What counts as "normal" or "healthy"?

Can anyone actually give me a rock-solid, universal definition of what "normal" means? Or even "healthy"?

Honestly, I don't think it's possible...😁 😛

It’s honestly impossible to pin down a single definition for it. I suppose you could try to draw lines between what counts as normal and what doesn't in certain specific contexts, but once you really start digging into the literature and studying the subject deeply, you realize that everyone seems to have their own unique way of distinguishing "normal" or "healthy" behavior from anything they consider "abnormal."

Pretty much standard, unless you’re stuck in a hospital or something...

So, what does "average" or "normal" actually mean? And is there such a thing as a universal standard? 😛

Ryan Ruiz said:Look, you can't just slap a single definition on this. Sure, maybe in some narrow contexts you can draw a line between what’s "normal" and what isn't—but once you actually start digging into the literature and really studying the subject, you realize pretty quickly that everyone is playing by a different set of rules. People have wildly different ideas about where "healthy" ends and "abnormal" begins. It’s all subjective.

Spot on. And honestly, that’s exactly why we’ve ended up with all these different ways to measure "normalcy"—whether it’s through a religious lens, medical standards, or just basic morality...

But at the end of the day, most people are their own damn yardstick. We’re all just walking around using a personal measuring tape shaped by every bit of information we've absorbed and every opinion we've picked up along the way.

Universal? Who knows. I’m picturing some town somewhere in the States where everyone is basically poisoned and looking like total wrecks. Then you’ve got this one guy walk in, absolutely glowing, bursting with energy. Honestly... I bet even they’d look even worse just standing next to him.

So yeah, health is totally tied to your energy levels and how much you can actually take in life.

Quote : Originally posted by Bradley Fisher20
Is it universal? I'm not sure. Just imagine a scenario somewhere in the States where everyone is being poisoned by some toxin and they all look terrible. Then, a perfectly healthy person walks right into the room, absolutely bursting with energy. I bet even those people would think he looks unusually vibrant.

So, basically, health is directly tied to your energy levels and your ability to actually handle life's challenges.

I'm on board with the second part. 🙂

But if you're in a situation where everyone in the country has been poisoned and they already look miserable, they won't even recognize what a healthy person looks like. They might actually label someone truly healthy as "weird" or "abnormal." 😕 😛

What I consider perfectly normal might not be the same for everyone else. I suppose the concept of "NORMAL" is incredibly subjective, as we all tend to set our own
boundaries based on personal preference.
As for being healthy—for me, that simply means staying within the realm of moderation.

Let’s be real: the whole concept of "normality" or being "healthy" is basically just arbitrary guesswork. It’s all just decided by whatever happens to be the statistical majority at any given moment. From a sociological standpoint, we’re all guilty of ethnocentrism, and psychologically speaking, we’re just ego-driven—we constantly hold ourselves up as the gold standard for what "normal" should look like. Even when you try to get technical with biomedical standards, it’s still far from universal. Take fetal growth, for example. A "normal" weight for a baby is just defined as falling somewhere between the 10th and 90th percentile based on gestational age, parity, and the specific ethnic background of the mother. This means a white baby born at 40 weeks weighing 2,900 grams might be labeled "abnormal" or underweight, while an Asian baby born at the exact same time with that identical weight would be flagged as perfectly "normal" and healthy. There are endless examples of this kind of nonsense out there.

Quote : Originally posted by Solaris, you might actually be onto something. You probably are. Almost certain...

If that's the case, then settling for mediocrity is a pretty damn satisfying answer.

I mean, being average gets you through the day, right? And hey, they say being average is where the beauty is!

So, you're saying anyone who isn't just run-of-the-mill isn't "normal"? 😁 😕

P.S. I get where you're coming from, 🙂 , I'm just stirring the pot a little bit

My goal here is to "prove" that we can't just label someone as abnormal and write them off simply because they don't fit into our specific worldview 😉 (think about religion, or even those heated debates over social issues)

So you're saying someone who isn't just some run-of-the-mill NPC... they aren't "normal"?

Exactly, but you already knew that 🙂

Solaris said:Can anyone provide a single, foolproof, universal definition for what constitutes "normal" or "healthy"?

"Normal" is simply whatever I decide fits the bill.

"Healthy" is whatever I deem to be healthy.

There you have it—those are your universal definitions for both terms, and they apply to absolutely everyone.😁

😁 😁 Look, there’s no such thing as a universal standard for "normal"!

Look, Solaris, there’s nothing in this world that’s universal or stands above whatever lens you're looking through. Even the whole idea of what's "normal"... it's all just perspective...

It’s only natural that the standard defines what’s normal.
The ones with power set the standards.

Since humans don't hold universal power yet, there's no such thing as a universal norm—certainly not for us. No universal normality either.
Out of sheer helplessness, people cling to divine fixations.
There are plenty of these so-called “universal” norms and standards out there.
That’s where intolerance comes from.
Among people... those who worship various gods.
Gods, unlike people, are actually quite easy to tolerate.

A true Human (capital "H," not some superhuman or subhuman entity) accepts anything another true Human promotes or pushes, provided it doesn't clash with their own values.
If it does clash, then one side isn't acting like a true Human.

There is no intolerance between two true Humans.

Two or more true Humans don't need a ruler to dictate norms... because to become a true Human, they had to build their own standards first.

Two or more people who can tolerate one another don't necessarily have to be true Humans.
A true Human could guide them toward that secret.
Or perhaps someone less evolved forces them into it.

Most of the time, those with lesser status who happen to hold power aren't interested in elevating others to true Humanity.
Eventually, it all catches up to them.
Someone else with less status just takes their place.

True Humans have no need for power.
Only those without it feel the need.

Those with true Humanity possess power simply by being who they are.

Quote : Originally posted by Solaris
So, you're saying someone who isn't just run-of-the-mill isn't considered "normal"? 😁 😕

That’s exactly how it works by definition. We tend to label anyone who doesn't strictly stick to the median as "abnormal," and we apply that same flawed logic to mental health. In this view, a genius is always seen as unstable—which makes them easy to distrust—while a totally mediocre person is deemed perfectly fine.
I've noticed people are generally intimidated by anything that exceeds the average, especially when it comes to intelligence, expertise, or true wisdom. It forces high achievers to carefully scout out a niche where they can exist without being targeted by the crowd.

😉"People will find it much easier to forgive you for being wrong than for being better than them." 🙂

Bradley Fisher20 said:Look, Solaris, there isn’t anything in this world that’s truly universal or exists outside the lens of how we perceive it. That goes for the very idea of what’s considered "normal," too.

👍 That's exactly what I was looking for you to say. 😉

Quote : Originally posted by Solaris
Can anyone actually provide a universal, precise definition for what counts as "normal" or "healthy"?

I highly doubt it...😁 😛

I disagree. If it’s natural, it’s normal and healthy. If it isn't, then it isn't. It's that simple.😎

Delfino, let's just go in circles again if we have to...🙄 🙄

But what does "natural" even mean here?

Think about it—say someone has hemophilia. Sure, it’s not ideal and it causes issues. But can you really label that person as "abnormal" just because of that, even if they are perfectly "normal" in every other way?

Or take healthy people who, say, were born with an extra finger. That’s not exactly how nature intended things to look, right? So, does that make them "abnormal" too? 😉 😁 🙄