Reflecting on Ways of Knowing: A Rejoinder on the Integrative Neuroaffirming Framework (INAF)

Returning to Ourselves

As we began our work in developing the INAF, we recognized that the process would entail a critical examination and intentional unlearning of our professional enculturation into dominant norms (Freire, 2021). We recognized how these norms have shaped adaptive patterns that supported our functioning within institutional contexts. However, this adaptation also distanced us from our core selves and inner coherence. As academics, practitioners, and researchers, we became increasingly aware of how deeply we had assimilated to colonized norms embedded within professional culture, and how misaligned this felt with who we are at our core. We made an intentional choice to move away from this conformity, recognizing the extent to which it constrained our capacity to fully explore and make sense of our existing knowledge.

This shift involved a return to ourselves: an acknowledgment that there is not a single truth and a commitment to honoring our own. Through this process, we came to recognize the value of epistemic plurality (the recognition that there are multiple valid ways of knowing) as legitimate and necessary. Different epistemic stances may illuminate different aspects of a complex world (Ganeri, 2019). The absence of epistemic plurality limits true understanding, constrains the potential for genuinely affirming work, and diminishes our ability to truly walk alongside our clients. A pluralistic stance invites humility by recognizing that no single framework can fully capture the totality of the human experience.

Importantly, to our knowledge, the concept of epistemic plurality does not belong to any single discipline. It has been developed across philosophy, feminist theory, decolonial scholarship, sociology, and political epistemology, among other traditions. In a similar way, many of the terms and concepts within the INAF do not derive from one theory alone. Rather, they reflect an intentional integration of ideas drawn from multiple bodies of knowledge in service of a more expansive and contextual understanding of psychology.

Decolonial scholars have similarly used the notion of pluriversality to challenge the assumption that there is a single universal way of knowing, being, or organizing reality (Mignolo & Walsh, 2018). Rather than a singular worldview to which all must conform, pluriversality recognizes the coexistence of multiple valid ways of knowing shaped by culture, history, embodiment, relationship, and place. Many Indigenous knowledge traditions similarly emphasize relationality, reciprocity, contextual wisdom, and the inseparability of person, community, and environment. This relational coherence contrasts with the fragmentation characteristic of Western reductionism. The INAF invites psychologists to move from imposing meaning toward co-creating understanding, with particular attention to challenging embedded systems of power and normativity. Rather than asking whether clients fit preexisting categories, it asks how clinicians might better understand the realities clients are already living. Notably, in validating their own ways of knowing, they strengthen trust in their insights and their potential to benefit others. This process opens space for a more authentic relational connection with clients grounded in shared humanity, mutual recognition, and respect.

In today’s sociopolitical climate, many individuals and communities are engaging in similar efforts to challenge entrenched systems of power, advocate for the rights of diverse individuals, and reclaim more authentic ways of being (Pastor et al., 2020). Therefore, the process is not unique to us, but reflects a broader human experience, particularly among those whose identities and ways of knowing have been marginalized or invalidated. We chose to focus on neurodivergent individuals as a clear example of the systemic impacts of forced conformity. That said, we view this as a starting point, and our future work aims to explore the broader applicability of the INAF across diverse populations navigating similar processes of adaptation, misalignment, and return to self.

Relational Processes of Understanding and Meaning-Making

At a broader level, this exchange reflects a deeply human experience, the experience of being misunderstood. For many individuals, and particularly for those whose perspectives have historically been systemically silenced, misunderstanding can carry a cumulative weight (Stone et al., 2024). It can evoke discomfort and deeper response patterns shaped by past experiences of not being fully seen or heard. We also note with humility that, despite receiving largely supportive responses to the INAF, our attention was initially drawn most strongly to the commentary that evoked feelings of misunderstanding. This awareness highlights how, when work carries personal and professional meaning, moments of perceived misattunement can become especially salient and can evoke an immediate sense of vulnerability (Brown, 2015). For us, this moment brought an awareness of the tension between two possible responses. One path was shaped by fear: a pull toward defensiveness to protect our credibility, the integrity of our work, and the value we believe it holds. Although understandable, this response reflects a broader pattern in academic and professional spaces, where critique can be experienced as a threat rather than an invitation.

Concurrently, we recognized the possibility of another response—one grounded in connection and intentionality. Rather than interpreting misunderstanding as rejection, we chose to approach it as a necessary part of engaging across different perspectives. From this perspective, misunderstanding signals the presence of differing epistemologies and lived experiences. What may initially feel like misalignment can be understood as a reflection of the complexity inherent in translating ideas across contexts. This shift required intentional reflection, noticing and honoring our initial somatic responses of tension while also creating space to engage with them rather than react from them. In doing so, we were better able to respond in a way that aligned with the core values of our framework. Choosing this stance was not about dismissing critique or minimizing its impact, but about engaging it with curiosity. It allowed us to remain grounded in the intention of contributing to dialogue, rather than protecting against perceived threat.

Our response to misunderstanding became an extension of the framework itself. By approaching critique with openness, we sought to model the very process we are advocating: one that prioritizes relational understanding, honors multiple ways of knowing, and creates space for continued dialogue. The goal, then, is not to eliminate misunderstanding, but to engage it in ways that expand the possibility for connection, insight, and mutual growth.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Epistemologies

With this in mind, we appreciate Sivathasan et al.’s (2026) emphasis on grounding emerging frameworks within existing scholarship. We share the value of humility in this work and do not position our framework as a definitive truth, but as one perspective shaped by our lived experience as AuDHD (autistic and ADHD [Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder]) practitioners and researchers and our extensive work alongside MINDS individuals. Consistent with the perspective described above, we view knowledge as inherently contextual and evolving. The recognition that no single perspective can fully capture the complexity of human experience is a foundational principle of our framework.

That said, some of the differences highlighted in this exchange may reflect distinct epistemological approaches—specifically, differences in how knowledge is generated, organized, and validated. Sivathasan et al. (2026) emphasize a top-down integration of established scholarship, whereas the INAF reflects a bottom-up process grounded in embodied, perceptual, and relational ways of knowing. We illustrate these two approaches in Figure 1 as the pyramid (top-down) and the tree (bottom-up).OPEN IN VIEWER

Although the terms top-down and bottom-up are traditionally used within perception research (Clark, 2015; Friston, 2009), we draw on them here as a conceptual analogy to describe integrative and reciprocal processes in knowledge development. Specifically, we use these terms to distinguish between approaches that prioritize preexisting frameworks (top-down) and those that emerge from lived, contextualized experience (bottom-up).

A top-down approach in academia prioritizes alignment with prior research and accepted scientific standards. It has been essential to the development of psychology as a discipline and it was integral to our work, as it provided a foundation for the development of the INAF. Top-down approaches are often valued for providing a shared language that can streamline communication and reduce the need to continually define constructs. The approach is designed to minimize uncertainty within complex systems (Clark, 2013; Friston, 2009), but this assumes that shared language leads to shared understanding. In practice, individuals bring different experiences and internal frameworks to these terms, meaning that even commonly accepted constructs may be interpreted in divergent ways. The way knowledge is consumed further shapes these dynamics. Academic training often privileges dominant epistemological frameworks, which can inadvertently reinforce the authority of established sources, particularly when information is assumed to be valid because it originates from a credible platform (Bhatia et al., 2024; Clark, 2015).

In contrast, bottom-up approaches begin with lived experience and moment-to-moment perceptual and relational data (Clark, 2015). In practice, bottom-up processes attend to patterns that emerge directly from engagement with individuals and contexts rather than fitting experience into preexisting categories. These approaches draw on embodied awareness and personal meaning-making. Although bottom-up approaches are often devalued in dominant methodological frameworks (Grzanka & Moradi, 2021), we challenge this assumption by suggesting it reflects a different form of rigor. This approach prioritizes depth, context, and the ability to recognize patterns as they emerge from lived experience, all of which are essential for meaningful understanding (Freire, 2021; Haverkamp et al., 2005). Just like bottom-up approaches are helpful in research (e.g., qualitative and mixed model research), they offer a valid and useful way of generating and organizing knowledge that remains closely connected to lived experience. This kind of bottom-up depth also supports a model of knowledge that is inherently organic and evolving.

Whereas traditional notions of rigor emphasize consistency and control, bottom-up approaches introduce continuous integration and responsiveness to nuanced and diverse information. A primarily top-down approach to knowledge development, such as the pyramid depicted in Figure 1, implicitly posits that knowledge produced at the “top” is comprehensive and universally applicable. Yet, those granted platforms to produce and disseminate knowledge are often not fully representative of the broader population, resulting in inevitable gaps in perspective and understanding (Pastor et al., 2020). Integrating bottom-up approaches into knowledge development situates established knowledge within a more inclusive and responsive epistemological landscape that remains open to revision and offers a necessary counterbalance to these limitations. In this way, rigor becomes a dynamic process shaped by established theory and ongoing engagement with diverse lived realities.

Integrating the INAF Into Practice

We recognize that there is no blueprint for how people experience the world. Our goal was not to situate the INAF within a fixed conceptual structure, but to invite an expansive way of understanding. We believe this allows readers to engage with the ideas more openly and make connections that extend beyond any one perspective or context. For instance, we appreciate Sivathasan et al.’s (2026) attention to our use of polyvagal theory. However, our intention was not to offer a comprehensive application of polyvagal theory but to use it as a conceptual bridge to provide language for the potential physiological components of mental health that are not sufficiently accounted for in current psychological frameworks. By not fully prescribing meaning, we left space for interpretation and personal sense-making. In many ways, this is reflected in the responses themselves, as each contributor drew from their own expertise and prior knowledge when engaging with the framework. This reflects the point we hoped to convey—that there is an abundance of evidence across specializations (Sivathasan et al., 2026; Williams, 2026; Zamarripa, 2026), as well as vast diversity in lived experiences, and our contribution lies in bringing these patterns together in a way that allows new insights to emerge.

We also want to clarify that the INAF is not intended to be a discrete intervention or technique to be applied. Instead, it reflects a shift in how practitioners orient to understanding and meaning-making. As practitioners, our role is to adapt to the client’s needs rather than forcing the client to fit our frameworks. For example, Zamarripa (2026) emphasizes acompañamiento, an embodied and relational practice that moves beyond the more static and separate Western notion of holding space. In this way the INAF is intended to expand, not constrain, the ways we work with individuals. That is, we “walk-with” our clients in their experiences and emergent meaning-making in order to understand how to best support their needs.

Our hope is that practitioners integrate this framework and its insights into their existing therapeutic skills and modalities. For example, within cognitive-behavior therapy models, a practitioner might begin by intentionally attending to factors that shape a client’s sense of safety, such as power dynamics or prior experiences of marginalization, while also reflecting on their own assumptions to support greater relational attunement. Exploration of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors can then be expanded to include curiosity about nervous system awareness, embodied processing, and the adaptive functions underlying behavior.

Rationale for Introducing New Language

We also want to address the introduction of new language, including the term MINDS. As Williams (2026) noted, language plays a central role in shaping how we understand and engage with human experience. Our intention in introducing this term is to offer an alternative that more closely aligns with the values of agency and self-determination. We fully respect individuals and communities who choose to continue using the term neurodivergent. At the same time, we recognize that language evolves alongside shifts in understanding, and that existing terminology may not always fully capture the complexity and diversity of lived experience (American Psychological Association, 2020).

In many ways, the limitations of current language reflect broader gaps in our frameworks. Psychological constructs are often developed within specific disciplinary and cultural contexts, which can shape not only what is named, but what is left unnamed. Our aim was to begin bridging these gaps by integrating insights across disciplines and lived experience. In doing so, we also recognize that language itself is not fixed but continually shaped through collective use and meaning-making. Expanding how language is used is one way of supporting the field’s ongoing evolution.

The term MINDS reflects an attempt to explicitly capture the lived realities of individuals who have often been misunderstood, intersectionally marginalized, and silenced within dominant systems of knowledge. New terminology is not meant to create division, but to expand the range of perspectives available to psychologists and those they serve. It offers an additional lens that may support a transition toward more affirming ways of understanding diverse experiences, while preserving individual choice in how people name and define themselves. Whereas the term neurodivergent primarily centers neurological functioning, MINDS seeks to broaden this understanding by also acknowledging relational experience (misunderstanding), diverse and intersecting identities, and sociopolitical contexts (silenced).

We appreciate Sivathasan et al.’s (2026) observation regarding the potential tension between experience and identity within the term MINDS. This distinction is important, and we do not intend for the term to collapse either construct. MINDS is meant to describe patterns of lived experience that exist across relational, identity-based, and sociopolitical contexts, without prescribing how individuals define themselves. MINDS is offered as a flexible and descriptive framework rather than a categorical label. Some individuals may resonate with it as part of their identity, whereas others may relate to it as a way of naming certain experiences without adopting it as an identity. Consistent with the values of the INAF, we view this choice as inherently personal and grounded in self-determination. A similar distinction can be seen in the Nahuatl Indigenous conceptualization of autism as Nepantla (the in-between space; as discussed in Zamarripa, 2026). Here, the language highlights the lived experience rather than reducing the person to a fixed identity label. This framing preserves nuance and resists flattening diversity across individuals who may otherwise be grouped together based on external observation. We view the term MINDS as centering the practice of acompañamiento, by walking-with both identity and lived experience without requiring alignment between them. This orientation helps people express diverse experiences that may not fit within existing language or conceptual frameworks.

Embodied Engagement Across Clinical Practice and Scholarly Dialogue

When thinking about next steps, we encourage readers to not only engage with our work intellectually, but to embody it. At its heart, the INAF is a practice of intentionality and inner reflection that invites personal meaning-making and growth. In practice, this involves an ongoing and integrated self-awareness, as psychologists remain attuned to their internal responses while engaging with the experiences of those with whom they work. For example, Williams’ (2026) emphasis on therapist self-reflection and awareness of one’s own nervous system responses highlights how understanding is shaped by external knowledge, internal experience, and attunement. Our responses to new ideas are not purely intellectual but influenced by how we experience and make sense of those ideas in the moment. In this way, scholarly exchange becomes not only a space for evaluating ideas, but also for noticing how those ideas are felt and integrated across different ways of knowing. Williams (2026) offers a comprehensive starting point for self-reflection and examination, outlined in Table 1 of that paper.

The internal conflicts we carry influence how we interpret the world and can become reflected in our relationships and, more broadly, in the systems in which we participate (Jordan, 2010). In states of protection or defense, it can be difficult to access the deeper forms of understanding available to us. We may find ourselves relying on familiar interpretations, reacting rather than attuning. The INAF invites a different approach. By developing inner awareness, we create space to move from reactivity toward reflection. In working with internal patterns, we may find ourselves less easily activated, more present, and more open to understanding perspectives that differ from our own. This shift allows for greater attunement, collaboration, and shared meaning-making—both in clinical relationships and in scholarly dialogue. In this process, we are reminded that there is space for all of us in the conversation. We bring unique perspectives that are not obstacles to understanding, but essential contributions to it.

A driving tenet of our work is to hold our expertise with humility. Although we draw on research and professional experience, we remain open to the possibility that meaning may be organized differently than we expect. Ultimately, we see this dialogue as aligned with the very principles we are advocating: humility, curiosity, and openness to multiple ways of knowing. Rather than viewing difference as error, we are invited to pause and consider that meaning may be valid within a different organizational structure. This stance supports deeper attunement and reciprocal communication. By reinforcing a presumption of competence and commitment to autonomy and self-determination for those with whom we work, we honor individuals as active agents in defining and making sense of their own experiences. It is through this kind of engagement that the field can continue to grow. We therefore wholeheartedly appreciate the voices of those who have engaged with our work and welcome continued dialogue.