|
Post by Kaila on Aug 30, 2006 17:28:55 GMT
Psychologist and everybody else has long been wondering how do we define normal. Do we use that scale, of things that are abnormal, and judge a person on that? Do we just say that there is no definitition of normal, or do we say that its anybody that won't conform to the social norm?
Disscuss.
|
|
|
Post by Hesignedmyarm on Aug 31, 2006 21:55:41 GMT
There is no true definition for normal. Normal is a personal thing. What is normal for one person might be totally weird for another. It's impossible to define.
|
|
|
Post by Kaila on Sept 1, 2006 20:19:28 GMT
You see I believe that. If you're normal you're abnormal, because there can be no definition of normal, it all depends on what you see as normal.
|
|
|
Post by indiprincess on Sept 3, 2006 17:49:00 GMT
normals' just a word people use for what they think is alike them as people usually class themselves as normal. so really normals' not a proper word with a set definition. its' basically the opposite of normal because eveyones' different
|
|
|
Post by Hazelwoof on Sept 3, 2006 19:42:17 GMT
I am abnormal and together I think we can all do some pretty sub standard things. *Is told you need to get a dictionary!*
|
|
|
Post by IMNB on Sept 4, 2006 3:11:47 GMT
There is a social normality that includes the majority of people. The exceptions to this norm are Goths, Gays, Loners, Crims, Druggies and Foreigners and a few others.. Sad that we can't all accept these sorts of individuals for who they are, but, you can't actually deny it, can you?
|
|
|
Post by Hazelwoof on Sept 4, 2006 8:08:29 GMT
I agree with what Il Mondo Nuovo Bello said. Although I don't really understand it...
|
|
|
Post by IMNB on Sept 4, 2006 8:13:31 GMT
Call me clarke. And it practically means that people that don't make up the majority are abnormal.
|
|
Eve
Newbie
Posts: 25
|
Post by Eve on Sept 4, 2006 8:30:37 GMT
But what exactly is the majority meant to be?
There is no such thing us normal. Normal is an unattainable ideal, like perfect. We all want to be it, when no one is, and no one even really knows what it is. Because everybody is an individaul, normality is nonexistant.
The thing about normality, is that it really isnt anything. What one person difines as normal could and usaul differs from what soemone else thinks is normal. So its best just to be who you are, because no one is normal or abnormal really
|
|
|
Post by IMNB on Sept 5, 2006 21:44:14 GMT
Yes, Lissy, but if there were a majority, I would be right, wouldn't I? So, now, when ever you see exclusion, the people excluding are the majority, and the other person is abnormal to them.
Which means we are both right in a way, because there are different types of normal.
|
|
|
Post by encryptedcookie on Sept 7, 2006 19:32:40 GMT
You make good point Clarke, but you can't really add foreigners to the list. Because if you're foreign all depends on your point of view not necessarily the majority. For example I'd think of you as foreign because I'm from England and you're not but I'm not a majority over you. And when I'm in France there are more French people around but I don't think of myself as foreign I think of them as foreign. That was just a round about way of saying foreign goes both ways but the others define a group.
There is a lot of pressure to act within the norm of your society though. Religion is a perfect example of how normal to one person can seem totally unusual to another.
|
|
|
Post by IMNB on Sept 7, 2006 21:09:12 GMT
hang on back to your thing about foreigners.
If you are from England, and you go to France, you might think of the French as foreigners, but they think of you as a foreigner also. And since there are more Frenchman than Cooky's, they are the majority and you are abnormal to the rest of France.
|
|
|
Post by encryptedcookie on Sept 7, 2006 21:33:23 GMT
Yeah but the point I'm making is that I still think of them as foreigners so we'd all be abnormal... I still don't think you can count foreigners as a minority group that breaks the norm.
|
|
|
Post by IMNB on Sept 8, 2006 3:18:44 GMT
Not really. Unless you know... thing.
OK. Take New Zealand as an example. The majority race in NZ is European. Next is Maori. (If you've never heard of that, ask your history or Political studies teacher.) Out of those two, Europeans are majority.
A lot of Asians are immigrating to New Zealand to study and live. They are rapidly growing, and now Asians are very nearly less of a minority than Maori.
So now that majority listings are 1. Europeans 2. Maori 3. Asian. Asians are the minority.
BUT. In about a decade or so, the no. of Maori in New Zealand will be less than Asians. The Asians will become a majority over the Maori.
The same thing happened two hundred years ago in New Zealand when Europeans arrived. They were a minority, but rapidly grew. They stopped being foreigners. Pretty soon, Asians will not be foreign (much ) to New Zealand.
This is back up for both cooky's and my argument.
|
|
|
Post by Hazelwoof on Sept 11, 2006 19:20:34 GMT
Someone is foreign if they don't live in the same country to you. For example Clarke is foreign to me because I'm a Brit and he's a New Zealander. And I'm foreign to him. But you usually tend to think of foreigners as someone who doesn't speak the same language as you as their first language.
|
|