The Brain Works Like a Social Network — and Why Neurodiversity Changes Who Gets the Mic
- Jan 23
- 13 min read
A story about alliances, sabotage, and who takes over when things fall apart
The brain does not run on harmony.
It runs on negotiation.
Prefer to listen?
An audio version of this piece is available below.
Five major brain networks share the same space. They have different goals, different temperaments, different thresholds. When things go well, they cooperate. When they don’t, they compete. They interrupt. They overrule. They withdraw.
Neurodivergence does not introduce chaos.
It changes the balance of power.
So instead of thinking about the brain as a machine, it helps to think of it as an organization. One with multiple departments, overlapping responsibilities, and very different ideas about what matters most.
Let's break it down.
From Pieces to Overlays
Brain networks can be clustered.
They cannot be separated into clean, non-overlapping pieces.
Not a Puzzle—A Palimpsest
Not because the brain is messy—but because networks do not claim territory.
They share it.
What looks like a puzzle from the outside behaves more like an overlay from within:
multiple systems occupying the same space, taking turns shaping perception, focus, and response.
This is why contemporary neuroscience has moved away from the language of “eloquent” versus “non-eloquent” regions.
Function is not owned by a single area.
It emerges through coordination.
Why “Eloquent” vs. “Non-Eloquent” Is a Category Error
Classical neurology followed a simple logic:
If a change produces an immediate, visible effect, it must be important.
If it doesn’t, it probably isn’t.
Regions that clearly affected speech, movement, or vision were considered central.
Areas whose disruption did not lead to an obvious breakdown were treated as secondary—sometimes even irrelevant.
The problem is not caution.
The problem is visibility.
Many brain regions do not produce dramatic, instant effects when something goes wrong. Yet they function as hubs within large-scale networks. They coordinate timing, filtering, handoffs, and regulation. When they are compromised, the system keeps running—just less smoothly.
The impact shows up later and sideways:
as subtle cognitive shifts
as emotional dysregulation
as executive friction
as reduced functional independence
Nothing “breaks.”
Things simply stop working together.
This is how so-called invisible impairments emerge—not because nothing happened, but because what happened disrupted coordination rather than output.
Brain Networks Are Distributed, Overlapping, and Individual
Modern connectomics has made three things unmistakably clear:
First, networks are composed of many parcels—spread across frontal, parietal, temporal, and subcortical regions. They are not confined to a single location.
Second, classically “eloquent” areas often function as hubs.
But those hubs are not fixed. In some people, they appear elsewhere.
Third, individual variation is the rule, not the exception.
Which is why personalized network mapping has become essential.
There is no universal brain map that applies equally to everyone.
"Brain networks do not occupy isolated regions.
They are distributed, overlapping systems whose influence depends on connectivity, timing, and individual wiring."
The Cast (and their personalities)
1. The Salience Network (SN)
Role: Gatekeeper. Editor. Emergency alarm.
Personality: Highly reactive. Decides what matters now.
Likes: urgency, novelty, emotional charge
Dislikes: ambiguity without payoff
Power move: interrupts everyone else
When regulated, it’s a brilliant coordinator.
When dysregulated, it becomes a micromanager who flags everything as critical.
SN decides who gets the mic.
*Following schematic illustrations for conceptual clarity.
2. The Default Mode Network (DMN)
Role: Meaning-maker. Archivist. Storyteller.
Personality: Reflective, associative, inward-facing.
Likes: depth, memory, identity, imagination
Dislikes: being rushed, being silenced
Power move: keeps running in the background
When supported, DMN generates insight and coherence.
When overstimulated, it loops. It narrates. It ruminates.
DMN remembers things everyone else wants to forget.
3. The Central Executive Network (CEN)
Role: Project manager. Decision-maker.
Personality: Task-oriented, linear, resource-aware.
Likes: clarity, deadlines, single-thread focus
Dislikes: emotional noise, shifting priorities
Power move: tries to impose order
When resourced, CEN turns ideas into action.
When overwhelmed, it goes offline. Quietly. Without warning.
CEN works best when no one is yelling.
4. The Dorsal Attention Network (DAN)
Role: Spotlight operator.
Personality: Selective, disciplined, externally focused.
Likes: stable targets
Dislikes: constant switching
Power move: narrows the field
When aligned, it sustains focus.
When hijacked by Salience, it fractures.
DAN can only hold one spotlight at a time.
5. Sensorimotor Networks
Role: Front desk. Input–output. Reality check.
Personality: Literal, fast, non-verbal.
Likes: rhythm, predictability, embodied cues
Dislikes: overload, mismatch
Power move: shuts the system down when ignored
When listened to, they regulate early.
When overridden, they escalate through fatigue, pain, or shutdown.
The body files complaints long before the brain admits there’s a problem.
Emotional Regulation: What Happens When the System Listens—or Doesn’t
When sensorimotor systems are listened to, they regulate early.
They adjust posture, pace, breath, distance, rhythm.
When they are overridden, they escalate.Through fatigue. Through pain. Through shutdown.
The body files complaints long before the brain admits there’s a problem.
This is where emotional regulation actually begins—not in thought, but in signal reception.
How the Networks Cooperate When Regulation Is Working
In a well-functioning system, no single network is in charge.
Authority moves. Control is contextual.
Salience Network acts as the switchIt flags what matters—then steps back.
Default Mode Network holds the inner worldMeaning, memory, self-reference stay online without taking over.
Central Executive Network coordinates and decidesResources are allocated. Actions are sequenced.
Dorsal Attention Network holds the spotlightAttention stays where it’s needed—no more, no less.
Sensorimotor systems provide input and groundingThe body regulates quietly in the background.
And emotional regulation is not a layer.
It is an outcome.
What Emotional Regulation Actually Is
Emotional regulation does not belong to a single system.
It emerges from how well these systems cooperate in real time.
Regulation happens when:
Salience flags relevance without flooding the system
DMN assigns meaning without looping
CEN has enough capacity to modulate response
Attention can stay or shift intentionally
The body’s signals are registered early, not ignored
When this coordination holds, emotions move through the system.
They inform. They guide. They pass.
What Happens When Coordination Breaks
When networks stop cooperating:
Salience amplifies instead of switching
DMN narrates instead of contextualizing
CEN is overwhelmed and withdraws
Attention fragments
The body escalates to force a stop
The result is not “too much emotion.”
It is failed regulation.
A Necessary Clarification
When we use layer-like language—
Salience → the switch
DMN → the inner world
CEN → coordination and control
DAN → the spotlight
Sensorimotor systems → input and grounding
Emotional–limbic systems → amplification, not command
— we are naming a model, not a map.
There is no isolated emotional control center.
There is only coordination—or the lack of it.
Why This Matters for Neurodivergence
In neurodivergent systems, emotional intensity is often misread as a problem of feeling.
It is more accurately a problem of handoff.
Emotions escalate when:
signals arrive faster than coordination allows
meaning is processed in parallel
executive modulation is delayed
bodily feedback is ignored until it forces intervention
Regulation, then, is not about suppression.
It is about restoring cooperation.
Not calm.Not control.
Coordination.
What Actually Happens in Neurodivergence
The brain operates through networks
Brain functions do not arise from isolated regions.
They emerge from distributed networks that:
span both hemispheres
communicate continuously with one another
shift their coupling strength depending on context and task
Thinking, feeling, focusing, regulating, deciding—none of these belong to a single “place” in the brain. They are the result of coordination.
What it primarily affect
Neurodivergent profiles are not defined by where something is located in the brain, but by how networks work together.
They mainly involve differences in:
Connectivity
How efficiently networks communicate, hand off control, and synchronize
Regulation
Timing, intensity, filtering, and the ability to switch states
Neurotransmitter dynamics
For example dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin—how signals are amplified, sustained, or dampened
The core shift in perspective
Neurodivergence is not a question of which brain hemisphere is involved.
It is a question of:
how networks are regulated
how they are coupled
how much load they carry—and for how long
In other words:
It is not about structure.
It is about coordination.
Neurodivergence does not add new characters.
It changes who gets power and how often they interrupt.
Common Neurodivergent Profiles Through This Network Lens
ADHD
Salience Network is overenthusiastic, constantly flagging novelty and urgency
Central Executive Network (CEN) struggles to hold the floor long enough to sequence action
Attention (DAN) switches before decisions can fully settle
The system is fast, responsive, idea-rich—but unstable.
Result: high creativity, rapid insight, fragile execution.
Autism
Sensorimotor and perceptual networks operate at high resolution
Default Mode Network (DMN) runs deep, literal, principled, internally coherent
Salience Network reacts strongly to sensory overload or moral incongruence
The system favors accuracy, consistency, and meaning over speed.
Result: precision, integrity, depth—at a high processing cost.
AuDHD
Salience Network flags too much as important
Default Mode Network (DMN) remains persistently active, processing meaning in parallel
Central Executive Network (CEN) struggles to establish and maintain control
Dorsal Attention Network (DAN) is pulled between novelty-driven shifts and depth-focused engagement
Sensorimotor systems reach overload thresholds early
The system is highly generative, deeply integrative, and chronically overstimulated.
Result: high creativity, deep associative insight, rapid pattern integration—paired with fragile execution, emotional volatility under load, and a heightened risk of overwhelm or shutdown.
Dyslexia
Default Mode Network (DMN) excels at big-picture meaning, pattern recognition, and narrative integration
Central Executive Network (CEN) struggles with linear symbol decoding under time pressure
Salience Network may mislabel speed-based tasks as failure signals
The system prioritizes meaning and pattern over linear surface processing.
Result: strong conceptual thinking, rich associative insight, slower surface processing, high compensatory effort.
Dyscalculia:
Executive sequencing within CEN is unstable when dealing with abstract quantities
DMN prioritizes meaning, relationships, and context over metric representation
Salience Network amplifies stress and self-monitoring around numerical tasks
The system reasons relationally but resists abstract numerical sequencing.
Result: relational and strategic insight, conceptual intelligence, friction with abstract numerical systems.
Dyspraxia
Sensorimotor networks require more conscious control for movement and sequencing
CEN is over-engaged in tasks that are automatic for others
Energy and motor planning systems fatigue early
The system expends conscious effort on tasks others automate.
Result: creative problem-solving, adaptive strategies, high invisible effort, uneven motor fluency.
Giftedness
DMN operates at high speed and abstraction, generating rapid insight
CEN processes complex systems effortlessly—until bored, constrained, or under-challenged
Salience Network reacts strongly to intellectual underload
The system operates at high abstraction and intensity, with uneven regulation under constraint.
Result: accelerated learning, asynchronous development, high potential paired with burnout risk through overextension.
Highly Sensitive Person (HSP)
Sensorimotor and emotional processing networks are highly permeable
Salience Network flags subtle environmental, emotional, and relational cues
DMN integrates emotional meaning deeply and persistently
The system registers subtle input early and processes it deeply.
Result: empathy, foresight, ethical attunement—paired with a high risk of overstimulation.
Tourette-Related Profiles
In Tourette-related neurodivergence:
Motor and inhibitory control networks fluctuate in predictability
Salience Network may amplify premonitory urges
CEN expends sustained energy suppressing automatic output
The system alternates between cognitive clarity and involuntary output.
Result: cognitive clarity and intelligence coexisting with involuntary expression and fatigue.
OCD-Related Profiles
In OCD-related profiles:
Salience Network over-flags threat, uncertainty, and responsibility
DMN loops on consequence, prevention, and moral accountability
CEN becomes rigid, rule-bound, and control-oriented
The system prioritizes certainty and error prevention over flexibility.
Result: precision, reliability, and thoroughness under strain—at the cost of flexibility and rest.
Epilepsy-Related Cognitive Variation
In epilepsy-related variation:
Network stability fluctuates over time
Sensorimotor and salience systems may hyperreact to internal cues
CEN compensates through heightened monitoring and control
The system operates with fluctuating stability and heightened self-monitoring.
Result: variable performance, strong self-regulation skills, hidden cognitive labor.
PTSD-Related Profiles
In PTSD-related neurodivergence:
Salience Network remains chronically on guard
DMN holds fragmented, intrusive, or emotionally charged memory traces
CEN prioritizes safety and predictability over exploration
The system is optimized for threat detection rather than exploration.
Result: vigilance, resilience, rapid threat detection—with reduced cognitive freedom.
Bipolarity-Related Cognitive Variation
In bipolar-related variation:
Network dominance shifts across states
DMN and Salience may become highly expansive during activation
CEN oscillates between under- and over-control
The system shifts between expansive integration and depleted control.
The system balances multiple dominant patterns at once.
Result: periods of exceptional creativity and insight, alternating with depletion and instability.
Mixed Profiles
Most people are not single-network stories.
In mixed profiles:
multiple dominance patterns coexist
compensatory strategies stack
masking becomes structural rather than situational
Result: extraordinary adaptability—paired with a high risk of misfit, misinterpretation, and burnout.
The Unifying Pattern
Across profiles, the issue is never a “broken” network.
It is a question of:
timing
hierarchy
handoff
load
Neurodivergence is not dysfunction.
It is a different governance model.
And governance—not correction—is where sustainable functioning begins.
Dysregulation: When Networks Start Backstabbing
Dysregulation is not chaos.
It is what happens when cooperation collapses.
Under stress, the balance of power shifts. Networks stop negotiating and start protecting their own interests. What once felt like coordination turns into internal politics.
Under sustained pressure:
The Salience Network becomes authoritarian
It stops prioritizing and starts policing. Everything feels urgent. Everything demands attention. Subtlety disappears. The threshold for relevance drops to zero.
The Default Mode Network turns into an investigative journalist
It searches for meaning, causes, and responsibility. It revisits old evidence, reconstructs narratives, and refuses to let go of unresolved questions.
The Central Executive Network is scapegoated
It is expected to restore order without resources. When it fails, it withdraws. Quietly. Executive function does not collapse—it goes off duty.
Sensorimotor systems pull the fire alarm
When cognitive regulation fails, the body intervenes. Fatigue, pain, nausea, shutdown, or dissociation are not secondary symptoms. They are escalation protocols.
What this produces
Emotional flooding
Affect exceeds the system’s capacity to regulate in real time.
Decision paralysis
Too many signals, no clear hierarchy, no stable handoff.
Shutdown after overperformance
Output was achieved by overdrawing internal resources. The system now demands repayment.
This is a breakdown in governance.
The brain did not stop working.
It stopped agreeing on who was in charge.
Dysregulation is not a personal flaw.
It is a systemic response to sustained overload—one that resolves only when cooperation is restored, not when pressure is increased.
How This Maps to SNIP (Directly—and Practically)
5 Neurocognitive Areas are the human-readable operating manual for what network neuroscience describes abstractly.
Not a translation down in complexity—a translation into use.
A Diagnostic-Neutral Tool for Neuroinclusion (That Actually Works)
Most inclusion efforts fail for one reason: they depend on labels.
This tool works differently. It focuses on how people process, regulate, and collaborate—independent of diagnosis, identity, or disclosure.
By translating neurocognitive variation into observable needs and workable team agreements, it reduces misinterpretation, prevents overload spirals, and makes performance more sustainable for everyone.
The alignment is straightforward:
Sensory & Emotional Processing→ Sensorimotor networks + limbic modulation(Where overload begins, and where early regulation is possible)
Cognitive & Temporal Regulation→ Central Executive Network (CEN) + Dorsal Attention Network (DAN)(How focus is sustained, switched, or lost)
Social & Communication Styles→ Interaction between Default Mode Network (DMN) and Salience Network(How meaning, intent, and relevance are inferred—or misread)
Motor & Energy Rhythms→ Sensorimotor systems + arousal regulation(Why output and recovery follow uneven cycles)
Executive Function & Systems Thinking→ CEN coordinating across all networks(Governance, not willpower)
SNIP does not contradict network neuroscience.
It renders it actionable.
Bringing the Networks Back Together
What Actually Helps
Regulation is about restoring turn-taking.
When networks stop competing for airtime, function returns.
In practice, this means:
1. Lower Salience Reactivity
Reduce false alarms.
externalize priorities instead of holding them mentally
reduce novelty during high-load phases
design environments where “everything” cannot signal urgency
Salience should flag relevance, not dominate the room.
2. Give the Central Executive Network Protected Time
Let decisions land.
work in single-thread blocks
limit interruptions during planning or sequencing
separate decision-making from execution
CEN does not fail because it is weak.
It fails because it is constantly interrupted.
3. Allow DMN Depth—Without Letting It Run the Meeting
Contain meaning-making.
schedule reflection instead of letting it bleed into everything
write thoughts down to prevent looping
distinguish insight time from action time
DMN is a strategist, not an operations lead.
4. Listen to the Body Before It Escalates
Regulation happens early—or violently.
treat sensory discomfort as information, not inconvenience
build in recovery before exhaustion
notice patterns of fatigue, tension, shutdown
When the body intervenes, cognitive negotiation has already failed.
What This Changes Long-Term
This is not optimization.
This is diplomacy.
A functional system is not quiet.
It is well-governed.
Nothing is wrong with your brain.
It is simply negotiating more variables than most.
Neurodivergence is not chaos.
It is a complex organization that requires a different governance model.
When networks stop competing for control, clarity follows—not because things slow down,
but because the right voices speak at the right time.
This article is intended for educational and explanatory purposes and does not constitute medical or clinical advice.
Applying this in real organizations is where it matters.
I work with leaders, teams, and organizations to translate neurocognitive variation into practical structures—reducing friction, preventing burnout, and improving performance without forcing conformity.
This article goes deep. The book goes wide.
Gentle Leading and Neurodivergence, Routledge 2025
It focuses on practical neuroinclusive leadership and workplace design—useful for organizations, leaders, coaches, mentors, and educators working with diverse minds.
References
This article draws on contemporary network neuroscience, connectomics, and emotion regulation research, including work by Menon, Sporns, Raichle, Pessoa, Barrett, and others. Full references available upon request.
Core Network Neuroscience & Connectomics
These support:
distributed networks
overlap vs localization
hubs, coordination, handoff
rejection of single-region explanations
Bullmore, E., & Sporns, O. (2009).
Complex brain networks: Graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(3), 186–198.
Sporns, O. (2011).
Networks of the brain. MIT Press.
Sporns, O. (2014).
Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 17(5), 652–660.
Bassett, D. S., & Sporns, O. (2017).
Network neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 20(3), 353–364.
Salience, DMN, CEN, DAN (Your “Cast”)
These directly support your five-network framing and their interaction.
Menon, V. (2011).
Large-scale brain networks and psychopathology: A unifying triple network model. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 483–506.
Menon, V., & Uddin, L. Q. (2010).
Saliency, switching, attention and control: A network model of insula function. Brain Structure and Function, 214(5–6), 655–667.
Raichle, M. E. (2015).
The brain’s default mode network. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 38, 433–447.
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002).
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201–215.
Emotional Regulation as an Outcome (Not a “Center”)
These directly support your claim that emotional regulation is emergent, network-based, and embodied.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005).
The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249.
Gross, J. J. (2015).
Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26
Pessoa, L. (2017).
A network model of the emotional brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(5), 357–371.
Barrett, L. F. (2017).
How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sensorimotor Systems, Interoception & the Body Escalating
These support:
early regulation via the body
escalation through fatigue/shutdown
interoceptive signaling
Craig, A. D. (2009).
How do you feel—now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70.
Khalsa, S. S., et al. (2018).
Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 501–513.
Porges, S. W. (2011).The polyvagal theory. W. W. Norton & Company.
Neurodivergence, ADHD, Autism, AuDHD (Network-Based)
These support:
instability of handoff
salience dysregulation
executive load
sensory overload
parallel processing
Castellanos, F. X., & Proal, E. (2012).
Large-scale brain systems in ADHD. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 17–26
Uddin, L. Q., et al. (2013).
Salience network-based classification and prediction of symptom severity in children with autism. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(8), 869–879.
Nomi, J. S., & Uddin, L. Q. (2015).
Developmental changes in large-scale network connectivity in autism. NeuroImage: Clinical, 7, 732–741.
Kernbach, J. M., et al. (2018).
Distinct resting-state connectivity patterns of attention networks in ADHD. Human Brain Mapping, 39(9), 3811–3825.
Dysregulation, Burnout, Shutdown, Load
These support:
overload
withdrawal of executive systems
burnout as systemic failure
McEwen, B. S. (2007).
Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873–904.
Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009).
Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422.
Governance / Systems Framing
These legitimize your organization / governance framing without turning it fluffy.
Friston, K. (2010).
The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.
Comments