Sorry, but the humorous response is the easiest in this thread. I've followed it with a more serious comment, just for fun. Well, from a statistical standpoint, one must remember that Normal is always 90 degrees away from whatever you are talking about! In geography, it's a small town in Illinois that has a university attached and, in behavior, it is whatever is NOT listed in the DSM-IV(tr)! More seriously, the issue of normalcy is often described in delineating terms by removing those behaviors that have been defined as "not normal" as opposed to an inclusive definition (this is what normal means). Because of the growing areas of social and psychological delineation, one has different values (if one can use the term) for normal, based on the criteria being examined. Such criteria might be demographic in nature (what is a "normal" teenager's attitude towards sex?), psychological (what are the behaviors of a "normal" paranoid person?) or even delineated by political party affiliation (what is a "normal" Howard Dean supporter?). An overall definition of normalcy that is universally satisfactory is not only something that would be difficult to make, but also would have to be so broad, IMHO, that it would be essentially useless. My guess is that this is why the more tightly defined areas of normalcy are used in many fields, including politics. My 2 cent's worth. Lee Darrow
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.