What exactly is "normal" and why?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

What do people in society view as "normal" and why? I mean we have the same jobs (some of us), same hobbies, certain religions (some of us), same body functions such as eating and breathing, and other characteristics. Not to mention the environment, diseases that spread, human conflicts, and death. Is this the way life is meant to be for ever? Why do some people just come to the conclusion that they can live life the way they do and consider it "normal"? Also, isn't there more than having the same jobs that people have had in the past or present (or jobs similar to that in these times)? I just want to hear from everyone else before I might say something (because I can't think of anything right now unless someone brings up a good point).

[devonin]

The only remotely reasonable definition of "normal" as it applies to humans is "The particular behavior/habit/belief which is held by the majority of the people" but as a definition it is one that I consider pretty useless and that "normal" is a pretty idiotic term to apply to people at all.

[Relambrien]

The only remotely reasonable definition of "normal" as it applies to humans is "The particular behavior/habit/belief which is held by the majority of the people" but as a definition it is one that I consider pretty useless and that "normal" is a pretty idiotic term to apply to people at all.

Devonin wins the thread. "Normal" can pretty much -only- be defined as the standard, and the standard is set by the majority.

Though all-too-often, the majority changes without realizing it, and the old definition of "normal" is retained until society realizes that the standard has changed, necessitating a change in the definition of "normal." Take for instance, the old "world is flat" belief. This was the normal, the standard. It took years for the majority to change to the "world is round" belief, and now that is considered normal.

"Normal" is a very volatile (as in unstable) term that only applies to the majority at a certain point in time.

[devonin]

"Normal" is a very volatile (as in unstable) term that only applies to the majority at a certain point in time. And it is the inherent instability and volatility of the term that makes me say that any attempt to use it is necessarily misguided.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Take for instance, the old "world is flat" belief. This was the normal, the standard. It took years for the majority to change to the "world is round" belief, and now that is considered normal.

Well, if you guys could change the definition of normal, would you say that in order for something to be "normal" that it should be 100% true?

[Relambrien]

Ninja'ed by MotF

And it is the inherent instability and volatility of the term that makes me say that any attempt to use it is necessarily misguided.

Perhaps, yes. However, if everyone involved in a conversation understands the meaning of "normal" in the specific context and time in which the speaker means it, then I see no problem with it.

Unfortunately, such a situation is rare at best. So I agree that in the overwhelming majority of situations, it's better to avoid using the term. However, as there always are, there are exceptions, in which the word is understood by all involved exactly how the speaker means for it to be.

Still, you as a speaker don't know how your listeners will interpret your words, making such a situation almost impossible to achieve.


Well, if you guys could change the definition of normal, would you say that in order for something to be "normal" that it should be 100% true?


To be considered "normal," I think something should be a standard that will never change, something that can always be compared against. Thus, it is impossible for anything to be considered "normal," as change is inevitable in virtually all situations. Except death and taxes. Both of those, I consider normal (See what I did there?).

[Hollus]

But when you're talking about the majority and "normal" people in society, being normal is abnormal. Even by conformist standards, people have so many quirks and individual habits. If you look at it a different way, some one following every "normal" aspect of society is abnormal, because almost nobody does that. When you get the average of such a varied population, barely anyone falls exactly in the middle, like an IQ test. The majority of people falls sightly off of either side of 100 points. Only a small fraction of people score the average. Those people, even though their getting the "normalest" score, they're abnormal. Being a normal person, actually means you're special. :)

[Kilroy_x]

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~lloyd/tildeMML/Continuous/PICS/N01.gif

Where that line is. Because, that's the definition. Well, I guess there's the median and modal averages as well, as people have already stated in some form. As has already been pointed out, any attempt to treat this as a basis for determining things such as right or wrong is generally quite silly.

[Chrissi]

A normal is a line that is perpendicular to a surface.

That's about it.

No, but really, I'd say normal is the average of human experience. If you had a person who was "average", they'd be "normal". I don't know if such a person exists.

Edit: Crap, I was ninja'd by about 19 hours. How did I miss that?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

If you had a person who was "average", they'd be "normal". I don't know if such a person exists.

How can an average person be normal? Some would say that an average person is abnormal if they stick with their own views as normal. I would say that ultimately the definition of normal is how a person, group of people, or the entire society define something that they believe generally occurs, but since If you mentioned percentage of what is considered "normal", things could be kind of messy because no one would be able to determine where the line is drawn between people who are normal and abnormal. For example, people would argue that why do people have to be 99% a certain way in order to be considered normal while 1% is abnormal for what they do? Instead, people could argue that 98% of people act a certain way while 2% are abnormal. This is why I would say that normal would probably be best left at something that is 100% or atleast the percentage is always true (since as outlined by others, something is bound to change so it's highly unlikely), but the definition of what is "normal" makes no sense because if everyone believed the same thing is 100% true, (for example, like if everyone in the world believed that 1+1=2 [hypothetically because some people can't add]) the word itself implies that something is abnormal which would not exist. I personally don't like the word "normal" because it's a negative steriotype to people who aren't considered "normal" by a person, group of people, or the entire society. To me, the consideration of what is "normal" is usually a way to simply exclude people from society.

Edit: When I said that some people can't add, this doesn't imply that I view people who can add as normal where the people who can't add as abnormal. This simply means that the people who can't add are wrong, but being wrong isn't always viewed as being abnormal.

[dbltch]

Everyone made this all to technical. The way I comprehended the question was completely different.

What is normal? Normal is garbage, its a way of putting people down. In America if you arent normal you are shunned from society to be with the other "weird" people. Normal is a belief just like Popularity is a belief, popularity exists because popular people think they are popular its just a way to compare and compete, that is the nature of humans. If people were able to disregard normality and get past the different ways people live their lives and are able to look at ideas from more than one side than perhaps we will all be living in a better world

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that "normal" is just garbage? I would imagine that proponents of banning gay marriage wouldn't believe that "normal" is garbage.

[devonin]

Why, unless you want to be specious and claim that absolutely everything anyone disagrees with is "abnormal" to them.

[moches]

I don't think there is really a "normal". Everyone is a person that is completely unique. So to call one person "normal" would be like saying,"Here are the basics, you must conform to these basics." Everyone can do what they want to do without having to be called "weird". So really, the concept of "normal" is nothing more than a bias.

Did anybody understand half of what I just said?

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Well I understand you, but "normal" isn't just society. "Normal" can also be how a person defines him/herself. Unfortunatly, to some people, the "normal" standards for society as a whole would govern them instead of actually thinking for themselves.

[devonin]

How is making the free decision "I am going to make an effort to conform to what I percieve as preexisting standards" not thinking for yourself?

[chunky_cheese]

People are "normally" unique.

[devonin]

People have all manner of beliefs, opinions and tendencies in common. How is it somehow offensive to conclude that a belief held by a vast majority of people is "normal" and that people who do not hold to the same belief differ from the "norm"?

People are using the word "normal" they are not explicitly attaching a value judgement that "normal" is the same as "good" and that "abnormal" is the same as "bad" so why are people reacting like that is the explicit presupposition?

[Coca Cola]

People are afraid of abnormal, so they make everything "normal". Or at least they try to.

[Lone--Wanderer]

The concept of what if normal and what is not depends entirely upon the person in question; in my mind, antisocial, intelligent, secluded people who like to play video games of some sort are "normal".

:D

Notice also that "normal" tends to coincide with how the person in question acts.

[devonin]

Except that it is more of a linguistic thing than a societal thing to argue that what constitutes "normal" (as per sociological norms, behavioural norms etc) is merely that quality which is in the majority of a given sample group.

What is "normal" for "users of FFR" is not the same as "normal" for "members of a quliting bee" It all depends on what sample you are trying to gauge normalcy for.

And once again, it is a quantitative term not a qualitative one, there are no value judgements inherent to the term, even if many people seem to want to attach some.

[Lone--Wanderer]

Yeah...

Hmm.

I guess there is no universal "normal" then...

[devonin]

Well, sure there is. "normal" is the quality which is in the majority, and your sample size in that case is "everybody"

It's nigh impossible to conclude what -kinds- of things are normal on that scale, but there are some things common to virtually everyone in the world: A desire to not die, a belief that murder for no reason is wrong, A desire to forge meaningful relationships with other humans.

[-paexaea-]

To me, normality is glorious ignorance. If you're normal, you don't know about some things. People who have some kind of child scarring in their past, whatever the reason may be, will be able to bounce their problems off or disect the problem and solve it. Normal people may go crazy off the slightest thing.

You know most serial killers? Talk to their families. They would probably say he was very normal. But people who have been surrounded by that kind of thing would be able to ignore it.

[Nightfirecat]

To me-- being normal means having goals and hopes but having to work hard to achieve them. Being exceptional is being able to work very little but still achieve the same amount. Normal is the definition of people who have to live with being mediocre at everything that they don't work very hard at. Normal is the definition of people who want something, but know that it will take years to get it and are willing to live an average life to get it. Normal is NOt the people who are actually looking at this thread. We are the minority, and we are EXCEPTIONAL! Ok, disregard the last sentence, and that'll be all I have to say in this thread :-)

[devonin]

You're using normal as a mid-range to stupid and intelligent, instead of an alternate to 'abnormal' which is the sense being duscissed.

[MI4 REAL]

"Normal" is just a word that means "typical"

[who_cares973]

there is no "normal". normal is what you make of it


to each their own i say

[Bamboozler]

What do people in society view as "normal" and why? I mean we have the same jobs (some of us), same hobbies, certain religions (some of us), same body functions such as eating and breathing, and other characteristics. Not to mention the environment, diseases that spread, human conflicts, and death. Is this the way life is meant to be for ever? Why do some people just come to the conclusion that they can live life the way they do and consider it "normal"? Also, isn't there more than having the same jobs that people have had in the past or present (or jobs similar to that in these times)? I just want to hear from everyone else before I might say something (because I can't think of anything right now unless someone brings up a good point).

This is w/o reading other posts, simply to put my thoughts on the subject into space. I'm aware it's a wall of text, I know, but I hope it gives a decent answer to your question.

There are a lot, a LOT of factors which contribute to what makes something the "norm" in a society, and there's a lot of research been done on the subject, but I'll spare the commentary and get to some of the main points.

Firstly, when we were "animals", if you believe the evolutionary theories, the "norm" was what allowed us to survive. If we did not follow the norm of collecting food for our tribes and what not, we would die off. Now, as time progressed, and our brains got larger, we began to have more free time on our hands, and many different problems began to face us. For example, what if Timmy just killed Bob, our primary food gatherer? We couldn't have things like that happening, so we forbid it from happening further...

Now let's jump way, way into the future... present day in fact. We've now split into many social classes... you know, punk, prep, goth, ect. Each of these social class has its own norms and values, which it believes are "good" and "right". Other classes, to them, do not follow the norms of their group, so they avoid them. Each of these social classes is actually a break-down of a "larger" social class, which is our society (say American) as a whole. Whoever is on top, or the upper class of that society, will generally set the norms on a role model basis. The norms then spread down through other social class until they eventually reach yours, and those of the people around you. You can then make judgements on what is right or wrong, the norm, for yourself, but the primary norms which have been seeded down through society take a long time to change, due to what's known as the "entrenchment" effect. In our society, the norms are generally spawned from the government.

I could go on for a lot longer but... I think this should give you a basic overview of the topic... heck I've already created a wall of text as it is. Hope this helps some... check out wikipedia if you want more in depth//specific stuff... it's great for that. :)

[YoUgOtBeAtByAgUrL]

Sorry for not reading the whole thread (I'm a little tired). But this is what I think about this topic.

Everyone has a different view of what normal is. It really depends on the society, while celebrities think that getting driven around and waited on hand and foot is normal for them, a person looking into that lifestyle will judge that as something out of the norm.

Thats just a local example, there are more ways of contrasting normal and abnormal through everyday activities. In my humble opinion, I really think that normal should not be in the dictionary as there really is NO definite definition of it.

[seltivo]

I think everyone gets the basic idea of what normal is, so, instead of repeating what everyone has already said, I'm going to talk about something else.

I think that people are too obsessed with trying to be normal. This makes them ignore what they actually like and try to change themselves to match the general stereotype. Unfortunately, when someone has enough common sense to do what they like, they get rejected by the rest of society and are called weird or(despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word) gay. I think that the "normal" of the future should be someone who does what they like (within the limits of the law of course) without fearing that other people will hate them just because there different.

[Bamboozler]

^-- True that, and this is a very popular view among teens these days. Unfortunately, due to the "entrenchment" effect I posted above, it will take a long, long time for it to come into effect as a standard norm. By the time it actually does come to be a norm, no doubt the next generation of teens will have their own set of norms they feel is right and just. That's the problem the societies today, they take too long to make changes, because there's simply too many conflicting views and opinions.

[krisbutt62]

Normal, is, not different.

[rules_the_school]

Normal is a label donned by society. The image of normal vary's with each generation, group and person. To me the term "Normal" defines who every one should be, not who everyone/anyone is. Therefore, everyone is not normal, but instead abnormal, because nobody is who they want to be. Like people have said before, there is no definite answer/definition for the term normal and thus it should just be ignored/forgotten/unused. (in the social sense)

*I haven't read any of the other post's and this is my oppinion only. Also this only apply's for people.*

[devonin]

Like people have said before, there is no definite answer/definition for the term normal and thus it should just be ignored/forgotten/unused.
Um...there are several definite definitions of the word...thus is ought not to be ignored at all.

You take issue with the way the word is applied to society, fair enough. Say so, and explain why.

[rules_the_school]

Well, the word shouldn't be applied when it comes to society because, everyone in the world is a individual, and since the term normal means, "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.", makes it impossible for anyone in the world to be normal due to the nearly infinate ways of growing up/living which defines the way we think and the way we act. So I guess what I'm saying, nobody can be normal since you are physicaly and psycologicaly different from everyone else, it contradicts the term normal, making you abnormal.. if that makes sense..

[alster1]

"normal" is basically what you expect of someone
like we expect girls to like girly things, and men to like manly things
if a girl likes manly things, or a man likes girly things, then they're just, well... not normal

[psychopete]

"normal" is basically what you expect of someone
like we expect girls to like girly things, and men to like manly things
if a girl likes manly things, or a man likes girly things, then they're just, well... not normal

That completely depends on society's definition of what is manly and what is girly. In other words, what is normal is determined by a majority of people, as previously stated many times.

[devonin]

Well, the word shouldn't be applied when it comes to society because, everyone in the world is a individual, and since the term normal means, "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.", makes it impossible for anyone in the world to be normal due to the nearly infinate ways of growing up/living which defines the way we think and the way we act. So I guess what I'm saying, nobody can be normal since you are physicaly and psycologicaly different from everyone else, it contradicts the term normal, making you abnormal.. if that makes sense..It doesn't need to be as universal as all that. Maybe there is no single "normal" person, but there are plenty of "normal" characteristics, going with the reasonable definition of "That shared by the majority"

For example: It is normal to feel that killing someone for no reason is wrong. In functionally every society that as ever existed in the world, killing somebody for no reason at all has been considered wrong. When so many people for so many centuries have all been in agreement about that, it is pretty compelling to say that it is -normal- and that anyone who feels otherwise is abnormal.

[rules_the_school]

It doesn't need to be as universal as all that. Maybe there is no single "normal" person, but there are plenty of "normal" characteristics, going with the reasonable definition of "That shared by the majority"

For example: It is normal to feel that killing someone for no reason is wrong. In functionally every society that as ever existed in the world, killing somebody for no reason at all has been considered wrong. When so many people for so many centuries have all been in agreement about that, it is pretty compelling to say that it is -normal- and that anyone who feels otherwise is abnormal.

True..

[9_ki_kid]

We base what is normal off of all of our memories, but nobody holds every memory that ever was, so everyone has a different perception of normal, but if there is or isn't a universal normal, depends on the expanse of the universe.
If the universe is unlimited then there is no universal perception of normal.

There can be no normal that applies entirely to one thing while not applying to another thing, because everything is relative to everything else (some of everything effects everything.),
but something can still have less or more of something. There are things that seem to be entirely one thing, like colors. If you see something and think it's entirely white, that's only because your mind can't comprehend anything brighter, so it only sees white as a replacement.

Is there a normal to us? Well it depends on the limits of our imagination, and perception. It seems that we do have a limit, but I think that is only because part of our mind is subconscious and part is conscious. I think that the stronger our connection with our subconscious is, the less limited our perception and imagination become.

[Ice wolf]

Ever heard:

"We're all different, and that's what makes us the same."

It was on TV...Nick I think...

[TsukikoTomoko]

i read the whole thread, and my thoughts on what is "normal" have changed a bit.

what normal is or isn't completely depends on the eye of the beholder. it is something the way beauty and perfection is preceived. it is completely reliant on how a person grew up. say, some one who grew up in a bad neighborhood may think it "normal" that a gang fight happens every so often, and some one is killed, while some one who grew up in a nice, calm neighborhood may think it frightening that a person in their region got injured during an armed robbery of their house, and think it "abnormal."

a less death-related example would be comparing children that grew up in different countries. take a child from Africa, a child from Japan, a child from the U.S. and a child from Australia, and have them write down their more simplistic views of what is "normal" to them. their veiws would obviously be less in-depth than discussed here, seeing as they are probably too young to grasp some of these concepts, but most likely, each simple summary will contrast greatly.

what i agree most with is something Devonin already stated: "It is normal to feel that killing someone for no reason is wrong. In functionally every society that as ever existed in the world, killing somebody for no reason at all has been considered wrong. When so many people for so many centuries have all been in agreement about that, it is pretty compelling to say that it is -normal- and that anyone who feels otherwise is abnormal."

that truely is, in my opinion, the only thing that every "normal" human being would agree with. :-D

[devonin]

That was just the most obvious and agreeable example, there are plenty of others that I'm sure we could all come up with and agree with, but the main point stands: Normal as a linguistic term implies the quality or behavior possessed by the majority of your sample. If you try to apply the word to some larger scale than that, just to point out that it doesn't apply to that larger scale, well...it's normal to do that. *grin*

[shatteredgravity]

i think people define normal as whatever the world is saying we should do. dress like this, eat this, buy this car, use this makeup, sleep with people every weekend, party all the time -- normal? for the world. i say screw the world and do whatever you want to do - not what the world wants you to. be who you are and who you want to be, for petes sake

[devonin]

This thread isn't even talking about whether people -ought- to try and act according to the societal norms where they live, we're discussing just what the term even -means-

I suspect you'd find an awful lot of people in this forum who find many of the norms of their culture to be distatseful.

[Killler_bunny]

I believe, and since reading this, believe more firmly, that normal is relative to the individual in question. On a personal level, normality is just basically their routine lifestyle. Take for instance the boy at the icecream stand? He likes chocolate Ice cream, getting it is normal for him, so when he sees someone get vanilla, he wigs out... because that's weird. and from there, there are so many normalitys to different cultures that inevitably, a search for true normality will only lead to chaos....