I recently had a discussion about what normal people are. It reminded me of the incredible intolerance that pervades society, and for most of us is keenly felt from childhood in one way or another. Do normal people exist, then? My answer is maybe, but they're very few.
Why? The answer lies in a weird and geeky approach: Mathematics defines "normal" in terms of an average and probability of being there. Let's say that for each characteristic we imagine, we can draw a scale that ranges from something negative to positive, or bad to good (for simplicity, let's ignore times where there can be "too much of a good thing"). In our imaginary world, there is a majority of people in the good normal range, and a 5% of people who have a negative "difference" or fault. In the normal curve it looks like this:
Why? The answer lies in a weird and geeky approach: Mathematics defines "normal" in terms of an average and probability of being there. Let's say that for each characteristic we imagine, we can draw a scale that ranges from something negative to positive, or bad to good (for simplicity, let's ignore times where there can be "too much of a good thing"). In our imaginary world, there is a majority of people in the good normal range, and a 5% of people who have a negative "difference" or fault. In the normal curve it looks like this:
In simple terms, for any one characteristic, the story looks like this. 95% "normal" and 5% "weird":
However, when we have more than one characteristic, things begin to become complicated. As we increase the number of traits, so do we decrease the number of people who are "perfectly normal" and who do not have at least one fault or weirdness. If we have barely 14 traits, the number of "different" people becomes greater than that of "normal" individuals...
...and once the number of traits hits 59, the tables turn, and it's the so-called "normal" people who are outstripped by the rest of us, the "weirdos". I'm sure we can find these 59 traits, or more (if you'd like to contribute, leave a comment :-).
The take-home message is that we should be tolerant of people's wierdnesses and faults, as well as our own. The inevitable result is that we'll be better and happier for it.
Well, there are at least three points to be made: first, you should weight the 59 different traits; there are traits that alone are much more important than others when defining "weirdness". This per se would still put people in different degrees of weirdness, and not in the same "we are all weird" cluster. Sex, for instance, is a good (and my favourite) example. If you like "non-normal" sex (zoophily, for instance), or if you have a low sex drive, you are prone to be considered much more weird than "sticking your finger inside your nose in public". Second point, there is also a strong asymetry: if you like sex a lot, you are "abnormal" from a gaussian standpoint, but in fact great chances are that you will be considered "hot", not weird.
ReplyDeleteThird, cultural/genetic differences. When people of different cultures meet, they will find a lot of weirdness in the other. Again, what is considered a "normal" sex drive in one culture could be "too much" in other.
This is just human. We are all equally weird. But some people are more equal than others.
Dear Abnormal,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Different traits will be differently weighted, and often they may have a different "threshold for weirdness", where 1% of the population is considered weird or different (e.g. anorexia) or 20% (e.g. obesity). So the number of traits (59) is pretty much arbitrary...
I also agree that thresholds are arbitrary, variable and culturally biased.
And as you say, it is just human, but often people don't realise it: when they judge other people and even themselves.
But, I think my general point stands, which is that pretty much everyone is "weird", no? :-)