# What is normal?



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> As to whether being gay normal or not, I don't buy the argument that being gay is not normal. The definition of "normal" in not concrete. It changes as society changes and always will. I'm about 6'2"; 200 years ago I would have been abnormally tall, now I am pretty much "normal".


I think within this quote, one can see the author themselves has told us what "normal" is. Odd that someone so well trained in academics cannot see that "normal" is part of normative statistics. This competely explains why 6'2" is no longer "abnormal" but rather not so far from the mean as to be seen as not part of the +/- two sigma, usually considered "normal".

If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal". This in no way, at least in my opinion, makes it immoral. I certainly do not believe it is anyways, although I know many will differ with me on this. However, where there can be no quibbling is, that normative statistics clearly show it is not "normal". If 50% of the population became gay or lesbian, it would then be normal.

I feel this deserves its own thread as when a trained scientist cannot discern what is "normal" and what is not, when he gives the perfect definition, it needs clarification.

Thoughts?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think within this quote, one can see the author themselves has told us what "normal" is. Odd that someone so well trained in academics cannot see that "normal" is part of normative statistics. This competely explains why 6'2" is no longer "abnormal" but rather not so far from the mean as to be seen as not part of the +/- two sigma, usually considered "normal".
> 
> If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal". This in no way, at least in my opinion, makes it immoral. I certainly do not believe it is anyways, although I know many will differ with me on this. However, where there can be no quibbling is, that normative statistics clearly show it is not "normal". If 50% of the population became gay or lesbian, it would then be normal.
> 
> ...


I'd like to know what happened to the same-sex marriage poll that was posted here yesterday.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I'd like to know what happened to the same-sex marriage poll that was posted here yesterday.


It was burned, hanged, and boiled in oil by the nefarious Catholic Church, pursuant to personal order of Pope Bendict XVI, aka "Joey Ratzinger" as being likely to lead to disordered behavior.

It was the Church that did it, Frank DC - it's ALWAYS the Church............


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I guess normal is relative to your frame of reference. If you're sampling the entire population then being gay is certainly not normal. If you were sampling the residents of say, Provincetown, MA then being gay might not be normal but it certainly would be less abnormal. If you were gay and just sampled yourself or perhaps other gay friends than it would indeed seem quite normal.

Being abnormal obviously isn't a bad thing on it's own, but it does seem to be used as a lever on issues like marriage. This is a bit ironic though as the "perfect" construct of a man and a woman raising a family in a commited long term relationship is not exactly all that, um, normal.

-spence


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Spence said:


> This is a bit ironic though as the "perfect" construct of a man and a woman raising a family in a commited long term relationship is not exactly all that, um, normal.
> 
> -spence


Sadly, a valid point.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I think within this quote, one can see the author themselves has told us what "normal" is. Odd that someone so well trained in academics cannot see that "normal" is part of normative statistics. This competely explains why 6'2" is no longer "abnormal" but rather not so far from the mean as to be seen as not part of the +/- two sigma, usually considered "normal".
> 
> If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal". This in no way, at least in my opinion, makes it immoral. I certainly do not believe it is anyways, although I know many will differ with me on this. However, where there can be no quibbling is, that normative statistics clearly show it is not "normal". If 50% of the population became gay or lesbian, it would then be normal.
> 
> ...


I am curious what your point is. In my post it is clear that I am discussing societal definition of normal, not a statistical or scientific definition.

By the way, your very narrow "scientific" definition of normal is inappropriate because normal also means different things in science. In climatology, we consider climatic "normals" the 30 year average (ie normal high temp or low temp for a given date although some researchers are starting to consider this too short of a time period to dampen the average climatic noise). These are not "normals" because of how many standard deviations from the mean they are.

In geology, we have "normal" and reverse faulting based on which direction the hanging wall is displaced.

In statistics you look for normally distributed data (ie generally forms a bell curve) and if the data are not normally distributed, you must convert them before you can apply certain statistics. (There are a many of naturally occuring phenomena that are not normally distributed).

Deciding if something is "normal" if it is within two standard deviations of the mean is nothing more than a "value" judgment that is made if the "decider" thinks this is what is "normal". It is perfectly "normal" for a genius to have an IQ more that twice the standard deviation of the average IQ. That genius may be a perfectly "normal" genius or an abnormal genius.

It is perfectly "normal" that a certain percentage of a population is genius, mentally retarded, has blue eyes, is gay, is straight or has red hair etc. This is not based on how many standard deviations this percentage is away from the mean.

Was your point just to start an argument?

My point was and is, that what we (society) consider normal changes over time, ie: inter-racial dating or marriage, clothing styles, etc. Statistical normality was clearly not part of this discussion.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Normal is procreation for staters - gays are not normal. The 97% of the population that isn't gay really is what determines this.

If being gay was the normal thing, the human race would end up like the Shakers - ie, dying out due to a lack of new bodies being introduced into the population.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

gar1013 said:


> Normal is procreation for staters - gays are not normal. The 97% of the population that isn't gay really is what determines this.
> 
> If being gay was the normal thing, the human race would end up like the Shakers - ie, dying out due to a lack of new bodies being introduced into the population.


Maybe so, but if gays have always been around (the history is pretty clear on this, they have always been there), isn't it "normal" for 3% (if the 97% figure is correct) of the population to be gay?

Are redhaired people not "normal" because they are a smaller percentage of the population than people with brown hair (I am not sure, but I think I read somewhere that red hair is caused by a reccessive gene)?

There is no set number for "normal", I think it is based on personal perception and how we or society view and define the world around us.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> I am curious what your point is. In my post it is clear that I am discussing societal definition of normal, not a statistical or scientific definition.


I thought I was clear? Even with your rather subjective, fuzzy, definition, it still is not "normal". I certainly do not see anything wrong with it, nor would I hold it against anyone, nor do I even really care, but it should be obvious, even to someone as learned as you, that comparing a societal norm to your height, an easily measured objective issue, is bad logic. You cannot do expect us to take this comparison as valid.



MichaelS said:


> By the way, your very narrow "scientific" definition of normal is inappropriate because normal also means different things in science. In climatology, we consider climatic "normals" the 30 year average (ie normal high temp or low temp for a given date although some researchers are starting to consider this too short of a time period to dampen the average climatic noise). These are not "normals" because of how many standard deviations from the mean they are.


Again, how blind are you? You are comparing the temp today to the what? An *average*. Being gay is not the "average" or default mode, it is an outlier. Again, *not normal*. I want to stress again, this, at least for me, does not ascribe a moral component or any other such baggage, but once more, your very example demonstrates *it is not the norm*.



MichaelS said:


> Was your point just to start an argument?
> 
> My point was and is, that what we (society) consider normal changes over time, ie: inter-racial dating or marriage, clothing styles, etc. Statistical normality os clearly not part of this discussion.


If statistical norms are not part of the conversation, why did you reference your height, *something that cleary is an example of normative statistical description?*. As much as you want it, you just cannot have it both ways. Again, my point was not to start an argument, especially with you, but to point out while IMO no one should ever apply a moral judgment on one's sexuality, there is distinctly that which is "normal" and that which is not. For that matter, in the US, at this time, inter-racial marriages are not normal. I should know, being in one.

If you disagree with me, that is fine. At least get some proof that does not further my point.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

MichaelS said:


> Maybe so, but if gays have always been around (the history is pretty clear on this, they have always been there), isn't it "normal" for 3% (if the 97% figure is correct) of the population to be gay?
> 
> Are redhaired people not "normal" because they are a smaller percentage of the population than people with brown hair (I am not sure, but I think I read somewhere that red hair is caused by a reccessive gene)?
> 
> There is no set number for "normal", I think it is based on personal perception and how we or society view and define the world around us.


Maybe this will make it clearer: there's a certain trait called polydactylism. Basically, we're talking 12 fingers, 12 toes. It's been around a long time, and as it's a dominant trait, it'll probably continue to exist for a long time.

So is someone with 6 fingers on each hand normal? NO! Is it norrmal for there to exist a segment of the population with such a trait - sure, but that's moving away from what the definition of normal is in this context.

Likewise, if you look at people with IQs above 140, they are not normal - the average IQ is 100 (more or less).

People get so caught up in, "OH MY GOD! HE SAID I'M NOT NORMAL! I'M GONNA CRY!!!!!!1111!!!!eleventy!!!!!!111". If something's not normal about you, recognize the fact and move on. It doesn't mean that your life is over, it's just that you'll have to make some adjustments in life. I'm skinny - definitely not of normal build. It makes clothes that fit me a bit harder to find. You don't see me crying into my extra large slice of bananna cream pie that I'll wash down with a milkshake.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

["Wayfarer;647093]I thought I was clear? Even with your rather subjective, fuzzy, 
definition, it still is not "normal"."

Exactly, the definition of "normal" is personal, selective, and fuzzy, and CHANGES over time. There is no one definition of normal, it is dependent on too many variables and personal perceptions.

"I certainly do not see anything wrong with it, nor would I hold it against anyone, nor
do I even really care, but it should be obvious, even to someone as learned as you, 
that comparing a societal norm to your height, an easily measured objective issue, is 
bad logic. You cannot do expect us to take this comparison as valid."

What about other examples I gave such as wearing different cloths becoming normal, women working outside of the house, non-married couple living together. These have either become accepted as "normal" or are becomming normal quickly (although the definition of which of these is normal may change from group to group, or class to class, country to country).

"Again, how blind are you? You are comparing the temp today to the what? An *
average*. Being gay is not the "average" or default mode, it is an outlier. Again, *
not normal*. I want to stress again, this, at least for me, does not ascribe a moral 
component or any other such baggage, but once more, your very example 
demonstrates *it is not the norm*."

Look at what I said, normals are straight forward arithmatic averages, not YOUR definition of plus or minus 2 standard deviations from the mean. The thirty year time period of what is the "normal" temp is now being considered too short and the "Normal" will change.

The thirty year period was somewhat arbritary and is changing. It like many if not most definitions of what is "normal" even in science were not based completely on science.

Why is being an outlier not normal? Can't we say it is "normal" to have x% of the population with red hair? If those people are outliers (and I believe there are significantly less people with red hair in the world than with brown or black) are redheads not normal?

Please answer this.

"If statistical norms are not part of the conversation, why did you reference your 
height, *something that cleary is an example of normative statistical description?
*. As much as you want it, you just cannot have it both ways."

I gave several examples to show how broad the definition is, and it is broad, and not set in concrete. Do you really believe that statistical distributions define what is normal?

"Again, my point was not to start an argument, especially with you, but to point out 
while IMO no one should ever apply a moral judgment on one's sexuality, there is 
distinctly that which is "normal" and that which is not. For that matter, in the US, at 
this time, inter-racial marriages are not normal. I should know, being in one.

In regards to inter-racial marriges, don't you find they are becomming more common in this country then ever (and its not even against the law any more) and may eventually become "normal" as you seem to define "normal" (although if we are normally breeding with different races, the race distinction my become abnormal).

"If you disagree with me, that is fine. At least get some proof that does not further 
my point.[/QUOTE]"

Show that what i am sayiing does not show some "proof" (your word) that normal is a variable term that changes?

Do you really think what exactly what is "normal" in this country (take clothing for example) will be "normal" in saharan Africa? If "normal" clothing is different, but normal is a concrete term as you seem to imply, how can two seperate areas of the world have different "normal" clothings?

(I am also not making any moral judgement on people being gay, hopefully my stating "who cares" multiple times shows that)

I guess because I don't care if something is "normal" based on today's view of the world, and because you are in an inter-racial marriage, neither of us are "normal" (and I don't ever want to be "normal" by how some people define it.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Rocker said:


> It was burned, hanged, and boiled in oil by the nefarious Catholic Church, pursuant to personal order of Pope Bendict XVI, aka "Joey Ratzinger" as being likely to lead to disordered behavior.
> 
> It was the Church that did it, Frank DC - it's ALWAYS the Church............


well...I think GWB might have helped gather fire wood for the burning at the stake...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Why is being an outlier not normal?


I think this concisely summarizes why you are having problems with the whole concept. If you have the creds you claim to have, I just do not see how you could even ask this question.

Carry on, I am not arguing with you as there is clearly no upside in it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Maybe this will make it clearer: there's a certain trait called polydactylism. Basically, we're talking 12 fingers, 12 toes. It's been around a long time, and as it's a dominant trait, it'll probably continue to exist for a long time.
> 
> So is someone with 6 fingers on each hand normal? NO! Is it norrmal for there to exist a segment of the population with such a trait - sure, but that's moving away from what the definition of normal is in this context.
> 
> ...


Tell us, gar, do people who have six toes on each foot pose a threat to people who have five? If 12-toed people pushed for greater acceptance in the general community, and pushed for an end to civil laws which discriminated specifically against them, in what way(s) could this threaten ten-toed people? Would we see a decline in numbers of ten-toed people? You suppose more people would "choose" to have 12 toes instead of ten?

See, the disproven notions that sexual orientation is a choice and is changable is the very foundation of the fear many people have of homosexuality.

As for normalcy, the other response here is exactly correct IMO: whether homosexuality is "normal" depends entirely on how one chooses to use the word. It's entirely normal for a given percentage of any population to have a homosexual orientation, and when labels like "abnormal", "deviant" etc are slapped on this orientation, even though these terms may be technically correct, they're almost always meant as epithets and to advance specific political agendas against gay people. The RCC takes it one step further, by claiming homosexuality somehow violates natural law -- even though it's routinely observed in hundreds of different animal species! Their claim cannot be called anything but completely ignorant and just plain flat out incorrect.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The RCC takes it one step further, by claiming homosexuality somehow violates natural law -- even though it's routinely observed in hundreds of different animal species! Their claim cannot be called anything but completely ignorant and just plain flat out incorrect.


No RCC in this thread, no appeals to natural law. Neither is pertinent to this discussion and will only lead to acrimony. Frank, you have at least noted that "technically speaking", I am correct. Let us leave it at that and again drive home that this in no way applies a moral component, merely descriptive. It is important, IMO, we build on this correctly.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Blah blah blah.


Is there a smiley for "one trick pony"?

Back to your normal programming.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Is there a smiley for "one trick pony"?


Sure, it's right next to the smiley for "I'm unable to answer the points made, but still feel I have to post something." I think Gabba has a copyright on it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Guys, guys....don't fight over dicta here please!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

There's no such thing as "normal".It's just a state of mind.We all have our little quirks and idiosyncracies so in reality,no one's normal.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> If 12-toed people pushed for greater acceptance in the general community, and pushed for an end to civil laws which discriminated specifically against them, in what way(s) could this threaten ten-toed people?


Given that 12 toes occurs with 12 fingers, think about it this way: imagine if they required all glove manufacturers to produce 6 finger gloves as well, and banned the term "High Five!" because it was discriminatory.



> As for normalcy, the other response here is exactly correct IMO: whether homosexuality is "normal" depends entirely on how one chooses to use the word. It's entirely normal for a given percentage of any population to have a homosexual orientation, and when labels like "abnormal", "deviant" etc are slapped on this orientation, even though these terms may be technically correct, they're almost always meant as epithets and to advance specific political agendas against gay people.


See, and the problem is that you get so worked up about being abnormal. You are abnormal. Then again, I'm an incredibly picky eater - not much I can do to change it, which makes me abnormal. I don't expect society to enact laws requiring that pizza and hamburgers be on every menu. If people don't like you because you're gay, that's your problem - not their problem. There's no law that says anyone has to like anyone else. I generally dislike most people, and will continue to do so. Being picked on is a fact of life for just about everyone at some point. Hell, you probably ridicule people who live in farming communities and would refer to them as ********.



> The RCC takes it one step further, by claiming homosexuality somehow violates natural law -- even though it's routinely observed in hundreds of different animal species! Their claim cannot be called anything but completely ignorant and just plain flat out incorrect.


Just because something is observerable doesn't mean that it's in accordance with the design of things. There are people that can eat nails - it doesn't mean that we're meant to dine on iron.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Howard said:


> There's no such thing as "normal".It's just a state of mind.We all have our little quirks and idiosyncracies so in reality,no one's normal.


You are a unique individual. Just like everyone else.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> You are a unique individual. Just like everyone else.


Thanks Gar.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

If the question is what is "normal", the answer is: I am. I have been officially certified by the US Bureau of Weights and Measures as the standard for a normal person. So if you have any questions you can ask me and thereby measure your own deviation from normal.

Once a year I must return to Washington for recalibration against my computerized standardization, although adjustments are typically minimal.

I am not perfect, mind you. That's a different standard altogether. I believe that Donny Osmond is officially certified for that standard. He doesn't get broken out much.

No, I am normal. I have normal flaws in normal numbers. I eat normal food, drive a normal car, live in a normal house and make a normal salary working at a normal job. I am not permitted to actually do anything to perfection.

So...use me. I am at your disposal.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Mark from Plano said:


> If the question is what is "normal", the answer is: I am. I have been officially certified by the US Bureau of Weights and Measures as the standard for a normal person. So if you have any questions you can ask me and thereby measure your own deviation from normal.


Ha! Reminds me of the Dana Carvey skit on SNL where he played George Michael, and claimed that his ass was so round that British scientists used it to calibrate their instruments.


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Maybe this will make it clearer: there's a certain trait called polydactylism. Basically, we're talking 12 fingers, 12 toes. It's been around a long time, and as it's a dominant trait, it'll probably continue to exist for a long time.
> 
> So is someone with 6 fingers on each hand normal? NO! Is it norrmal for there to exist a segment of the population with such a trait - sure, but that's moving away from what the definition of normal is in this context.


You could say that their _hands_ are not normal but I hope that people would not judge the relative normality of others on something as minor as the number of fingers they had. If fingers take up say, 5% of a person's mass, it would be somewhat foolish ignore the remaining 95% that is 'normal'.

The same would apply to someone's sexuality. If you have certain hang ups about what others get up to in the privacy of their own home, you may judge someone who is gay to be abnormal. If you judge people as unique individuals with a wide range of character traits, emotions, thoughts etc, their sexuality will likely only play a small part in your decision to label them normal or otherwise.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

Armchair said:


> You could say that their _hands_ are not normal but I hope that people would not judge the relative normality of others on something as minor as the number of fingers they had. If fingers take up say, 5% of a person's mass, it would be somewhat foolish ignore the remaining 95% that is 'normal'.
> 
> The same would apply to someone's sexuality. If you have certain hang ups about what others get up to in the privacy of their own home, you may judge someone who is gay to be abnormal. If you judge people as unique individuals with a wide range of character traits, emotions, thoughts etc, their sexuality will likely only play a small part in your decision to label them normal or otherwise.


Good Lord! Is your goal for everyone to have a group hug? Are you sure you haven't moved out to California yet, because this is the sort of thing the locals tend to spout off with.

Abnormal people are evil and should be burned at the stake. Actually, not really, but that's what you want me to say, isn't it? Look, if someone's abnormal, it doesn't really bother me - but let's call it what it is. That doesn't mean they should be mistreated or anything, but let's recognize what the situation is and move on.

What is it with everyone NEEDING to feel like they're perfectly normal? Can your sense of self not handle the prospect that you may not fit in as much as you'd like to believe?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Given that 12 toes occurs with 12 fingers, think about it this way: imagine if they required all glove manufacturers to produce 6 finger gloves as well, and banned the term "High Five!" because it was discriminatory.


More absurd straw man arguments. I've not heard anyone claim opposite-sex marriages should be banned, or that religions should be forced to perform or even recognize same-sex marriages. This is a civil issue.



gar1013 said:


> See, and the problem is that you get so worked up about being abnormal. You are abnormal. Then again, I'm an incredibly picky eater - not much I can do to change it, which makes me abnormal. I don't expect society to enact laws requiring that pizza and hamburgers be on every menu. If people don't like you because you're gay, that's your problem - not their problem. There's no law that says anyone has to like anyone else. I generally dislike most people, and will continue to do so. Being picked on is a fact of life for just about everyone at some point. Hell, you probably ridicule people who live in farming communities and would refer to them as ********.


More of the same bad assumptions. See above.



gar1013 said:


> Just because something is observerable doesn't mean that it's in accordance with the design of things.


In this case it means precisely that. According to the RCC, only man is capable of acting outside natural law. Lower animals do not have this capacity. Therefore the RCC's teaching on natural law is mutually exclusive with their position on homosexuality.


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Frank, give up. You're not going to win an arguement with people who believe in bronze age mythology. Sky gods are very jealous, it's their way or they stone you.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

young guy said:


> Frank, give up. You're not going to win an arguement with people who believe in bronze age mythology. Sky gods are very jealous, it's their way or they stone you.


You know, if gay people were still being stoned, at least it would be an honest indicator of how many Christian hypocrites really feel about them, and this hatred/fear/bigotry/etc could be dealt with more directly. As it is now, these feelings are masked behind "defense of marriage" movements, implicit calls to fascism from Catholic Popes etc, which are much more politically correct and easier for demagogues to pawn off as "religion".

As for giving up, I've tried twice already. Hopefully the third time will be a charm.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> As for giving up, I've tried twice already. Hopefully the third time will be a charm.


How about you just "give up" on posting here all together???


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

The Gabba Goul said:


> How about you just "give up" on posting here all together???


The same could be said to you. But I say that in love, love the sinner hate the sin, what?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

young guy said:


> The same could be said to you. But I say that in love, love the sinner hate the sin, what?


uh oh...I see frank has called int he cavalry...and you would be???


----------



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

Spence said:


> I guess normal is relative to your frame of reference. If you're sampling the entire population then being gay is certainly not normal. If you were sampling the residents of say, Provincetown, MA then being gay might not be normal but it certainly would be less abnormal. If you were gay and just sampled yourself or perhaps other gay friends than it would indeed seem quite normal.
> 
> Being abnormal obviously isn't a bad thing on it's own, but it does seem to be used as a lever on issues like marriage. This is a bit ironic though as the "perfect" construct of a man and a woman raising a family in a commited long term relationship is not exactly all that, um, normal.
> 
> -spence


Except that I know of NO same sex marriage children being the issue of that union. Perhaps you can, . . .um ., give me a reference to any that you know of?

The percentage of the "same sex" community among the population changes on any given Saturday night. Maybe 2% or 3%. That is getting closer to the three standard deviation range - about right - not within the normal distribution.

Since the "same sex" marriage community will have no natural issue, shouldn't they have to pay much higher taxes than those who have created and provided the generation which will support that "same sex" community in their dotage?


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Good Lord! Is your goal for everyone to have a group hug? Are you sure you haven't moved out to California yet, because this is the sort of thing the locals tend to spout off with.
> 
> Abnormal people are evil and should be burned at the stake. Actually, not really, but that's what you want me to say, isn't it? Look, if someone's abnormal, it doesn't really bother me - but let's call it what it is. That doesn't mean they should be mistreated or anything, but let's recognize what the situation is and move on.
> 
> What is it with everyone NEEDING to feel like they're perfectly normal? Can your sense of self not handle the prospect that you may not fit in as much as you'd like to believe?


If abnormality is indeed normal, it makes all the finger pointing even more absurd.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Even our lives aren't normal,We grew up thinking everything's perfect but God created us to be abnormal.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

This thread gets funnier and stranger, and no one is really trying to think about what "normal" really means.

By a definition posted earlier that gays are not normal because they are less than 10% of the population, then there are a lot of people who are therfore not normal. Since research chemists are less than 10% of the population, by his definition, they are not normal. Since men with the fixation on good fashion (as with the people who visit this site) are probably a lot less than 10% of the general population (considering what I see in town) then by his definition, no one who visits this web site is "normal" (I think he might be right in this case).

To actually answer the question "What is Normal?", what I was trying to say, is that "normal" as we use it is a judgement, not a numerical certainty. 

I also believe that what we call normal, changes as society changes and accepts new things and rejects old things. For example, in 1950, it would not have been "normal" for a black man to go to a public (white) lunch counter in Alabama and get served. It would have been "normal" for him to be arrested and or be physically removed from the lunch counter. Now it would be normal for him to be served and "abnormal" for him to be thrown out.

If someone has a trait that makes him less than 10% of the population, why is that person not normal? Where do you draw the line? Why 10%, why not 30% or 40%? If it is "normal" for a small percent of our population to have a certain trait, then is the person with that trait abnormal?

I don't think anyone of us (or few of us anyway) would call people who are left handed "abnormal" because there are fewer of them then right handed people (although there is evidence that left handed people are tools of the devil).

Again, all I was trying to say is that what we consider normal, changes over time and it's really not based on how many standard deviations from the mean a trait is. I don't think you can really put a numerical value in defining normal especialy when looking at people's activities. 

One more example: if you read the history of the early US, in the late 1700's, it was "normal" for people to drink very large quantities of alcohol and common to see drunken men in many places. (Larkin, Jack, 1988 "The Reshaping of Everyday Life 1790-1840" Harper Perennial, New York). Nowdays, this activity is much less accepted and its not normal to see drunken men in public (not counting college resort towns during spring break). While plenty of people drink too much, our general alcohol consumption has gone way down (and not just because clean water is available) and we consider someone who drinks as much as people did at that time to not be "normal".

What is "normal" changes over time.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Geez ... _*another*_ thread exhibiting an obsession with homosexuality!


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

MichaelS said:


> To actually answer the question "What is Normal?", what I was trying to say, is that "normal" as we use it is a judgement, not a numerical certainty.


So then you would agree that it is a problem when the *definitions* of words are changed from their original meaning?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> You are a unique individual. Just like everyone else.


But is that normal?


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Howard said:


> We all have our little quirks and idiosyncracies.


Did your job coach get you a thesaurus for your birthday? :icon_smile:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> Geez ... _*another*_ thread exhibiting an obsession with homosexuality!


Incorrect characterization. But do feel free not to troll and to actually add to the topic, namely what is "normal".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> By a definition posted earlier that gays are not normal because they are less than 10% of the population, then there are a lot of people who are therfore not normal.


That is quite an egregious misquote. Is that how you global warming guys work? I could go on and quote by line your perseveration on the 10%, but really there is no need, as you are not going to actually reply to me in a meaningful fashion, if history repeats itself. Please re-read and this time put on your thinking cap for comprehension! Also, please educate yourself on the term "faulty analogy". You will come off as much more credible and intelligent if you stopped using them.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal". This in no way, at least in my opinion, makes it immoral. I certainly do not believe it is anyways, although I know many will differ with me on this. However, where there can be no quibbling is, that normative statistics clearly show it is not "normal". If 50% of the population became gay or lesbian, it would then be normal.
> 
> I feel this deserves its own thread as when a trained scientist cannot discern what is "normal" and what is not, when he gives the perfect definition, it needs clarification.
> 
> Thoughts?


What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed Italian men? Probably pretty low wrt the population at large. Are they abnormal? No, just a minority. Is a gay and lesbian population of about 10% abnormal? No, just a minority.

To resurrect a thought about words changing: while "abnormal" started out as being simply "not the norm" as in "not the majority", it's taken on negative and pejorative connotations. It's a pretty bad word to use when referring to people. It doesn't hurt me personally in the least unless it's used to restrict me in some way because of who I am.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed Italian men? Probably pretty low wrt the population at large. Are they abnormal? No, just a minority. Is a gay and lesbian population of about 10% abnormal? No, just a minority.


Frank, from a normative standpoint, red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed men are far from normal! I would guess they are pretty rare in the US. Also, just to toss this in, red haired people in the UK are often referred to as "gingers" and do meet up with some prejudice and descrimination.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> To resurrect a thought about words changing: while "abnormal" started out as being simply "not the norm" as in "not the majority", it's taken on negative and pejorative connotations. It's a pretty bad word to use when referring to people. It doesn't hurt me personally in the least unless it's used to restrict me in some way because of who I am.


I cannot help all of the various connotations words might have. It does not however make the denotation incorrect. I am surprised our "scientist" poster does not realize this.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, from a normative standpoint, red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed men are far from normal! I would guess they are pretty rare in the US. Also, just to toss this in, red haired people in the UK are often referred to as "gingers" and do meet up with some prejudice and descrimination.


Right... it's the way the words normal and abnormal are being used. So those people who are perfectly "normal" in every other respect are "abnormal" because of one trait.

The funny thing is that until someone knows I am gay (I don't look or "act" it) they'd think I am perfectly "normal". When they find out I am gay then I become abnormal. The problem is that humans have to assign labels to everything. I think it's the reason why language works the way it does: noun classes, grammatical gender, verb conjugations. These are all labels and classifications. Without these, human thought and language would be chaos, and probably not exist.

Btw, I feel the pain of a red-haired gay man in the UK.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'll bet that almost everyone is "abnormal" for at least one trait. So wouldn't the normal circumstance for people be "abnormality?"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'll bet that almost everyone is "abnormal" for at least one trait.


There's the thing IMO FB2k. Do not define yourself by a single trait. I tend to define people (and myself) by their actions actually.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> That is quite an egregious misquote. Is that how you global warming guys work? I could go on and quote by line your perseveration on the 10%, but really there is no need, as you are not going to actually reply to me in a meaningful fashion, if history repeats itself. Please re-read and this time put on your thinking cap for comprehension! Also, please educate yourself on the term "faulty analogy". You will come off as much more credible and intelligent if you stopped using them.


Your words:

"I think within this quote, one can see the author themselves has told us what "normal" is. Odd that someone so well trained in academics cannot see that "normal" is part of normative statistics. This competely explains why 6'2" is no longer "abnormal" but rather not so far from the mean as to be seen as not part of the +/- two sigma, usually considered "normal".

If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal". This in no way, at least in my opinion, makes it immoral. I certainly do not believe it is anyways, although I know many will differ with me on this. However, where there can be no quibbling is, that normative statistics clearly show it is not "normal". If 50% of the population became gay or lesbian, it would then be normal.

I feel this deserves its own thread as when a trained scientist cannot discern what is "normal" and what is not, when he gives the perfect definition, it needs clarification.

Thoughts?"

You used the term +/- two standard deviations, not me.

You appear to still be trying to define human "normality" by a numerical method. While this might be true for normally distributed physical aspects such as height and weight, it is not true from a subjective definition of "normal"

You still avoid completely answering what I am saying: The "definition' of the term "Normal" in regards to how society uses it for many things but including defining human traits, is not numerical. It is a very subjective definition based on many things including what we are used to, how we were raised, etc..... And it does change as society changes.

Answer this question: Does society's view of what is "normal" behavior change over time?

Please look at what I am saying and try to answer the whole question. In your statements you have clearly shown that "normative" statistics do not work to describe what is normal in humans (i.e. red haired, green eyed, left handed people being abnormal), now try to answer the question of whether or not the subjective social definition of "normal" changes. (Try to stick to the point)


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed men? What is the percentage of red-haired, green-eyed, left-handed Italian men? Probably pretty low wrt the population at large. Are they abnormal? No, just a minority. Is a gay and lesbian population of about 10% abnormal? No, just a minority.
> 
> To resurrect a thought about words changing: while "abnormal" started out as being simply "not the norm" as in "not the majority", it's taken on negative and pejorative connotations. It's a pretty bad word to use when referring to people. It doesn't hurt me personally in the least unless it's used to restrict me in some way because of who I am.


Said so much better than I did and exactly what I ment.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> There's the thing IMO FB2k. Do not define yourself by a single trait. I tend to define people (and myself) by their actions actually.


If you do not define someone by a single trait, then someone who is gay is not abnormal?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> There's the thing IMO FB2k. Do not define yourself by a single trait. I tend to define people (and myself) by their actions actually.


Many do define themselves by a single trait though.

Q: Who are you? 
A: I'm _________. < insert charicteristic here.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'll bet that almost everyone is "abnormal" for at least one trait. So wouldn't the normal circumstance for people be "abnormality?"


Except for me, of course (see my post above).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> You used the term +/- two standard deviations, not me.


Now I am calling bullshyte on you having any scientific training what so ever. The 10% number is the usual figure cited for what % of the population is gay or lesbian. Anyone with a modicum of scientific education, let alone someone that has informed us how well educated they are like you have, will know that +/- two sigma does not leave one with 10% in a standard normal distribution.

Michael, I am keeping away from the ad homs here but being deadly serious. Your thinking is so badly flawed, your need to conflate things and think in false analogies so prevalent, there is no need to continue on here. You dislike me as I keep making you look the fool and are just turning yourself inside out over it. You cannot seem to discern between subjective and objective data, and that is most disconcerting. I could dig up the quote where you told me, to paraphrase, that I was an idiot because I did not understand how "subjective" science was. That clued me in right there but this thread has painted the picture vividly.

Relax. Let it go. It's just a 'Net board.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Many do define themselves by a single trait though.
> 
> Q: Who are you?
> A: I'm _________. < insert charicteristic here.


...looking forward to retirement... :aportnoy:


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Incorrect characterization. But do feel free not to troll and to actually add to the topic, namely what is "normal".


Off topic? Hardly.

This discussion is not a serious discussion regarding what constitutes normal. Given your first post ... and the overwhelming majority of comments ... it is obviously a duscussion as to whether or not homosexuality is normal.

This thread is simply another of this forums obsession with homosexauity.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> Off topic? Hardly.
> 
> This discussion is not a serious discussion regarding what constitutes normal. Given your first post ... and the overwhelming majority of comments ... it is obviously a duscussion as to whether or not homosexuality is normal.
> 
> This thread is simply another of this forums obsession with homosexauity.


Whatever you say dear boy.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Now I am calling bullshyte on you having any scientific training what so ever. The 10% number is the usual figure cited for what % of the population is gay or lesbian. Anyone with a modicum of scientific education, let alone someone that has informed us how well educated they are like you have, will know that +/- two sigma does not leave one with 10% in a standard normal distribution.
> 
> Michael, I am keeping away from the ad homs here but being deadly serious. Your thinking is so badly flawed, your need to conflate things and think in false analogies so prevalent, there is no need to continue on here. You dislike me as I keep making you look the fool and are just turning yourself inside out over it. You cannot seem to discern between subjective and objective data, and that is most disconcerting. I could dig up the quote where you told me, to paraphrase, that I was an idiot because I did not understand how "subjective" science was. That clued me in right there but this thread has painted the picture vividly.
> 
> Relax. Let it go. It's just a 'Net board.


Your words again:

"but rather not so far from the mean as to be seen as not part of the +/- two sigma, usually considered "normal".

"If we take the 10% number bandied about, for the % of the population that is gay or lesbian, indeed, it is not "normal".

You used the term +/- two standard deviations, not me.

I never said that +/- two standard deviations was 10%. That was implied in your abpve language. That said, as always, you are avoiding the question and trying to answer by attacking a percieved fault. This was not ever intended to be a scientific question, I still say (and you never address, possibly because you know you can't) that you can not put any number on what is considered normal by society. Explain why, 10% of a population is considered not normal. No one can really other than to admit it is a subjective decision.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Whatever you say dear boy.


Ignore me ... and continue. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Rocker said:


> pursuant to personal order of Pope Bendict XVI, aka "Joey Ratzinger".


Wasn't he Cliff Claven?



RSS said:


> Ignore me ... and continue. :icon_smile_wink:


I personally think having teh ghey is a bit like being left-handed. It's sort of personal, people who are lefties do a few things a bit differently, and superstition and bigotry lead people to strange extremes of hatred against them. In the end, though, it's not shocking to me whether someone's a lefty or not.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

RJman said:


> In the end, though, it's not shocking to me whether someone's a lefty or not.


Oh, whew, thank goodness, because I'm part of the vast left wing conspiricy (who can't spell). LOL


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

sinestro said:


> Oh, whew, thank goodness, because I'm part of the vast left wing conspiricy (who can't spell). LOL


Sarcasm does not become you, southpaw.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

omairp said:


> Did your job coach get you a thesaurus for your birthday? :icon_smile:


HAHA,No,I learn from experience.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Concordia said:


> But is that normal?


It's normal to be unique but you can't pinpoint "normal" these days.


----------

