused, she's such an artist." But now I'm thinking… was she focused? Or was that the one thing her brain could latch onto while the rest of the world just sounded like the teacher from Charlie Brown?
MORGAN BLAKE: That is a genuinely insightful question. It could be a manifestation of hyperfocus, which is a common trait in both ADHD and autism. It feels like intense concentration from the outside, but from the inside, it can feel like being captured by a task, unable to pull away even when you know you should be doing something else.
RILEY PARK: Dude, yes! I remember one time we had this diorama project for social studies. The absolute worst. And she was supposed to do a scene from ancient Egypt. She spent the entire first week doing nothing but researching the exact type of sandal worn by scribes in the Fifth Dynasty. Not building the diorama. Not making the little pyramids. Just... sandals. Her mom was going bonkers. And everyone was like, "Oh, she's such a perfectionist." But it wasn't about it being perfect. It felt more like she was stuck. Like she couldn't move on to step two until she had completely, utterly exhausted step one into dust. She ended up turning in this half-finished box with some sand in it and a single, exquisitely detailed, historically accurate paper sandal.
MORGAN BLAKE: [quiet chuckle] And her grade likely didn't reflect the doctoral-level research she'd conducted on ancient footwear.
RILEY PARK: She got a C-minus! And a note that said "needs to manage her time better." That's brutal! Hearing you talk about the quiet storm… it clicks. It wasn't perfectionism. It was that her brain just got stuck in a loop, and from the outside, it looked like a quirky personality trait. She wasn't shy; she was overwhelmed. She wasn't a perfectionist; her executive function was just… you know, out to lunch. That's wild. It completely reframes, like, my entire memory of her.
MORGAN BLAKE: And building on that foundation of misinterpretation, we see a parallel phenomenon with the female autism phenotype. The core traits of autism—social communication differences, restricted interests, sensory sensitivities—are of course present. But the way they manifest can be so different from the male blueprint that they become almost unrecognizable to clinicians, and even to the individuals themselves. Here's the thing, the mechanism of masking is so powerful here.
RILEY PARK: So it’s not just a different flavor, it’s a whole different food group that’s not even on the menu.
MORGAN BLAKE: In a way, yes. Take special interests. The classic autistic stereotype is an intense interest in something like trains, or mechanics, or statistics—topics often perceived as "unusual" for a child. For girls, that same level of intensity might be directed at topics that are considered socially acceptable or even encouraged. It could be horses, a particular book series, a specific band or celebrity, or even psychology and understanding social dynamics. The intensity is the key autistic trait, but because the topic itself is "normal," the underlying neurology is missed. Her encyclopedic knowledge of every Taylor Swift album, including liner notes and unreleased tracks, isn't seen as a special interest; it’s just seen as being a big fan. Her frustration when someone gets a detail wrong isn't seen as a need for accuracy; it's seen as being overly dramatic.
RILEY PARK: Okay but, hold on. What about the social part? The stereotype is the little boy who wants to be alone, who doesn't want friends.
MORGAN BLAKE: That is a critical distinction. Many autistic girls have a profound, even desperate, desire for friendship. They observe their peers, they study social interactions like it's a textbook, and they use their intellectual capacity to develop scripts and algorithms for conversation. This creates a paradox. They can often perform reciprocal conversation quite well, asking questions, mirroring body language, all learned behaviors. But that performance is incredibly draining, part of that internal cost we talked about. So, a clinician might see a girl who makes eye contact and can sustain a conversation and conclude she can't be autistic, completely missing the fact that she’s running a complex social simulation in her head the entire time, and it's exhausting her. That competence is a carefully constructed mask.
MORGAN BLAKE: So when you combine the quiet, internal nature of inattentive ADHD with the camouflaged presentation of the female autism phenotype, you arrive at a truly staggering statistic. And this is one that… honestly, it’s difficult to even say. The current research and clinical consensus suggest that as many as 80 percent of autistic females remain undiagnosed by the time they reach adulthood at age 18.
RILEY PARK: I'm sorry, what? Eighty? Eight-zero? No way. You're kidding me. That can't be right. That's… that’s almost everybody.
MORGAN BLAKE: It’s an almost unbelievable figure, but it’s what multiple studies are pointing towards. Four out of every five. Imagine four out of five people with diabetes being told they just have a sweet tooth and need more self-control. The implications are profound. Because that invisibility we’ve been discussing doesn't make the struggle go away. It just ensures the person struggles alone, without a name for their experience. They grow up believing that their authentic self is fundamentally broken or wrong, that their difficulties are a personal failing of character.
RILEY PARK: That is… devastating. So for their entire childhood, they're just white-knuckling it through life, thinking they're the only person in the world who feels this way.
MORGAN BLAKE: Precisely. And that immense, prolonged effort of masking and coping without support is unsustainable. It’s a direct pathway to what we see in so many adult women who finally seek diagnosis: chronic anxiety, deep-seated depression, eating disorders, and a state of complete and utter burnout. They aren't just tired; their entire system has been overloaded for decades.
MORGAN BLAKE: So to bring it all together, this quiet storm—this combination of internal restlessness from inattentive ADHD and the meticulously masked traits of the female autism phenotype—it isn’t just an internal weather pattern. It has very real, very tangible consequences. It’s the C-minus on the diorama project despite weeks of obsessive research. It’s the social exhaustion after a party that everyone else found energizing. It's the deep sense of alienation that comes from performing a version of yourself all day, every day. The internal cost inevitably manifests externally, just not in the ways our diagnostic systems were ever taught to look for.
RILEY PARK: So her internal world is this massive, complex, swirling thing, but her external presentation is just… a polite smile. And nobody ever thinks to ask what's behind it.
MORGAN BLAKE: Right. And this leads to a crucial question. We've talked about how the clinical and educational systems miss these signs because of a flawed blueprint. But what about the people closest to them? The parents, the siblings, the childhood friends. If the distress was there, if the struggle was real, why was it so often invisible even at home? How did these early, subtle signs of a brain wired differently get overlooked or explained away within the family unit itself? Because that’s where the story often begins—not with a bang, but with a quiet, misunderstood whisper.
=== PART 4 ===
RILEY PARK: Okay, but it’s so true, though. Hearing you frame it like that, about why nobody saw it at home… it’s like my entire childhood is flashing before my eyes in a new, extremely awkward font. I mean, my parents are wonderful people, but the number of things that were just written off as “That’s just Riley” is, in hindsight, completely bonkers. The tag thing! The war against clothing tags. My mom would buy me a new shirt and my first move, before even trying it on, was to demand she perform surgery on the collar with tiny scissors. If she missed a single microscopic, scratchy thread, I’d have a full-on, DEFCON 1 meltdown.
MORGAN BLAKE: And that was perceived as you being… what? Overly dramatic?
RILEY PARK: Dramatic, fussy, too sensitive. The holy trinity of labels for a girl who is having a bad time. And food! Don’t get me started on food. I would only eat certain things if they didn’t touch each other on the plate. My brother could eat a bowl of, I don’t know, chili-cereal-stew, and I’m over here having a panic attack because a pea rolled into my mashed potato quadrant. My dad used to joke that my plate needed a full zoning commission. And everyone just laughed, you know? It was this funny little quirk.
MORGAN BLAKE: The need for order and the sensory sensitivity. Those are such common flags.
RILEY PARK: Right? Or being told I was lazy because I could spend eight hours reading every book in a fantasy series but couldn’t manage to clean my room for ten minutes. The focus was there, it was just… aimed at saving a fictional kingdom, not organizing my sock drawer. The energy it took to start a task I didn’t care about felt, like, physically impossible. But to my family, it just looked like I was being defiant. It wasn’t a missing manual, it was a character flaw. And you believe it. You just think, “Oh. I guess I’m just the dramatic, lazy, picky one.” You absorb it.
MORGAN BLAKE: You internalize the narrative you’re given. Because the alternative, that your brain is fundamentally wired differently, isn’t even on the table as an option. The explanations provided are always behavioral or moral, not neurological. And that’s a critical distinction.
MORGAN BLAKE: That experience you’re describing, of being misread at home, is a direct reflection of what was happening on a much larger, systemic scale. The key thing to understand is that the pediatricians and school psychologists of the 80s, 90s, and even early 2000s were not, for the most part, malicious. They were simply working with a profoundly broken toolkit. The diagnostic criteria they held in their hands, the checklists they went through, were built almost exclusively around the presentation of young, often hyperactive, white boys.
RILEY PARK: So if a girl didn't present like a boy, she was just… fine? Even if she was screaming about a shirt tag?
MORGAN BLAKE: Essentially, yes. A boy climbing the walls or disrupting class was a clear, externalized signal that triggered the diagnostic process. His engine was running too hot, and it was causing a problem for the system. But a girl who was academically bright, who masked her social confusion by being quiet, whose sensory overload resulted in silent shutdowns or crying spells that were labeled as simple emotionality… she didn’t fit the profile. She wasn’t a problem *for the classroom*. Her distress was contained. And here’s the hot-take, and I don’t say this lightly: the diagnostic framework wasn't just accidentally biased. It was, by its very nature, a tool of exclusion. It was constructed in a way that rendered the female experience of neurodivergence almost completely invisible, and in doing so, it failed generations of women. It wasn't just a blind spot; it was a foundational, structural flaw.
RILEY PARK: [pauses] You're kidding me. So it wasn't just an oversight, it was baked into the cake? The whole recipe was wrong from the start? That is… that is brutal. It’s like they were looking for a lion and refusing to acknowledge that a tiger, which is also a very large cat, was sitting right there in the room, just being a bit quieter about it.
MORGAN BLAKE: That’s an elegantly put analogy. The system was only equipped to recognize the roar, not the silent intensity. And as a result, the memos were missed, year after year.
MORGAN BLAKE: And this flawed diagnostic lens was then magnified by societal gender stereotypes. Think about the classic "boys will be boys" narrative. It’s a phrase that, for decades, has been used to excuse a whole range of externalized, disruptive behaviors—the very behaviors that often lead to a referral and diagnosis for boys. It creates a permission structure for their difficulties to be seen. But there has never been a widely accepted equivalent for girls.
RILEY PARK: No way. The equivalent for girls is "You need to calm down" or "Stop being so emotional."
MORGAN BLAKE: Precisely. A boy’s outburst is seen as a behavioral issue needing assessment; a girl’s outburst is a personality flaw needing correction. Her struggles are pathologized as character traits. She’s not struggling with executive function; she’s ‘spacey’ or a ‘daydreamer.’ She’s not experiencing social burnout; she’s ‘antisocial’ or ‘stuck-up.’ This pressure for girls to be accommodating, pleasant, and socially attuned creates an enormous incentive to hide any trait that deviates from that norm. That’s the very engine of masking we’ve been talking about.
RILEY PARK: Okay, tangent-moment. This is reminding me of every teen movie from the 90s. There’s always the quirky, artsy girl who’s clearly the most interesting person in the entire school, but she’s treated like a freak until the hot jock realizes she’s beautiful under her paint-splattered overalls. The entire premise is that her authentic self is weird and needs a makeover to be acceptable. We were literally trained by Freddie Prinze Jr. movies that you have to sand down your edges to be loved!
MORGAN BLAKE: [chuckles] That’s… actually a very sharp observation. And that cultural script you’re describing—the makeover montage as a metaphor for social conformity—is exactly the pressure that reinforces the mask. For a young neurodivergent girl, the world is constantly telling her, in both subtle and overt ways, that her natural way of being is wrong. So she learns to perform that ‘after’ version of herself from the very beginning. And that performance is so convincing that it fools everyone, making the underlying neurology almost impossible to spot with the tools we were using.
MORGAN BLAKE: So, when you have this combination of a flawed diagnostic system and intense social pressure to conform, what you get is not a lack of diagnosis, but a high rate of *mis*diagnosis. This is the really damaging part of the story. For decades, neurodivergent women have been walking into clinics describing their internal chaos—the anxiety from social confusion, the mood swings from burnout and rejection sensitivity, the feeling of being an alien—and they walk out with labels like Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, or, very commonly, Borderline Personality Disorder.
RILEY PARK: I am sorry, WHAT? So they’re getting treatment for things that aren’t the root cause?
MORGAN BLAKE: Correct. And that is a massive problem. The treatments for BPD or bipolar disorder are fundamentally different from the support structures and strategies that help an autistic or ADHD brain thrive. So you have women who spend years, sometimes decades, on incorrect medications that don’t work or have difficult side effects. They engage in therapies that tell them their thought patterns are irrational, rather than recognizing them as a logical outcome of a neurodivergent brain trying to navigate a neurotypical world. It reinforces that feeling of being incurably broken. Here’s the thing: multiple studies show that women are significantly more likely than men to report receiving at least one misdiagnosis before finally getting their correct neurodivergence diagnosis. The system doesn’t just miss them; it often actively harms them by sending them down the wrong path for years.
RILEY PARK: That is unhinged. That’s like going to the mechanic because your engine is making a weird noise, and they just keep repainting the car and telling you it’s fixed. And you’re like, "But the noise is still there!" and they say, "Well, have you tried thinking more positively about the noise?" It's just… an unbelievable systemic failure. I am going to need a minute.
MORGAN BLAKE: It’s a profound failure. And that lost time, that accumulation of ineffective treatments and self-blame, is the internal cost we mentioned earlier. It’s not abstract; it’s years of life lived in confusion and pain.
MORGAN BLAKE: So to bring it all together, these missed memos at home and in school weren’t just isolated incidents of oversight. They were symptoms of a much larger problem. You start with childhood traits being mislabeled as personality flaws. Then, you layer on a diagnostic system built on a male blueprint that was never designed to see girls. You reinforce all of it with gender stereotypes that encourage girls to mask their struggles. And the inevitable result is a generation of women who were not only missed but often misdiagnosed, leading to years of suffering.
RILEY PARK: A perfect storm of invisibility.
MORGAN BLAKE: A perfect storm, yes. And understanding this history, this chain of errors from the playground to the psychiatrist’s office, is absolutely essential. Because it’s only by seeing how the map was drawn incorrectly that we can begin to understand the incredible journey so many women have to take to eventually find their way home to themselves.
MORGAN BLAKE: The key thing to understand from today’s episode is how deeply those historical diagnostic frameworks shaped everything. Because they were built almost exclusively on male presentations, they created a fundamental blind spot. This wasn't just a small error; it shaped decades of clinical practice, fundamentally leading to countless missed girls.
RILEY PARK: An entire generation just… invisible.
MORGAN BLAKE: And building on that, we see the downstream effect: the exhausting art of masking. It’s the mechanism that makes them invisible. Girls learned to camouflage their authentic selves, internalizing every struggle to meet those external expectations. This is precisely why the 'quiet storm' of inattentive ADHD or the female autism phenotype were so often overlooked.
RILEY PARK: Hold on, it's like their distress signal was on mute the whole time. Just this quiet, internal screaming match while they're smiling and nodding. That's brutal.
RILEY PARK: Yeah, and honestly, that’s where the 'missed memos' become so infuriating. It wasn’t just the girls hiding it; it was parents, teachers, and doctors misinterpreting the signals that *did* leak out. Your intensity gets labeled as being 'dramatic,' your focus on one topic is 'obsessive,' your need for quiet is just 'shyness.' It's wild.
MORGAN BLAKE: That is the paradox. The very traits that point to a different neurotype were reframed as personality flaws or simple anxiety, neatly fitting into preconceived notions of what it means to be a girl.
MORGAN BLAKE: So, thank you for tuning in to our first episode of Brain Waves & Blunders. If anything we discussed resonated with you, or made you think of someone in your life, please share this episode. Let's keep this crucial conversation going. Until next time, keep decoding those brain waves. Riley, any final thoughts?
RILEY PARK: I'm just going to go sit in a quiet room and re-evaluate my entire childhood. Kidding! Mostly. This was a lot. In a good way.
VOX·FACTA
13 listens44:50
