Talk:Normality (behavior)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was doing some research on normality and found the concepts subjective. Anal sex is not normal; too scared to offend homos wiki? 80.73.213.243 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC) The list of "Examples of 'normality'" seems to be arbitrary. Who determined that peace is "normal" and war is "abnormal"? Looking at the present and history, war seems to be much more constant than peace - it's now more normal for a country to be continually at war (the wars on iraq, afghanistan, drugs, terrorism, the future war on iran). Many people's reality are filled with crime and disease. So for them, these are "normal". I'd suggest either making clearer the reasons why certain concepts are chosen as fitting under "normal", or clarifying the definition of "normal". Right now, the definition is "not deviating much from the average," but many of the concepts do not seem to fit that.
I don't know if I've put this in the right place, but I don't see a button for starting a new comment.
Normal, Normalcy and some related words should include a couple of concepts. One is the statistical definition of normal, meaning "typical" or "modal," or in the greatest number (a plurality or majority.)
It should also include a sociological concept relating to the most common practices or beliefs. Thus, heterosexuality is often called "normal" because it is the condition or practice or belief of the greatest number. Once a majority believe that homosexuality is not deviant or evil, then it would become "normal" in that sense. It is also normal that people should die or age, because those are universal conditions.
Normal can also refer to perfection, as in a "normal kidney," meaning a kidney without defect.
Common speech may refer to norms as socially agreed standards, such that it is the norm to accept a certain practice. There is a command element involved, but a greater suggestion of agreement by the greatest number.
It's unclear to me how the following applies to "normality":
"Quote: Keep it Real! (Stop being fixated by dreams of unachievable things, focus on the reality of the present situation.)"
OhSqueezy 03:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's unclear to me how the link to 'Normal For Norfolk' is considered worthy of a place on this page, other than as a means of annoying people from Norfolk, as it's a very obscure reference.
80.7.122.78 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The following quote seems rather biased to me:
"The Oxford English Dictionary defines "normal" as 'conforming to a standard'. This, although almost right, is not entirely correct. "A normal" is someone who conforms to the ideals of society and refuses to be individual (also described as a 'sheep'). This can be for any number of reasons, such as fear of humiliation, rejection, or being thought mad."
I think the Oxford dictionary definition hits the nail on the head in regards to a working definition of "normal." There is a standard upheld by society, and those who significantly deviate from it are indeed considered to be abnormal. The rest, if included at all, should be included only under the subheading of 'popular opinion of normalcy' or what have you, as it is not so much a description of what is normal as a commentary describing the writer's personal opinion of the standard and of the people who conform to it. That is to say, it is a judgment of value made by the writer, which, while valid, should not be included in the section describing what normalcy IS. Particularly troublesome is the parenthetical remark, 'also described as a "sheep."'
71.131.226.205 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
This page should really be more about normality as it pertains to psychology, specifically individual behavior. "War" and "peace" are neither normal nor abnormal. Neither is "middle way", as it's a religious philosophy rather than a behavioral trait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.69.246 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
