Discussion Topic
Variant definition of Normal
Posted on 07/11/08, 08:41 am
Okay :) dispense with the sighs I am fully cognizant of the fact this subject has probably been recaptulated to the point of tedium.. however I was hoping for more contrary input, contusive perhaps to a more cryptic vein of approach. I have this posted elsewhere but the subject "do you think you are sane" gave cause to introduce it here..I hope that is okay. :)
It was inspired in fact by a friend who recently under went a gruelling and intensive five hour physchiatric examination. My friend is the defendant in a pending Court hearing and the Appellants chief line of defence is the danger my friend poses to themself and others due to the affliction of their mental illness. Thus a leading Physchiatrist was appointed to conduct a thorough examination and report. Upon finalisation of the analysis the Physc. smiled at my friend and advised in his professional opinion that not only was my friend neither threat to themself nor society..but he penned the word 'normal' on the dotted line of the report for submission to the Court!
I have quickly perused 'normal' under google. Similar and standard explanations are apparent however...I cannot find any solid evidence that convinces me there is in fact a strict guideline definition for the term 'normal' person. I had been advised once that it was "conforming with the ideals of society, adhering to or constituting a normal standard pattern of behaviour and this incorporates 62% of the population. Anybody habitually functioning out of that sphere therefore does not constitute as one within the realms and bounds of normalcy. (Have to concede it was with much glee and delight I revelled in the discovery that it was such a low percentage) lol.
I also read an opinion which stated 'the average and the common are normal. But it is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Conforming to social edicts does not guarantee normalcy. Think about anomic societies,periods of history Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Model citizens subjected to these hellish environments beacame criminal and sadist.
If a patient is functioning and happy, well and normal. However many mentally ill people are rather happy and reasonably functional."
So would you care to share any other interesting, alternative, refreshing, diverse, incongruous ideas in an attempt to define normal?
May I be excused from a submission? I sat the 'ink blot' test with my friend today...and failed...still crushed, devastated and inconsolable..not to mention I am of the firm belief I failed the 'sane' quiz posted here also..sigh :) thanks
It was inspired in fact by a friend who recently under went a gruelling and intensive five hour physchiatric examination. My friend is the defendant in a pending Court hearing and the Appellants chief line of defence is the danger my friend poses to themself and others due to the affliction of their mental illness. Thus a leading Physchiatrist was appointed to conduct a thorough examination and report. Upon finalisation of the analysis the Physc. smiled at my friend and advised in his professional opinion that not only was my friend neither threat to themself nor society..but he penned the word 'normal' on the dotted line of the report for submission to the Court!
I have quickly perused 'normal' under google. Similar and standard explanations are apparent however...I cannot find any solid evidence that convinces me there is in fact a strict guideline definition for the term 'normal' person. I had been advised once that it was "conforming with the ideals of society, adhering to or constituting a normal standard pattern of behaviour and this incorporates 62% of the population. Anybody habitually functioning out of that sphere therefore does not constitute as one within the realms and bounds of normalcy. (Have to concede it was with much glee and delight I revelled in the discovery that it was such a low percentage) lol.
I also read an opinion which stated 'the average and the common are normal. But it is unsatisfactory and incomplete. Conforming to social edicts does not guarantee normalcy. Think about anomic societies,periods of history Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Model citizens subjected to these hellish environments beacame criminal and sadist.
If a patient is functioning and happy, well and normal. However many mentally ill people are rather happy and reasonably functional."
So would you care to share any other interesting, alternative, refreshing, diverse, incongruous ideas in an attempt to define normal?
May I be excused from a submission? I sat the 'ink blot' test with my friend today...and failed...still crushed, devastated and inconsolable..not to mention I am of the firm belief I failed the 'sane' quiz posted here also..sigh :) thanks
-
Reply #1 07/11/08 10:47pm
I think normal would have to be viewed from each individual to the next. Beings we all have dif. circumstances that made us each unique from the other. -
Reply #2 07/12/08 7:45pm
Normal - A regular girl before she is made into a sex symbol - Like Normal jean. Okay, stupid pun, I know I am good for them! -
Reply #3 07/12/08 8:21pm
LMAO! -
Reply #4 07/13/08 8:15am
Normal -people similar to me. Abnormal all the other people. -
Reply #5 07/13/08 9:29am
Oh I like this! lol..I do note however that you used the phrase 'similar' and not 'exactly' like me....wonderful profile name by the way! -
Reply #6 07/22/08 4:44am
I once heard a neurobilogist say that "normal is having the same diseases as everyone else". Every mental 'condition', dependant upon the way in which you are viewing it, can be seen as a diseased mental state. A quirk to one person a deficiency to another. Which still brings us back to the problem of by what standard we judge 'quirk, or 'deficient'.... well, I'm an atheist so I don't think there is any mystical absolute value.... so I think it would have something to do with evolution. Whatever behaviours promote reproductive success. I think....
People I think would also be afraid of people with mental illness - behaviour being less predictable and therefore riskier to engage in any social/commercial interaction, so you'd label them abnormal and exlude them from society. I think Foucault wrote some juicy stuff about the this.
-
Reply #7 07/23/08 6:33pm
Normal is different to everyone as many of you have already said. For some people I'm of my head and for others I'm just a bit quirky. Something I find interesting, historically people probably judged most metal illnesses as instantly, if you became hysterical you could be viewed as insane. Nowadays society accepts that most people will have an episode of depression at some point in their lives. I think being "normal" is becoming broader. I like to think that more people are becoming more tolerant and more educated so people are on the whole are more accepting of differences then in the past. -
Reply #8 07/23/08 6:34pm
I meant insanity not instantly (-; -
Reply #9 07/23/08 9:06pm
-
Reply #10 07/24/08 4:56am
PMSL!!! Schmanek ...cheers Abby x
Welcome
Join This Group
Respectful, open discussion of philosophy, religion,spirituality, and other topics with the purpose of opening our minds and broadening our horizons. Differences of opinion are welcomed but intolerance will not be tolerated, so please show respect at all times.
