When a therapist and client have different neurotypes, the therapist may misread the client's behaviour without realising it. Most tools that help therapists notice their biases ask them to identify with a group and examine their privilege — but with neurotype, the therapist may not know their own neurocognitive profile, and differences sit on spectra rather than in categories. Dyadic neuroprofile mapping (DNM) is a structured exercise built on the dimensional model of neurocognitive differences by Grace Myhill and Dania Jekel (2015) and carried into IFS practice by Kim Bolling (2021). DNM is an attempt to bring this model to the therapeutic dyad, where neurocognitive difference is compounded by clinical power: not a finished instrument, but an invitation to a conversation about how it could work. The therapist places themselves and their client on five shared dimensions: communication style, focus of attention, perspective-taking, sensory needs, and variety/sameness preference. A third step asks the therapist to mark which end of each dimension their training treats as the default — making visible whose way of being counts as "normal" in the room. The therapist maps their own neurocognitive position in full; the client position surfaces only as questions — what to notice, what to ask, where to stay open rather than certain. This record contains the protocol (PDF), a one-page mapping sheet, and a quick start guide. A companion paper — From deficit to configuration — sets out the theoretical argument and research questions in full. Version 0.2 (26 September 2026) adds an order of reading before behaviour is read as defence, a note on what stays in the clinical record, a harm entry on "configuration" used as an excuse, and questions on channel and on the therapist's warmth, drawing on Niederlohmann (2026). It also aligns the English and Russian texts and clarifies the statement on AI use. Version 0.1 remains available.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna Alasheeva (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: