We applaud Bard et al.’s call to decenter developmental theories from researchers’ WEIRD bias by taking a WILD approach. Their framework – obtaining worldwide samples, studying development in situ, focusing on local practices, and considering development as diverse – offers a strong blueprint for cultural inclusivity. By shifting attention away from narrow, majority-based assumptions about what constitutes “normal” or “ideal” development, Bard et al. push the field toward more accurate and more humane theories of human development. We suggest extending this vision beyond cultural inclusivity to also encompass an important form of inclusion within cultures: neurodiversity.

Bard et al. pose two key questions: (a) what does it mean to embrace development inclusively? and (b) what harm results from limited cultural inclusion in developmental theory? We believe both questions apply just as importantly to neurodiversity. To embrace development inclusively is to recognize that different neurotypes have distinct yet equally valid developmental patterns. Embracing development inclusively means taking seriously the principle of equifinality (Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch1996): the idea that similar developmental outcomes can emerge from different starting points and qualitatively different pathways. Cross-cultural work on motor milestones already illustrates this principle (Karasik et al., Reference Karasik, Adolph, Fernandes, Robinson and Tamis-LeMonda2023). For instance, while some infants walk later than others, or walk after scooting or crawling in idiosyncratic ways, the endpoint of independent mobility is nonetheless achieved. The same logic applies to development among neurodivergent populations.

Neglecting neurodiversity risks repeating the same biases Bard et al. identify for cultural diversity. Just as prioritizing WEIRD norms has historically erased the richness of developmental trajectories in other cultural contexts, prioritizing neurotypical norms has obscured equally legitimate developmental processes in autistic, attention deficit, dyslexic, and other neurodivergent groups.

Consider joint attention, a foundational construct in developmental psychology. Traditional definitions emphasize behaviors such as pointing or making eye contact to share attention with another person. Yet many autistic individuals engage in joint attention through other means: orienting their bodies toward an object, vocalizing, using peripheral vision, or physically guiding another person to their interest (Akhtar & Gernsbacher, Reference Akhtar and Gernsbacher2008; Gernsbacher et al., Reference Gernsbacher, Stevenson, Khandakar and Goldsmith2008). These behaviors achieve the same functional goal as their presumably “typical” counterparts – coordinating attention and sharing experience – even if they do not conform to neurotypical expectations. Interpreting these strategies as deficits rather than differences reflects a narrow and biased framework, much like assuming that children in non-WEIRD communities are developmentally delayed when they fail to follow culturally specific milestones.

Another example comes from language acquisition. Researchers often emphasize the importance of “high-quality” input, typically defined according to middle-class, majority-culture norms: frequent verbal engagement, expansion on child utterances, and sustained parent–child dialog. However, as Figueroa (Reference Figueroa2024) notes, this assumption is grounded in a deficit perspective of racialized children’s early linguistic experiences that has caused significant harm to these children and their families. A similar dynamic unfolds in relation to neurodivergent children, where expectations for conversational turn-taking may not align with their communicative style.

By failing to include neurodivergent populations in developmental theories, researchers risk not only misrepresenting human variation but also producing practical harms. Intervention practices may be misguided when based on narrow benchmarks of success. For instance, therapies that aim to “normalize” eye contact often overlook alternative communicative strategies that are effective and meaningful for the individual. Just as Bard et al. highlight the dangers of imposing WEIRD-based standards on non-WEIRD populations, we suggest that imposing neurotypical standards on neurodivergent children can delegitimize their modes of interaction and contribute to stigmatization.

Extending Bard et al.’s WILD framework to neurodiversity would help developmental science move toward a truly inclusive vision. Worldwide sampling should include not only culturally diverse samples but also neurodivergent populations. Studying development in situ should involve observing children in naturalistic environments with familiar partners that reflect their authentic modes of interaction, rather than in contrived lab settings designed around neurotypical norms.

Bard et al. challenge us to broaden our lens on cultural diversity in developmental theory. We argue that their questions and framework apply equally to neurodiversity. Developmental science has the opportunity – and the responsibility – to recognize that multiple pathways can lead to similar developmental outcomes and that variation across both cultures and neurotypes enriches our understanding of what it means to be human. Inclusion requires taking the concepts of equifinality and multifinality seriously and understanding that there is no singular path that leads to optimal developmental outcomes.