Talk:Normality (behavior)

Subjectivity

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 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)

Normal

Normal is the sense of having NO creativity. And having no further emotions about a topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.187.138 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your Perception is not My Reality

An Example of Perception

Why Normalcy Cannot Be Defined

Firstly, I need to address a comment or contribution preceding this one regarding Anal Sex. The comments or "statement" about a groups preferred method of intimacy made me feel angry because this is a closed minded view in the aspect of what the subject matter means to each member of the affected group. Apparently perceptions and the lack of knowledge or deep thinking have left thoughts so shallow that they just spill out. I try to , in every possible way take into consideration all who may be affected by what I wish to say. Just blurting out insensitive hateful comments shows no regard for other groups of citizens. Please, try to become just a little more sensitive.
This is a terrific illustration of this persons perception of the way things ought to be in their world. There has been some influence, whether by teaching or an occurrence whereby the view that has been accepted is viewed as "this is just the way it's supposed to be for everyone".

I am so very intrigued with this subject, it is so very fascinating. But not nearly as interesting as reading the thoughts which most certainly express the differences in what each of us considers to be our way of thinking and most certainly "normal". In reading these contributions I could not help but notice what many of you consider to be normal. Most are "in line" with each other but with slight variances in the whole of the idea altogether, which brings me to my own contribution.

I feel invigorated to comment on the posts, contributions and articles which I have come across just to point out, call out or enlighten people of their own ignorance as it relates to the very topic being discussed.

Society seems to be and always seems to have been quick to categorize or label that which is different, uncommon, unknown or alien. Now these labels, I'll call opinions, are all relative to the life one has been subjected to or influenced by in their own span of life. While anything or anyone that is outside of that realm or scope of the life as they have come to know it is considered abnormal, the neighbor just next door or across the street, let alone someone from a totally different demographic, may have had a completely different perception of the way things, I'll say were identical, transpired. In other words two totally different people, same town, same schools, same influences may have had (more than likely) two totally different views of what is considered or deemed to be "normal".

It's quite interesting, this, because everyone has their own idea of what "right" is, but I'd wager that everyone who agrees on that said "right" that they do not all agree in the thought that it is correct but just the way that it is because it is what is perceived to be the way to go.

Normalcy, normality or normal, I don't think that any can ever be correctly defined unless or until you can harness and regulate the way everything is perceived. Trouble is, then everyone is forced to think the way you are.

Urserious (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

DSM-II: editorial problem (DMV?)

In the section on the DSM-II, a sentence reads: This made applying the DMV unreliable across psychiatrists. What is DMV? Oaklandguy (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S.-centric essay

This article is too U.S.-centric. It is chatty, including unsourced opinions and examples. Most of the info about DSM should be in the several articles about DSM, not here. The subject is fascinating. The article needs tightening. --Hordaland (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If Psychology is a science, national borders shouldn't factor into this, at all. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Split

This article is unfocused, and seems like a concept disambiguation gone rogue. My feeling is that the article as it currently exists focuses primarily on psychological aspects of "normality" with a smidgen of math thrown in because it can also be described in behavioral terms. I suggest making a clean break along this exiting fault line, by splitting this article into two articles: Normality (psychological behavior) and Normality (math). It may be the case that the content destined for the latter (as it is small) would really be better to merge into an existing article elsewhere.