English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

'Purpose' assumes a conscious predictable control. 'Normalization' assumes I have notions as to what is normal. Assuming for fact that 'normal' is different for each person, why would any of those persons want something other than what is normal for them. Acceptance for abnormality is not a determinant for it, it is positive for regard for self's strength; that which threatens self is negative input for self: negative input returns negative output.

2007-06-05 14:03:47 · answer #1 · answered by Psyengine 7 · 1 0

I think what your getting at is that if something varies randomly, if you count the frequency of values of each event there is the likelihood that the frequency will be normally distributed. Some values will occur the most frequently, the next lowest and next highest value will occur the next most frequently, and so, thus forming a normal distribution.
Try an experiment. Flip a coin ten times and consider the score to be how many heads show up. Flip the coin ten more times and ten more times, etc such that you have twenty counts of the number of times heads showed up when the coin was flipped ten times. Then chart how many times heads came up once, two times, three times,...up to ten times. The line that is formed from these lines should show a bell-curve, a normal distribution. (One heads, two heads, etc. are plotted on the X axis of the graph and the number of times that number of heads occurred in each set of 10 flips is plotted on the Y-Axis).
The same thing would occur if you charted a collection of means of a factor or a collection of deviances; means and standard deviations are just numbers. The more deviations you collect, the more normalized (bell-shaped) the curve should become.
I hope this helps.

2007-06-05 20:46:50 · answer #2 · answered by cavassi 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers