Normal

Therese J. Borchard asks: Is Anyone Normal Today? I think her question is too limiting. I wonder if there ever has been a normal person?

Kendra Cherry: What Is Abnormal?

Abnormal psychology is the study of abnormal mental processes and behavior. Abnormal is defined as “not normal,” but this definition isn't sufficient in the field of psychology. For one thing, normal is a relative term. For instance, what you consider to be abnormal behavior may be considered normal by your neighbor. Society also has its own standards for normal. A mental health professional must be able to define abnormal behavior and then determine when abnormal behavior constitutes a mental disorder. Not an easy task. http://www.netplaces.com/psychology/...s-abnormal.htm

Dr. Grohol: “The point is simple — there is no ‘normal.’” Am I Normal?

Peter Kramer:

As the experience of mid-century shows, we can hold two forms of normality in mind—normal as free of defect, and normal as sharing the human condition, which always includes variation and vulnerability. We may be entering a similar period of dissociation, in which risk and pathology become separated from abnormality—or an era in which abnormality is universal and unremarkable.

We are used to the concept of medical shortcomings; we face disappointing realizations—that our triglyceride levels and our stress tolerance are not what we would wish. Normality may be a myth we have allowed ourselves to enjoy for decades, sacrificed now to the increasing recognition of differences. The awareness that we all bear flaws is humbling. But it could lead us to a new sense of inclusiveness and tolerance, recognition that imperfection is the condition of every life. What Is Normal? http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...what-is-normal

Therese J. Borchard: “Why are there so many disorders today?” The proliferation of disorders is only part of the debate:

A few years ago, psychiatrist and bestselling author Peter Kramer penned an interesting article for Psychology Today rebutting the claims of popular authors — spawning a new genre of psychological literature — that doctors are abusing their diagnostic powers, labeling boyishness as “ADHD,” normal sadness and grief as “major depression,” and shyness as “social phobia.” Because of their rushed schedules and some laziness, doctors are narrowing the spectrum of normal human emotion, slapping a diagnosis on all conditions and medicating people who would be better served with a little coaching, direction, and psychotherapy.

As I explained in my piece, “Are We Overmedicating? Or Is Our Health Care System Inadequate?,” I believe the problem is far more complicated than overmedication. I’d be more comfortable labeling it “really bad health care.” And if I had to pick a culprit, I’d point my finger at our health care insurance policies, not the doctors themselves.

Borchard again: "Are doctors overmedicating? Or is it the system that sets doctors up for failure?"

Yes. Overmedication exists. But it’s just one causality of a much bigger problem: A poor health care system in the U.S. based on the earnings and profits of health insurance companies, giving the average doctor ten minutes to throw a solution at his patient. That’s our biggest problem to solve.

Health insurance companies share the onus with many others, e.g., Big Pharma, FDA, our purported representatives who depend on the deep pockets to stay in office, to name a few.

What is interesting to me is how often "normal" comes up in a discussion of wellness. How do you define "normal"? Can you list ten people you would describe as "normal"? How well do you know these people? What attributes distinguish them from others -- who you must, therefore, perceive as abnormal?

I agree with the quotes posted,
'normal is relative' and 'society creates normal.' So does culture.

I don't believe that 'normal' or 'abnormal' should be placed anywhere near the discussion of health, unless to describe a baseline of general health (ie. vitals, organ function, temperature, etc.)

So if there is no clear cookie-cutter representation of 'normal' how could it still be used as a definition?

I enjoy how the article points out that the notion of normal is becoming even more narrow: '"We've narrowed healthy behavior so dramatically that our quirks and eccentricities—the normal emotional range of adolescence and adulthood—have become problems we fear and expect drugs to fix."'

So yes, I do agree that many are overmedicated, but the conformity that many are expected to epitomize often leads to stronger emotions and increased anxieties. So thus comes the question: does society's expectations of 'normalcy' (as outlined via the media and mainstream sources) cause or increase mental illness?

So with the definition of normal (speaking in terms of mental health) we reach a dilemna: if we strive to be normal, we forego some vital part of our individuality... OR we resist the face of the 'normal' (because we will never be defined thus) which will inevitably label us as further 'abnormal'.

I honestly can't name anyone I would consider 'normal', I either don't know them well enough or know them too well. haha.

see my signature.

As somebody who watches news quite often and suspect people who make the world go round are in the "normal" cathegory (since they are norm setters)... I do not wanna be "normal".

I wanna be comfortable in my skin. I wanna feel self-acceptingand able to use my potential. I don't need to be "normal" for that.

Normal, to me, is people who live their lives, seem on the outside to be similar to one's self on the outside, etc. Everyone has problems, issues, crises, hurts and fears and if one struggles with them and gets them going pretty well, does the majority social coordination thing (school, job, family, friends, interests) then I consider them "normal".

But if person goes through major trauma and is unaffected... are they normal? Or is it "normal" to have hard time getting over some things?

I would like to relegate "normal" to a setting on a dryer. Not long ago, however, Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said:

It seems obvious, but bears repeating, that understanding normal functioning of brain-behavior relationships is critical to providing insight into abnormal brain-behavior relationships. To discover the causes of psychiatric disorders and develop improved treatments and interventions, NIMH must demonstrate how interactions between genes, environment, experiences, and development contribute to the formation and function of brain circuits. (Emphasis added) http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/direct...ng-myths.shtml

Construct:

Construct - The concept or the characteristic that a test is designed to measure, but is not directly observable (referred to as a latent variable). A construct is a theoretical concept or trait inferred from multiple evidences and used to explain observable behavior patterns. In psychological testing, a characteristic that is considered to vary across individuals, such as extroversion, visual-spatial ability, creativity, etc. (Emphasis added) http://www.riversidepublishing.com/pdfs/WebGlossary.pdf

Quantifying Construct Validity:

Construct validity is one of the most central concepts in psychology. Researchers generally establish the construct validity of a measure by correlating it with a number of other measures and arguing from the pattern of correlations that the measure is associated with these variables in theoretically predictable ways. This article presents 2 simple metrics for quantifying construct validity that provide effect size estimates indicating the extent to which the observed pattern of correlations in a convergent-discriminant validity matrix matches the theoretically predicted pattern of correlations. Both measures, based on contrast analysis, provide simple estimates of validity that can be compared across studies, constructs, and measures meta-analytically, and can be implemented without the use of complex statistical procedures that may limit their accessibility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) (Emphasis added) http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doi...-3514.84.3.608

So, "normal" refers to the product of measuring unobservable characteristics that vary across individuals by employing a theoretical "concept or trait inferred from multiple evidences and used to explain observable behavior patterns."

After all that is done, testing on an individual may well determine he/she is outside the statistical norm yet does not fit within any statistical abnormality.

" The core idea is this: if we can understand the brain mechanisms responsible for how we experience emotions, make decisions, or interact with others, then we will be in a better position to understand how psychiatric diseases rob people of these abilities. Thus, basic research is the first, critical step down the road toward new and better treatments, cures and, ultimately, prevention of these devastating diseases."

I think that people tend to get "too frustrated/confused" with thinking about what a "normal" person might be. It is well known that all of us are "unique" and it woud be nearly impossible to "dupicate" an individual, even if we were able to "clone" someone.

If we think about our "computers" that are somewhat compatible to the human brain, on some very "basic mechanicals", we will see that our computers reflect our "uniqueness". We buy a computer that is mass produced with certain capabilities, and then we each begin to build a "computer memory" that reflects our personal uniqueness. Therefore, even though a computer can have what is considered a "normal capacity", as soon as someone interacts with and uses it, it then becomes "unique". Ofcourse computers are not "human" but because it has been designed to be very "capatable" to the human brain, it is something we can think about while we are trying to understand the human brain better.

When I think about "normal" myself, I think more about how someone's brain will respond to certain environmental conditions by "producing common charectoristics".While learning about PTSD, and experiencing it in my brain first hand, I would say that my brain exhibits "normal symptoms/thought pattern charectoristics of PTSD".

While I may have a unique "life experience" from someone else that may be experiencing the same "brain disorder/challenge" I experience the same emotional/concentration/and many physical problems as others who have the PTSD changes in their brains do.

What "normal" represents to me is "average" human charectoristics that develope from "similar" ways a human brain is expected to "process information and have a sense of "function" that allows that brain to process "life experiences and information" and maintain "balance".
"Balance" would include "the ability to maintain a desire to survive, and thrive and maintain a sense of "knowledge" that is capable of developing an ongoing ability to "adapt" and "thrive".

Unlike a computer, human beings are designed to take in "messages" and also experience "emotions" that produce chemical reactions in the brain that add to or subtract from "sense of ability to thrive". And these emotions can produce chemicals that can actually "disturb" the human brain's ability to maintain a "balanced desire" to thrive. And much like a computer that can acquire a virus, the brain can begin to "slow down" and have difficulty processing and producing "information" and "capacities" to maintain a "constent flow of thoughts and emotions that stay in "balance".

So the only way we can really consider the use of "normal" is simply by saying that the "average" brain responds to "certain" conditions in a "common" way.

We are then able to examine someone's brain and sense of function and well being, by learning about the "conditions" that brain was "programed" in. For example, if someone's brain was exposed to constant "threats and messages of "anger, unsafe environment, and very few "positive" messages to "thrive on", that brain will not develope certain abilities to maintain a sense of "emotional balance" and ability to "thrive".

We have already learned this by experimenting with monkeys. We saw what would happen if we provided an infant monkey with a mother that had "no" warmth or nurturing abilities. The end result was a monkey who could not function or interact "normally" with other monkeys.

So for me, I consider "normal" from a standpoint of how someone developes resulting from common "conditions" or "exposures" that may "interfere" with their ability to find "balance and permission to thrive within their uniqueness".

I do feel however, that the human brain "can" learn to develope "better coping methods" inspite of some of the "troubling ways it adapted to it's environment". How this "can" take place is by first identifying the "difficult area" and then having that person/brain develope "new ways of interpreting interactions and forming healthier emotions around these "new skills".

For example, let's say someone has somehow developed poor "communication skills" and when they make an attempt to communicate they constantly get "negetive" responses. If that person continues on that path and is constantly told they "cannot improve" they will "not improve" and believe they are incapable. However, if that person is allowed to be in an environment where they can slowly "establish" new knowledge and is given ongoing "patience" and positive support and time to "repeat these positive patterns" they WILL develope a capacity to "achieve better interactive skills and the positive emotions that accompany that new "skill". This is something we are learning about the human brain and now call "plasticity".

In my own years of working with both children and training horses I "know" that repetitive positive teaching of new skills "do work". It never ceases to amaze me that while a horse only has a brain the size of a walnut, that brain "can" develope new skills and "postive" mannerisms as well. If I can take an abused Mustang that was so sensitive it would shiver and cower to the human touch, and produce a "calm, trusting and capable balanced "willing" animal, that is proof to me that we "can" learn to overcome many things.

I do not want to exclude the fact that some human brains may have "different" ways they may function.
I raised a child that has dislexia, so I know her brain "processes" information differently than my brain does or what can be called the "average" brain. However, even though she processed information differently, with "understanding and positive support" she learned to develope her brain in "healthy balanced ways where she continuously feels she has the ability to "thrive".

Open Eyes

Normal is what you make it.

I think that you are thinking about "normal" as a typical person with seemingly no problems or challenges. Alot depends on a person's personal experience with "adapting". There is a lot of "study" taking place to try to understand why some people respond to "trama" or "a tramatic experience" better than others. I don't really think there is a "typical" person we can name as "normal" tbh.

What I have read is that it is "normal" to have a difficult time recovering from "a tramatic experience" and it is not unusual for a person to want to refrain from being in a similar situation where they "may" experience a similar trama. In other words "a trama where that person had no sense of control and suffered a great deal of loss as a result.

Sometimes a person "can be" affected by a tramatic experience, but they manage to "block it out" for a long period and can go for "years" living a "normal life". However, they can have something happen that "reminds them" of that trama and then experience an onset of PTSD symptoms as much as 30 years, even more after the tramatic event/events.

It is also "possible" for certain people that are exposed to "constant violence" to become "decensitized" to it on some levels. Whereas someone who is used to a different kind of "quieter" environment may become "tramatized" to the sudden change, because it is not something they ever "knew" how to deal with before.
So it would be "normal" for this "challenge" to take place in someone put into a surrounding that they don't have the coping skills to "understand" or "adapt to".


Open Eyes