I’m rather intending this as a debate; but I dont think it’s important enough to go into great debates. It just isnt that great.
It’s normal!$# HAH! Oh man, that was bad.
Anyway, what I want to know is, how does one define normal? People constantly use it to refer to other people, places, things situations, etc… but everything has so many variables, everything is so very different on one level or another, how can anything be considered the norm?
If you define it in terms of average, does that mean that having 50.1% of people agree to the supposed normalcy make it normal? Or what percent would be required to make it normal?
The expression “Everyone is someone else’s definition of weird” comes to mind.
Any thoughts? Just to warn you, I’m gonna be really rangy and specific on this, so be careful before posting. I want to get right down into the nitty gritty details.
Tell me what you think!
You think I’m weird, dont you?
Pretty much the same idea as “typical” and “regular”: that something doesn’t stand out as odd or wrong or the like. But my definition is very general and won’t fit many, if even most, instances of the word being used. I think “normal” is one of the many words whose meanings can vary depending on how you use them. Words don’t often have set, specific meanings and are actually quite dynamic. Ask people you know to define a word – say, “rough” – and you’ll find most have trouble. It’s really amazing how many ideas a few syllables can symbolize.
Normal is a range, and sometimes a very broad one. It is not a mean value. Sometimes it is one, and only one value. The mean number of toes for human beings is less than twenty. Nineteen toes is not normal. Twenty is normal, even though it is more than “average”. The mode value of twenty occurs most often. Arithmetic is abnormal.
Normal intelligence for humans is more than enough to survive daily life, and somewhat less than the amount necessary to win a Nobel Prize. You can be pretty stupid, or pretty smart, and still be normal. Same for strength, or health.
So, what most people mean when they say normal is not very close to the extreme. Quite often they mean “like me.” Almost as often it includes a value judgment based on the speaker’s preferences. “Not different enough to make me feel uncomfortable.”
In some areas of judgment we accept deviation from mean evaluation much more readily in one direction than in another. Someone who is extremely pretty is less likely to be considered abnormal than someone extremely ugly. People slightly more intelligent than average tend to think of extremes in intelligence as gifted, rather than abnormal. Extremely unintelligent people are more often considered abnormal. The fact that all such measures are highly subjective does not alter the force of such assessments.
So, normal means not too different, but not too much the same. Someone a bit like me, in the ways that I care about. Or some thing that is as I think it should be, more or less.
The mathematical meanings of normal are not applicable to most normal usage of the word. But then mathematics is abnormal.
“Normal” isn’t (IMO) an inate quality so much as a measure of similarity to others with which one is being compared, as well as a function of context. Compatibility with enviroment will result in the majority of anything being similar (and thus “normal”) in that enviroment, while making them “abnormal” in an less compatible enviroment. So, being over six feet tall is normal on a pro basketball team, but being under four feet tall is normal in a kindergarten class. Both would be “abnormal” in each other’s context, but they are “normal” in their own. Likewise, headbangers at a heavy-metal concert vs. a televangelist’s revival. Normal in the first context (as it’s compatible with them, and thus they will be plentiful), but abnormal in the other (as it is not compatible with them, and thus they would be rare, but vastly entertaining to watch).
Now I’ve just got to figure out if I understood what I just said…
I read an essay once about this subject. He started by asking what is a “normal” shoe size. It’s probably something like 10 1/6, which isn’t even made. His conclusion, which I remember verbatim, since it is so succinct and eloquent:
Okay, some good ideas when referring to specific cases like the normal height for a basketball team. Makes good sense.
But what about more general cases, such as when someone looks at other people in their peer group and defines them, in whole, as normal and weird? What criteria makes them so? If they have one aspect of them which is different from that of the judger, perhaps, they will fall into the weird category. In which case, normal is entirely subjective…
Basically normal is anything that doesn’t seem out of place to me. My normal is different from your normal, and will always be that way, unless you’re exactly like me.
i think normal is that which doesn’t attract attention (undue, extra attention, that is.) if i have a bowl of soup at a restaurant and it is good, thats normal. i expect it to be good. but if it is eXcelLenT, and attracts more attention than a bowl of soup regularly gets, thats abnormal. so, one must develop a table and a measuring system of attention.
ok. my explanation seems to require a definition of average to define normal, which makes this entire arguement stupid.
oh well. i tried.
The word Normal can mean so many things to different people. There’s no official measure of normality, so it’s hard to say exactly what does and does not fit into that category.
I do get a little peeved when the word is used as a label for people, though. Sometimes, the way it’s used tends to imply that anyone who happens to be different is also abnormal. As I always say - Normal is a cycle on your washing machine. Not a standard to judge others by.
I have been dealing with this issue at work this week. If you are questioning the normality of something small (less than fifty pieces), you can use the Shapiro-Wilk test, in which the data points are ranked in ascending and descending order and a W statistic is calculated using a series of simple equations. The W statistic is compared to a standard value depending on the desired confidence interval.
You can also use this to see if something is lognormal.
-malden
(who is neither normal nor lognormal)
I said that once when Role Playing… someone walked into the chat room in jeans and a sweater and everyone is in leather and form fitting stuff and such… she said ooc that she wasn’t normal and that’s what I replied and it struck me as how true it really is…
