Simple question. Is "normal" relative? If more details are needed: relative to the situation, people you're with, etc. My philosophy is that it is.
2006-10-31 11:00:06 · 12 answers · asked by Kristin H 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Normal depends on where you are.
2006-10-31 12:32:48 · answer #1 · answered by tim b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are asking about someones relatives that is a scary question because I know mine are not normal, nor am I. ha ha
But "thee Norm"? that is a balance between acceptance of better is good, and bad is worse. In the event that the majority in our society depicts the normal lines of reason is questionable. Everyone has limitations, and we should know those and draw the line and then not judge others on our abilities, rather judge not what we are incapable of or visa versa. Norm is only a fad at times, as in grade scales in school that are drawn by the population of test scores of that year,and then based on those grade curves we must consider that as an average. But then we look at the next class and see they are below and then the next is above and then even. I think normal is an environmental study and we need not set a lot of these curves and fads, but make convictions upon our findings or our immediate surroundings of behavior patterns and draw the line and conclusions on what is good, (comfortable for all), and bad (uncomfortable for all), and then make our decisions on normal.
2006-10-31 19:09:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would constitute normality? Would this be an average person with average intellect? Or the average for a given area of the world or country? There are always variables to the standard relatively speaking that is.
2006-10-31 19:35:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're correct. Normal is relative. What's normal for me might not be totally normal for another person. By whose standards will we gauge normalcy? There's a fine line between being normal and abnormal. What's a normal reaction to a certain situation might otherwise be abnormal in other situations.
2006-10-31 20:16:59 · answer #4 · answered by rosieC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course almost by definition - the norm is defined by the behavior of the majority of people. A brief look at US history will show that what is normal has changed a huge amount just in one country in a few hundred years.
2006-10-31 19:09:27 · answer #5 · answered by oldhippypaul 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are different ways to use "normal". One way is calling the top of the bell curve normal. In that way it is not relative.
2006-10-31 19:10:51 · answer #6 · answered by Joe G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is the norm.The idea that the majority rules applies here.So yes,it is relative to the norm,but it does not mean that it is desirable or natural in those terms.
2006-10-31 19:16:25 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is. Take the most "normal" person at your school and transplant them to Calcutta... they'd stick out like a sore thumb.
Or even take that person and put them in a school in a different state... they'd stick out there as well.
I always wanted to do that to the "popular" kids who would mock others for their clothes or style or whatever. I always wanted to take them and drop them in a PS in Brooklyn or Miami and see how well they they did.
2006-10-31 19:03:20 · answer #8 · answered by misskate12001 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course. Behaviour is a function of society as is sanity.
2006-10-31 19:06:33 · answer #9 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it is, whats normal for one might not be for another and vise-a-versa.
2006-10-31 19:32:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋