CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Normal is a statistical measure derived from social heuristics and is perfectly applicable in a narrow context.
To say there are no normal people makes sense if we consider the whole person. But when someone refers to someone else as other than normal, they are typically referencing a specific trait or quality that differs significantly from the known population.
Normal is a statistical measure derived from social heuristics and is perfectly applicable in a narrow context.
Yep. You are plainly correct.
However, the phrasing of the prompt question clearly indicates the assumption that the people responding to the prompt assume some meaning for normal other than a pat definition directing us to "a statistical measure derived from social heuristics."
Normal people (in the statistical sense) usually do not use normal in the statistical sense.
In other words, when you use the word normal in the statistical sense, you are most peoples' weirdo. ;-)
Perhaps. People aren’t good at thinking statistically.
However, it seems the main problem with how people use the word is that they paint an entire person as abnormal because of some narrowly defined characteristic that is in fact other than normal, at least within the parameters of a subjectively known sample population.
Perhaps. People aren’t good at thinking statistically.
Translation: But that doesn't include me because I have a narcissistic personality disorder and believe everybody else is inferior to me. That's why I feel qualified to criticise "people" while I sit on my couch farting and eating potato chips.
However, it seems the main problem with how people use the word is that they paint an entire person as abnormal because of some narrowly defined characteristic that is in fact other than normal, at least within the parameters of a subjectively known sample population.
No, your belief that "narrowly defined characteristics" such as psychopathy and pathological dishonesty are less than abnormal is the "main problem".
Your neo-Conservative pseudo-rubbish is annoying. Shut up.
I appreciate your point, and I agree with your foundational observation.
However, it seems the main problem with how people use the word is that they paint an entire person as abnormal because of some narrowly defined characteristic that is in fact other than normal, at least within the parameters of a subjectively known sample population.
That is only part of the problem, and I disagree that it is the main problem.
We all know that some deviations from the norm matter more than others.
The question is which deviations.
It seems to me the MAIN problem is that, regardless of whether they use normal in the statistical or vernacular sense, normal people (in the statistical sense) routinely mistake whether a particular deviation from the norm is relevant.
They then apply the term abnormal and, more importantly, its negative connotations, to irrelevant or misleading characteristics/criteria.
In personal relationships across a society, were we see a resulting problem is when people are marginalized or elevated due to irrelevant (or common) deviations. Just because everybody is somebody else's weirdo, it does not follow that everybody is or should be marginalized equally, nor that those who are marginalized are marginalized for logically valid reasons.
“Gaylord is a name of Norman French origin, from the Old French gaillard meaning "joyful" or "high-spirited"
That's very interesting. However, not nearly as interesting as your arbitrary presumption that I am unaware of the linguistic origins of the word. Indeed, to scratch just a little deeper, it is certainly possible that you presumed my ignorance of the matter in order to give yourself faux reasoning to self-glorify your own knowledge (i.e. run a Google search) and appeal to your own vanity, is it not? This is unsurprisingly common behaviour in Freudian narcissists, who often resort to the platitude as a form of justifying their own belief in an elevated sense of righteousness.
I expect our sense of normal developed as a survival strategy against dangerous social deviance. If that’s the case then it stands to reason that the main problem is misapplication of the ‘abnormal’ designation to traits that are irrelevant to harm.
I expect our sense of normal developed as a survival strategy against dangerous social deviance. If that’s the case then it stands to reason that the main problem is misapplication of the ‘abnormal’ designation to traits that are irrelevant to harm.
In essence, I think you are correct, although, strategy is probably too recent on the evolutionary timeline.
Assessment of normal is more complex than assessment of whether an animal is sick, which is very old. We see it in all mammals when it comes to choosing mates or allowing mutated newborns to live. It is part of firmware in our middle brains, and probably coevolved with xenophobia and the natural inhibition against killing our own. Certainly it is a result of similar selection factors.
A similar sort of neurological tendency (though probably much newer) is confirmation bias.
In a simpler, faster, and more physically dangerous environment, all these tendencies toward snap judgment without evidence, or analysis would have been augmented safety, reaction time, and therefore augmented survival.
However, these are not AS advantageous in much larger and more complex societies, with greater interdependencies between individuals, and even between whole societies with disparate cultures. In fact, it would seem that they tend to be disadvantages to prosperity, and may be disadvantages to survival depending on the situation.
The concept of justice, by contrast, is not biologically based, but rather is cultural, and as such is very new. The concept of tolerance is even newer. They seem to be attempts to regulate these older drives, and augment the survival of larger numbers of people by augmenting the health, strength, and survivability of whole societies, thus augmenting the fitness of participating individuals.
Hence our belief that we should value people who fall outside the norm.
I agree with much of this. While Justice may be evolutionarily new, it likely stems from a sense of fairness, which exists in various forms in many (perhaps most) social animals. Our sense of justice arises from rigorous and disciplined reasoning on matters of fairness, an ability resulting from our larger brain. I agree that it is highly influenced by culture, but humanity is not infinitely malleable. Every developed culuhas a sense of justice. It is more biological than you may think.
Tolerance is kind of a funny word, because it implies the extension of polite behavior toward those for whom you are otherwise contemptuous. It’s absolutely necessary in more complex societies, but the word seems outdated in cultures that include a wider swath of humanity.
Though the underpinnings of “normal” may be detrimental when oversupplied to a culturally complex large society, we still live in a world where if you see something you should say something. We live in a world where police are justified in investigating suspicious (weird) behavior, and where you are foolish if you discount all notions of weirdness as outdated prejudice. It’s reasonable to value people who fall outside superficial norms. But we still have this sense of normalcy for good evolutionary reasons. If your daughter wants to date a guy you find weird, you should find out why you feel that way.
I think you hit on a lot of related topics and subtopics.
While Justice may be evolutionarily new, it likely stems from a sense of fairness, which exists in various forms in many (perhaps most) social animals.
This seems to me to be related to reciprocity, which shows up in other social animals. Fairness, particularly regarding reciprocity, would seem to be a mechanism in social animals that preserves the genes that do not necessarily help them climb dominance hierarchies, but contribute to the survival of other members of the gene pool.
Every developed [culture] has a sense of justice. It is more biological than you may think.
You may be correct in this, but it is hard to tell because justice is more of an application of the ideal of fairness. Analogically speaking, justice is to fairness what farming is to food.
Tolerance is kind of a funny word, because it implies the extension of polite behavior toward those for whom you are otherwise contemptuous.
More or less.
I do not think politeness is required for tolerance. A society that does not kill, imprison, steal from, dispossess of opportunities, disenfranchise, marginalize, or otherwise interfere with the tolerated people is essentially tolerant. What politeness implies is acceptance, which is a step friendlier than tolerance.
It’s absolutely necessary in more complex societies, but the word seems outdated in cultures that include a wider swath of humanity.
That depends on how important you think assimilation is. Societies need to be cohesive, and assimilation is critical for the creation of a culture that encompasses the whole society. If the swath of unassimilated humanity is too wide in a single society, then it can become impossible to have the reliability of communication and cooperation necessary for the society to function.
The real question is where the sweet spot is between "too wide to function" and "too narrow to benefit from diversity."
This is where the difference between acceptance and tolerance is critical. If a society accepts everything, there is no pressure to assimilate. Tolerance lies midway between oppression of minorities (intolerance) and cultural disintegration under the weight of unassimilated diversity.
If your daughter wants to date a guy you find weird, you should find out why you feel that way.
Agreed.
It might be your personal taste, but it is more likely that risks fathers may take with our own safety, or even with that of our sons, we are loathe to take with our daughters. This has a basis in survival of genes.
For example:
- - It might be that you recognize the need to fit in (at least to some degree) is necessary for the economic success you hope your (possibly) future son-in-law will contribute to your daughter's prosperity.
- - It might be that he just "gives you the creeps." I believe in heeding the creeps. This is the deep parts of the brain processing subtle cues in the unconscious. The result is that even though we would normally feel the oxytocin that results from the behavior of the "creepy" person, we do not. That disconnect makes us feel uncomfortable. Often our unconscious minds are smarter than our conscious minds because we feel conscious pressure to submit to social pressure, regardless of whether there is obvious advantage to doing so.
There is no such thing as normal, there is only what you think is normal based on your experience. For you, it may be normal to hate niggers and jews, for someone else, it may be normal to eat nothing but corn flakes and asparagus and wear a rectangular hat. Just imagine how many alien civilizations there are in the multiverse, all with their own varying ideas of what is normal. How can you say there is anything that is normal at all? How many universes out of the infinite multiverse have our same "normal" physics? If you think normal exists you are a black butt hole sucking pot head pot hole faced baboon.
Society decides what is normal. Societies make laws that protect the normal and protect AGAINST the AB-normal. Normals change over the years and a new normal sometimes means a new law. When a musket was a normal weapon, the Second Amendment was born. When weapons became a thousand times more deadly, they became a new "norm", and the law needs "adjustment". When religions decided men who loved men were "abnormal", laws were made. When science and education saw that it WASN'T so abnormal, new laws were made.
When it comes down to people and religions deciding to stick with the old beliefs … regardless of new knowledge … THEY become abnormal, and abnormal laws are kept OR resisted, abnormally. I don't like abnormal laws, that makes me abnormally normal. ;-)
It is normal people, those who have common sense in one other word, those who are mentally stable who should determine what's normal. Toxic snowflakes have zero rights and will be silenced by the truth and only the truth. Facts are facts. Biology destroys gender theory. Gender isn't a social construct. But toxic snowflakes are a social construct; Self destructive ignorant individuals who think they can change whatever they want. BAH. There are only 2 genders. Deal with it leftists.
Do you want the criminally insane to rule the world? I surely don't but if you betray humanity by saying "Yes", you've committed high treason upon endangering people to massacres, aids/hiv, hepatitis and extinction. Nobody in his or her right mind with common sense will agree with nutcases deciding what's normal. Democrats are a HUGE EXAMPLE of WHY WE SHOULD NOT LET NUTCASES DECIDE WHAT'S NORMAL.
Snowflakes stand zero chances against the truth and facts. They melt at the very thought of biology and other things that contribute towards proving them wrong. You are truthphobic if you think there is no such thing as normal because normal usually means "People with common sense" and common logic.
