What does 'normal' mean to you?

Normal means that something is common amongst society.
Thats not a social construct. Saying that being different is bad? Now thats a social construct. (assuming that difference isnt something bad, like for example, being obsessed with killing people or something would definitely be bad).

 

EDIT: I have a lot to say on this, so in hindsight, I'm going to put my post in spoiler tags so it doesn't take up a giant chunk of space.

Spoiler

Normal usually means falling into the societal bell curve of whatever social context you're in. You can look at it in a number of ways; whether you're in the mean, mode, or median of whatever is being judged within that certain social environment, and whether your actions, behaviours, and beliefs are deemed acceptable within it, and won't raise any eyebrows or stir up conflict. Half of the time, that means little to nothing, seeing as normality in itself is always in the subjective eye of the individual or group. The more I look into the concept of normality the more surreal it seems to me sometimes.

Even if we look at something as quantitative as grades, a "normal" grade usually just means somewhere around the average- however way you want to measure that. That doesn't mean that any other grade is "abnormal," it just means that one is more common than the other. How do you then quantify an entire human being? Who knows what is normal, and what is not? So you get a lower grade than what other people have gotten, percentage-wise speaking...is that abnormal? If everyone fell into the same bell curve, you can keep dwindling down "normal" from there until there's literally nothing left. It's easy to see what is common and what is not, but I have more to say on that.

Sometimes "normal" in society just means having a certain characteristic that is part of what the majority has. Using that logic to deem what is normal or not normal can also become extremely redundant- I mean I'm sure that maybe in a certain group there are less people with blue eyes than people with brown eyes. Both are totally normal- it'll be a little ridiculous to say blue eyes are abnormal and unnatural because 80% of people have brown eyes there and 20% have blue. You could say that, but exactly how meaningful is that statement? "Having blue eyes isn't normal." Fine, in that situation, maybe it isn't, if you're judging solely on the numbers. But does that mean anything in the bigger picture? It certainly isn't unnatural. Take that with sexuality too. Maybe there are less gay people in a certain group than straight people (just using two sexualities in this example, but you all get my point), that doesn't mean either is abnormal. It just means that maybe one is more common than the other. If you judge normality by commonality, fine. Then you can technically say being gay is abnormal- but once again, quite redundant if you're just going to judge every single trait by majority wins. Using that logic to cancel out people based on eye colour, hair colour, culture, sexuality, gender, we're going to eventually be left with nobody in the human race that fits the norm.

Societal normal is a really broad term, because, for example- what is normal within one culture may seem utterly foreign and abnormal in the next. Looking at one thing from different points of views can garner a completely different judgement of normality and abnormality. Even in clinical psychology, a certain behaviour can be seen as completely normal and healthy in one culture, but can be utterly incomprehensible to another, and what's why different cultures' prognosis of various types of mental illness and the variety in diagnosis between countries is huge. There have been so many studies in psychology done on the very concept of normality and abnormality and truly how subjective it is.

Normal means next to nothing to me sometimes. It does hold its truth in certain contexts- what behaviours and actions that are deemed appropriate, and of course you can't toss that out the window completely (I, for example, will probably not show up to the next formal dance in an old t shirt and my skinny jeans and Converse)-but it's so subjective and up for debate, and up to context, that it's practically impossible to judge. It depends on what yardstick you use to measure normal- are you saying whether something is natural or unnatural, and what is unnatural is abnormal? That's hardly the case in many situations. Or are you saying what is more common than the other? Normality is a social construct. People who pull the "being gay is abnormal" card sometimes bemuse me. By abnormal do you mean that it's unnatural? That's not technically the same thing as abnormal, and besides, it's been proven time and time again that different sexualities and genders are just as natural as being straight and being cis. By abnormal do you mean it's less common? Perhaps...but what difference does that make anyways? My height is arguably less common compared to people who live in the country I was raised in, so maybe I'm "abnormal" that way- but it's really quite arbitrary in the end.

Just because it's normal, doesn't make it right. That doesn't entirely justify everything that is abnormal either though. Violent crime, abnormal or not, is still generally considered wrong. But if you just take a whole group of killers and judge normality from that context, murder can be argued as normal. Does that make it right? That logic means something entirely different once you remove it from that context.

It's really late and I'm rambling. I can possibly argue this from so many different perspectives, but this is the one I have the most input on. I'd be interested to hear others' opinions too...especially the ones that differ from what I can think of at the moment. I feel like there might be a huge flaw of logic in what I'm saying, especially since I'm utterly sleep deprived. But my thoughts...here they are. I sort of approached this question from a societal POV rather than what normality means to each individual. That in itself is something else.

 

I personally take 'normal' to mean what is normal about yourself or what is normal to you as an individual.

 

I believe every person has his/her own Normal. Like what might seem Normal to me might be a bit unusual to some people. Normal is boring though imo

 

it means nothing to me cause no one is normal

 

"Normal" has only been, and always will be, relative.

 

Normal is and has always been a relative term.

 

Being into mathematics, "normal" has a lot of meanings to me...and you wouldn't be interested in most of them. But none of them means "natural", which is how a lot of people (mistakenly) interpret the word. There is nothing in heaven or Earth that is not natural, my friends.

But in the context you're referring to, "normal" simply means "average". Normal intelligence refers to intelligence near the average (generally within a standard deviation of the average).

For variables that aren't quantitative (like IQ), "normal" means simply "common". Nope, not socially constructed...but it is implied by society, in that what is common varies a great deal from society to society.

Now "common" itself is up for debate as to an exact definition...do a trait have to occur in more than 50% of the population to be common? More than 40%? 25%?

I do think it is safe to say that any trait that occurs in as few as 10% is uncommon (not normal)...but that does mean that it is unnatural, or should not be celebrated. For instance, IQ above 130 is seen in far less than 10% of the population, so is abnormal...and yet is perfectly acceptable (and of course, 100% natural).

I don't get peoples' distaste for the term. It has a pretty straightforward meaning. I also don't get peoples' resistance to the notion that they aren't normal in some regard. Almost nobody is normal in *every* regard...and in my experience, those who are tend to be pretty boring.

 

Honestly, it's a load of nonsense. I understand that they are pretty useful when studying thing such as developmental norms and what is the norm for something specific, such as science, but in social aspects - it's nothing but bad.

 

Why, the concept of normal is different for every individual, hence why you asked this question I suppose. I can't imagine there's such a thing, myself. The nuances of belief and behaviour between individuals seems to make me feel that there is no same, and it's impossible to categorise in a broad sense. For example, many individuals like pizza, and yes, that is a generalization that can be made, however, it will never be true that all of those individuals that like pizza are fond of pineapples on their pizza. In short, normal is a very broad thing, and normal will never be able to accurately sum up a large group of people.

IDK, kinda just stuff that I thought of.

 

It's a setting on the dryer. It means "not permanent press".

 

The skin type between oily and dry?

 

Nothing... but if I had to put meaning on it basic or boring

 

Idk

 

Wow...that was butchered. Of course I meant:

Now "common" itself is up for debate as to an exact definition...does a trait have to occur in more than 50% of the population to be common? More than 40%? 25%?

I do think it is safe to say that any trait that occurs in as few as 10% of the population is uncommon (i.e., not normal)...but that does not mean that it is unnatural, or should not be celebrated. For instance, IQ above 130 is seen in far less than 10% of the population, so is abnormal...and yet is perfectly acceptable (and of course, 100% natural)...even (dare I say it?) desirable/valuable.

 

Boring

 

Everyone but me.
But seriously, I've always loved this one quote about this topic. "Normal? What's normal? Normal is a setting on a washing machine, and no one wants to be that." - Ashley Purdy

 

Boring
Conformist
Sad

 

The modal average.

I like to say that the absolutely normal person would be the most interesting person you've ever met, because they're almost certainly interested in whatever it is you want to talk about.