What counts as "normal" or "healthy"?

Listen to this logic loop!
If we were all to agree that defining "normal" or "healthy" is an impossible task, we would essentially be stating an absolute truth—specifically, the truth that such definitions cannot exist. However, if it is an absolute truth that no definition exists, then it follows that the state of being undefinable becomes the very definition of what is normal and healthy. In that case, we could effectively absolve everything by claiming that "normal" is simply whatever defies definition, and "healthy" is whatever remains unclassifiable. But here is where the logic collapses: if we accept that no definition can exist, we are simultaneously questioning the validity of that very premise. We end up concluding that a definition *must* exist, yet it can never be articulated because the act of defining it destroys its own essence. Therefore, I find myself compelled to DISAGREE with the notion that it is impossible to define the absolutely normal and healthy. Why? Because if we accept that, we fall into the trap of making "undefinability" the new standard... and frankly, that would be our undoing. 😁

Here is my response:

Since the concepts of "normal" and "abnormal" are merely human constructs—and we ourselves are such inherently insecure, unpredictable creatures—we simply cannot treat these labels as absolute truths.

However, if we stay on track and look inward rather than outward, the definition of normal behavior is essentially just whatever the majority does. It is the consensus of the masses that dictates what is acceptable and what isn't. Any contrasting minority, regardless of how rational or composed they might seem, is deemed abnormal by default.

If the vast majority of people were to suddenly decide that pedophilia is perfectly acceptable, then it would become the norm; consequently, you, should you choose to oppose it, would be labeled the abnormal one.

The distinction between normal and abnormal has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense is merely the process of weighing different references to arrive at a more or less absolute truth.

To grasp that absolute truth, one thing must serve as a reference for another, which in turn serves as a reference for the first, creating a chain where each point validates the next, and so on.

If enough people decide that pedophilia is totally fine, then suddenly it’s "normal." And if you’re one of the few standing up against it? You're the one labeled as the freak...

Exactly. It’s the same exact logic they use for homosexuality.

"Normal" and "abnormal" have nothing to do with common sense. Common sense is just weighing different references to find a more or less absolute truth.

Oh, it has everything to do with common sense! Anything that harms society isn't good. If it doesn't hurt anyone, it isn't bad. If it helps society, it's good. Look, it's not a perfect science, but that's the gist of it...

To reach an absolute truth, you need one thing to reference another, and that second thing to reference the first, which then connects to a third, and so on...

😲 😕

Maybe we should try approaching this from the opposite direction... using a process of elimination rather than addition.😉

Is there actually anything "normal" about being average?
Take Gauss's bell curve and apply it to IQ, for instance. Under that logic, a "normal" intelligence falls somewhere between 90 and 110. By that definition, anyone possessing above-average intelligence is technically "abnormal."😕 🙄
(And don't even get me started on how IQ tests are essentially useless garbage that shouldn't be used as a benchmark for anything.)
Look at it another way: it's a proven fact that most people today have terrible eyesight. Does that mean someone with perfect vision is somehow "abnormal"?

I think we can pretty easily toss out the idea that "normal" is just another word for "average."

You’ve got Gauss's. You've got averages. Just a massive pile of mediocrity... tens of them. Those irrelevant types don't even qualify as "abnormal" since they aren't worth noting in the first place.

Which is why it usually just boils down to how people act socially.

I hate using any of those terms when I'm trying to be
precise.

It’d be way easier to just point out what’s actually broken and toxic. 😁 🙄

"Normal" and "healthy" are just based on statistics, which is a pretty hollow way to define things... especially since the numbers shift all the time.

placidfox55 said:... so what does that make highly intelligent people? Unstable?😕 🙄
(And don't get me started on IQ tests—they're basically useless and shouldn't be used as a yardstick) ...

😉

I honestly agree. Truly brilliant people are often outliers. To be "normal" is simply to be average.😉

We tend to define "normal" as anything that fits within social norms, and those norms almost always push toward mediocrity. Because the vast majority of people lean toward conformity, they end up labeling that average state as the ideal.
Society treats "normal" as synonymous with "best," "natural," or "perfect."
But that’s just not true. It’s much better to exist above the curve. For someone with an above-average mind, trying to be "normal" feels like a step backward—it's pure regression.

The "average" crowd tends to cherry-pick certain high-achieving traits they find non-threatening, turning figures like pro athletes or famous entertainers into idols while ignoring the actual depth of their intelligence. 😉

Solaris said:Look, say someone has hemophilia. Sure, it’s not exactly healthy, and it causes issues. But can you really label that person "abnormal" based solely on that, even if they are perfectly "normal" in every other conceivable way?

Of course they aren't healthy!

If you really sat down and looked at the global statistics regarding various illnesses, mental health disorders, and just general oddities, how many people would actually be left standing as "normal" and healthy by clinical standards? 😛

Solaris, honestly, any decent neighbor would just be normal about this.

Prove it!

Potala said:Maybe we should try working backward... using an elimination system.😉

Is what we call "average" even actually normal?

Not necessarily—because that assumes every single trait used to define "normal" is perfectly distributed across the population, which, let’s be real, is almost never the case (especially when you're talking about things like intelligence—specifically fluid intelligence).
To put it in plain English, take medical standards for example: being "healthy" (normal) is often defined simply by the absence of disease symptoms, but that doesn't always hold up when you look at the actual statistics.
Statistically speaking, we're talking about individuals who hover around some central mean—basically just a mathematical average (while accounting for standard deviations). There are endless criteria out there, and honestly, listing them all would be a complete waste of time.
The truth is, "normal" is a wildly subjective concept. Any claim to objectivity is questionable at best; it usually just boils down to whatever is broadly accepted—whether that's a legal mandate, a scientific consensus, or just those unwritten social norms that we all follow (which, by the way, shift over time, even if it doesn't feel like it's happening overnight).
Ultimately, it's up to the individual whether they categorize a phenomenon as "normal" based on their own gut feeling or some arbitrary standard imposed by science or the law... and people are going to disagree on that, big time.

Solaris said:Can anyone provide a universal, precise definition of what is "normal" or "healthy"?

I don't think so...😁 😛

It all depends... on the level of consciousness. On the era and historical layers we live through.

But defining "normal" precisely isn't easy, unless you call it: in alignment with the natural order...

🙂

Bradley Fisher20 said:Is it universal? Hard to say. I picture a town somewhere where everyone is sick and poisoned, looking terrible. Then a healthy person walks in, just bursting with energy. I bet even they would look incredibly vibrant by comparison.

So, health really does tie back to your energy levels and how well you can handle life's challenges.

Interesting thought process...🙂

Bradley Fisher20 said:It absolutely has everything to do with common sense. Anything that harms the community isn't good. If it doesn't harm the community, it isn't bad. Whatever benefits the community is good. Of course, it’s not quite that simple, but that's the general idea.

😲 😕

I think you're conflating the concept of "normal vs. abnormal" with "right vs. wrong."

Take slavery, for instance. Or even if we look further back at ancient royal dynasties—incest was considered perfectly normal, despite having nothing to do with common sense. Or perhaps it did, but then again, one has to be careful about how "common sense" is actually defined.

Let me attempt to clarify that rather vague sentence regarding the perception of absolute truth using an example:

Einstein proved that the absolute truth is that everything is relative; he discovered this by observing an object from a specific frame of reference rather than its own. The reverse holds true as well. That is how we can grasp the truth.

Richard Howard2 said:You seem to be conflating the concepts of what is "normal" versus what is "morally right."

Take slavery, for instance. Even if we look back at the dynasties of Ancient Rome—incest was often standard practice, even if it wasn't exactly rational. Or perhaps it was, depending entirely on how one chooses to define "rationality."

To attempt an explanation regarding that vague sentence about perceiving absolute truth:

Einstein proved that the absolute truth is that everything is relative; he discovered this by observing an object from its own frame of reference rather than its own. The reverse applies as well. That is how we can grasp the truth.

Einstein didn't prove that the absolute truth is that everything is relative. That simply wasn't his field of study. He was a physicist, and the only relativity he actually demonstrated was the relativity of time. Whether that constitutes an "absolute truth" is something he didn't prove, nor is it even provable. There is a fundamental reason for this: not just physics, but no natural science possesses even a fraction of the power required to explain *why* something happens. They can only describe *how* it happens. The answer to "why"—which is the most basic question humans have asked since their very first sentences ("Why is it like this? Why is it like that?")—remains unknown to us.

I assume when you say "pedophilia," you’re referring specifically to sexual contact with children under 12. Once they pass 12, they reach sexual maturity, so those instances don't fit that definition.

That "older" category of behavior can involve consent or coercion, just like any other sexual encounter depending on the individuals involved.

Attraction to someone under 18 doesn't automatically make a person an abuser.

In fact, under the laws of many states (including right here in the US), sexual activity is legal starting at age 14 (http://www.ageofconsent.com), and living together without marriage is permitted at 16.

Rebecca Miller2, interesting thought? I don't know, man, I walked away from that whole field entirely. Because I started thinking about those groups where everyone is just wired, you know, on speed and all that crap. Sure, they have massive energy, whatever, but they don't look sane or healthy. It's the exact same thing with those cult-like groups that think they've found their God and are all happy and blissful. They don't look normal either.

Richard Howard2. Let me break this down for you. I said people *tend* toward it, not that it's a given. Right now, it’s just a matter of how much influence certain cliques have. Like, look at how incest used to be pushed by certain elite families back in the day just to keep the family fortune intact. But the system eventually proved itself to be toxic and, well, totally insane—families actually thought God was punishing them because they were sinning, when really it was just because they were producing sick kids.
It's the same deal with slavery.

Solaris. Society sets the norms, right? And it's not in society's best interest to label more than half the population as "not normal." That's just bad for the social order. So, they only label the extremes—the stuff that actually threatens the status quo. Plus, even though we're all a little bit crazy in our own ways, people just ignore it because it doesn't matter. Until it becomes a problem, obviously...😉.

Solaris said:Can anyone actually provide a universal, rock-solid definition of what "normal" or "healthy" even means?

Honestly, I don't think so...😁 😛

To me, "normal" is just that baseline state we had at the very beginning, before everything shifted into what we now call "abnormal."😉

krshcanin said:What we had at the very beginning was actually the baseline—it was the norm. Everything that’s happened since then is what’s truly out of whack. 😉

Man, you really went there. 😁

But walk me through it: what exactly was that "normal" state we started with, and what makes this current situation so "abnormal"? 😕