What is normal?

Remove all ads!

The use of the word 'normal' keeps showing up in various threads and I got to wondering if there is a clear consensus as to what 'normal' is.

I consider myself a very normal person, prehaps the only normal person I know but my life has been most unusual, certainly not 'normal'.

So guys and gals what is normal?

 

Whatever the majority do. That's what's normal. Anything too far removed from the majority can not be considered normal. That's how I see it, I don't see how it could be another way.

 

'Normal' is a crap word used by small-minded people to claim the voice of some vaunted 'majority', all of whom don't even know they are being spoken for. It is a word used by those whom are not capable of withstanding the rigors of an argument, so instead they appeal to some mystical voice of 'truth', the 'majority'. I don't know about you, but I have yet to meet Majority and shake it's hand.

I try my best never to use it. 'Natural' is another one as well...

[ April 07, 2007, 23:10: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

Well, last tangent first - 'Natural.' Everything is natural, Mr. I-Want-Organic-Food - including cattle dung, sharp shards of obsidian and arsenic; all of which occur NATURALLY in nature without human intervention, but none of which you'd want to find in your salad.

As for 'normal' - I think of it more as a synonym to 'average' - akin to the mathematical or statistical MEAN (or a standard deviation around the mean) of the range of results in a variable, such as human height, human lifespan, car mileage, people's response to a controversial issue, etc. It doesn't hold any weight with me in this mystical 'debating armor' connotation that LNT refers to. Normal is just normal (and somewhat boring in my view )

I guess the big thing is how the word is used by those who attempt to communicate with me; if it's used in the manner alluded to immediately above, I start losing interest in this person.

Really the word is rather moot and useless without a specific context, since differing people can have widely different views on what is 'normal' regarding the same issue.

 

Interesting. Taken out of context, the Majority, average are 'normal'. Well I for one don't consider myself average so I guess I'm not 'normal'. And I say this with pride. Yet normal is held up as what we should all be. Why? How many people want to be just like everyone else? Would the world be better off if there were no 'abnormal' people? Is a strong, charismatic leader 'abnormal' or 'normal'?

People come from different cultures does this make one culture 'normal' and another culture 'abnormal' and who decides?

Finally someone I can agree with. When told something is 'natural' therefore is good for me I usually reply "so is arsenic and belladonna" Think I'll add in the cattle dung one.

 

I don't consider 'normal' a thing everyone should strive to be. Everyone should be themselves, and do whatever makes them happy. Diversity is a good thing. 'Normal' is just that, normal.. neither a good or bad thing. Just average. The most remembered individuals in history have usually been 'abnormal', eh?

 

Well, for some things I want normal. Medical test results, for instance.

But since I tend to agree that "normal" means something along the lines of near the statistical mean - it's also kind of boring.

And by that definition I'm not especially normal, falling out of the "normal" range for all kinds of quantifiable characteristics. And I like me the way I am.

But not everyone agrees. (Not everyone likes me, either.) I remember, many years ago, a co-worker's distress at being told by the school her son attended that he was "gifted" - therefore, abnormal. She wailed, "No! I just want a normal child!"

I remember reading, I think in one of Lois McMaster Bujold's novels, a character commenting that other people label insane ("abnormal") what amounts to some poor guy handling his personal pressures in a way other people find annoying. She put it better, and if I could remember which book I'd find the quote.

So it depends on the context, like most definitions.

 

Remember too the downside of statistical mean normal. By that analysis half the people you meet are gonna be less than normal.

I believe the idea that normal used as a judgemental tool seems to indicate more of the user's state (and needs) than a true indicator of the normality of the addressee.

Seems like security and safety are strong issues within the demand for "normal". Anything not normal is strange, anything strange is threatening.

It's indicative that the word "alien" has come to almost exclusively to mean extraterrestrial in this day and age of earth as small planet where all are connected and there is little unknown tribal geographies left. back in the day "alien" used to mean a stranger.

Any stranger by definition is not the norm, and we tribespeople want people to conform to our tribes ways and mores for us to feel safe/secure.

Fair enough too, I reserve the right to feel safe in my personal space, and donot delegate the authority to anyone to invade that space in any way shape or form. Most "normal" peoples respect that position automatically, crass and bad behaviour occasionally impinges, but crass and bad, are reasonably normal. It is the randomness of the "mad busstop boxer" the perceiveably not-the-norm, and their lack of social constraints that threatens my secure personal space.

They make me feel unsafe because they don't necessarily understand the rules, or dont/can't be bothered with them even if they understand them. and therefore it is my need for security and safety that brings a "normality radar" to the meeting.

In their own company they are totally normal, and when they're not around me and my normality radar, they're probably out in the bush somewhere cutting down the tree that nobody hears fall.

 

I'm having trouble falling asleep, so I've been chewing on this for a bit...

Here is my question, "Normal when?"

I think it is important to see that an absolute normality only exists in a static unchanging world. In our world, the world of growth and change, of discovery and new ideas,---of time---a certain normalcy is something that only existed in the past at a specific time. And according to general relativity, all observers have their own individual clock. In other words, a certain 'normal' only exists to one person reflecting upon a specific time of their own past. And that invalidates the definition of 'normal'.

'Normal' doesn't exist.

I wish I could remember who made the quote (he was an investment guru), but it went something like this, "The only thing I can guarantee about the future is that it is going to be radically different than the past."

[ April 08, 2007, 08:08: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

That reminds me of the theories of Thomas Szasz, i.e. that there is no such thing as insanity only behavior so deviant that it's easier to label it as mental illness than to try to understand it.

As for normal, I agree with Late-Night-Thinker in that it doesn't exist. Is just wishful thinking for people who find comfort in the idea that there is a large group of people who's ideas are considered the norm and therefor right. That way they can adjust themselves in order to belong to that group and gain acceptance.

 

"Normal" depends on the person using the word. The concept of normality changes from person to person depending on experience, upbringing, history, etc.

 

No such thing as normal...its a concept foisted on people to railroad their conduct along certain lines as dictated by society...not all of which is bad.

For instance, it is normal in rural and remote parts of India for women to be punished through beating, starvation and burning if they do not bring sufficient dowry with them to the husband's family. Normal?? BAH!

 

Very shortly: Normal is what people expect.

 

Normal is a figment of our imaginations. We all think we are normal when none of us our.

 

Well, it really depends on the context, especially on if normal is good or bad. As far as a definition goes, I think average and statistical mean are pretty good, though sometimes the mode? (most common number) may be more important for normal than mean. Also consider that sometimes normal can be a range. Take for example hair color: there is no single haircolor that everyone would consider 'normal'. There may be a most common haircolor, but it would probably be a close call. On the other hand, I think we can all say that bright green hair with pink stripes is not normal. Even though there is no single norm, there is a set of norms and anything out of that set is 'abnormal', 'unusual' and even 'deviant' (in that it deviates from the norm).

Therefore, since I'm pretty sure the majority of humanity is heterosexual (for example of probably the most common usage on these boards), homosexuality can be considered abnormal and unusual. Whether that is good or bad is another topic.

 

Yes, and please keep it another topic. We don't need to make this one specifically one theme. Enough is enough.

I was hoping for a more general idea of what people consider 'normal'. And I like the answers I have gotten so far.

 

Well, Late, by your own explanation, 'normal' does exist, but only in a speculative sense. This I tend to agree with; it's only a little less tenuous than the term 'now'; as in (to quote George Carlin):

But this does relate back to 'normal' - the modal definition (good one, NOG) tends to change over time, even given a static grouping of people. "America in the 80's normal" turned out to be quite different than "America in the 50's normal".

But then, all this boils down to an imprecise, imperfect system of communication created (and constantly re-created) by a mortal and fallible species to 'pin down' a complex concept.

And it seems the more complex the concept, the more subjective any definition becomes, and more dependent upon the definer. Take a hundred people from the same small community (village, tribe, urban street, etc.) and ask each "What is love?" and I doubt you'd get two answers that agree completely.

Essentially, I'm just elaborating on the Magister's postulate that the use of the term says more about the speaker than the object of the statement, and to abuse a cliche: "Normal is in the eye of the beholder."

 

My friends frequently use the word "abnormal" when speaking about me. I guess being different from majority means "abnormality", being boring means "normality".

 

Actually, that brings up an interesting point. Most people think of "abnormal" as bad, meaning "normal" would be good. But if normal is boring, how is it good to be boring? I know we can split hairs over definitions, but generally speaking "normal" is a word with positive connotations, while "abnormal" is not.

 

I'm with revmaf on this one. I want my medical tests to come back 'normal' but I like stepping away from norm which means I like being abnormal. However what is or is not 'normal' does change. It changes according to culture, it also changes over the years. I doubt that we can come up with a definitive definition of normal other than to maybe say that it is normal for people to want food, housing, clothing and love/friendship.

Without 'abnormal' people we wouldn't have great leaders, artists or scientists. We also wouldn't have great criminals.