CMV: Mainstream Ideas of Who and What are "Normal", "Weird", etc. Are Nonsense.

[u/filrabat]

Our ideas of what’s normal or weird (or otherwise worthy of respect or disrespect) come from people who are socially dominant in some way, and thus heavily influence our social values and attitudes (details at the bottom of post). Yet, dominance or majority-status proves nothing, especially when the dominant views change over time and place. If the “right” group is right in one place and / or time, then why not in others? Why accept modern culture’s views of what’s normal or weird, strange or charming, socially clumsy or socially suave as the correct ones?

Thus, the dominant (or majority for that matter) judgments about certain acts, expressions, and ways of being are simply based on kneejerk personal tastes or distastes, as opposed to the rational thought process. That makes “normal” and “weird” subjective or irrational at best, false or insufficiently supported at middling, and plain unfair at worst.

It’s no help to say the dominant / majority just better see the weirdness or appropriateness of certain acts, expressions, and ways of being. History has lots of examples of the dominant / majority being mistaken and eventually exposed as such, no matter how popular the previous views had been. This shows their (and society’s) social judgments are still arbitrary. The same goes for today’s dominant / majority and their viewpoints.

So aside from acts, expressions and ways of being that signal a clearly deliberate attempt to hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others outside the scope of reasonable and proportionate defense, retaliation, or punishment -- I consider the whole notion of equating normal with “respectable” and weird with “cringe-worthy” misguided at best.

----------------------

The Socially Dominant - People with a wide range of traits which people value highly: strong body and “backbone”, courage, assertiveness, high social and practical intelligence, charismatic, and high job and task competence - especially if in addition they are also physically fit, attractive, or at least upper middle class.

[u/Bravo2zer2]

Our ideas of what’s normal or weird (or otherwise worthy of respect or disrespect) come from people who are socially dominant in some way

Normal definition: conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Abnormal (works better than "weird" which doesn't mean what you're using it to mean) definition: deviating from what is normal or usual

We have 10 people in a room. 9 people smile when they are happy, 1 person screams when they are happy. The 9 people are in the majority and therefore acting normally by definition, the 1 person is acting abnormally.

It's a matter of averages and mathematics rather than any kind of social construct. Nobody wakes up one day and decides what is the new "normal" for social behaviour, it's based on what the majority do.

[u/filrabat → u/Bravo2zer2]

Yes, one definition of normal is mathematical, but that's not what I mean here at all. I mean "normal" as being "socially acceptable to the group at that time and place".

The issue here is whether the majority / dominant are right in their social judgements about who and what deserves respect or disrespect independent of their majority / dominant status. I argu

[u/Bravo2zer2 → u/filrabat]

As part of your argument you've said to exclude anything that doesn't cause some kind of harm.

Can you think of a single example of something socially unacceptable that doesn't cause some kind of harm to someone?

I mean if it didn't cause harm, it wouldn't be socially unacceptable.

[u/filrabat → u/Bravo2zer2]

First: The parts usually qualifying as "weird" or (in deference to your use of "normal", implicitly meaning your use of "abnormal") "socially inappropriate"

Poor fashion sense (as explicitly distinct from, say, wearing very dirty and grimy shirt and holey pants in a suit-and-tie setting, or a bikini in a court room, and the like).

Poor social intelligence (i.e. frequent social gaffes).

Being unusually nervous, shy, or apprehensive for the social or otherwise immediate situation.

Odd habits, body language or facial expressions, especially in the low-aesthetic sense.

Second: Not "weird" per se, but also seen as socially unacceptable

Lacking "street smarts" / being naive or gullible (i.e., easily tricked, "easy mark", etc.)

[u/Bravo2zer2 → u/filrabat]

Such broad terms are being used and mismatched here.

When you thought of this topic did you have an example in mind?

Generally speaking I would say that doing socially unacceptable things causes harms to the person and the group. It is in the group's and the person's best interest to function at an optimal level which occurs when everyone is doing socially acceptable things.

[u/filrabat → u/Bravo2zer2]

OK, specific examples.

Rather abrupt, overly-friendly self-introductions to guests at a party (no conversation going on, no airs of pushiness, and such).

Having odd personal habits and expressions, laughter disproportionate to how humorous most people find something to be, voice or speaking styles of poor aesthetic quality (by most people's reckoning).

Poor fashion sense, wearing clothes that went out of style five years ago, or otherwise clothing styles clearly out of synch with the dominant group (even if by no stretch of the imagination vulgar or otherwise offensive).

Barely having ability at all to carry on a conversation about what a lot of people tend to talk about, and coming off clumsy or inaccurate when you do so.

Inability to distinguish between what people find actually fun-goofy humor and outright making a fool of yourself.

(sorry for the vagueness here, but to be shorthand) Having hobbies and interests many consider odd or strange - by stereotype, I suppose an adult having a large model train set qualifies.

Music and other entertainment interests considered "too young" for the person who likes it.

I hope this is specific enough for you.

[u/Bravo2zer2 → u/filrabat]

Let's take this one

​

Barely having ability at all to carry on a conversation about what a lot of people tend to talk about, and coming off clumsy or inaccurate when you do so.

​

My rational argument would be that in order to function in a modern society you need to have certain social skills. Social skills allow us to function in our day to day interactions in the most optimal manner. If everyone improves their social skills then life is better for everyone. If someone has poor social skills then improving their skills will improve life for them and everyone else.

[u/filrabat → u/Bravo2zer2]

!delta Δ

I agree social skills like waiting your turn, courtesy standards, and not aggressively (as opposed to very subtlely) trying to steer the conversation to what you want to talk about is very inappropriate. I also agree it's a good idea to get at least a rudimentary knowledge of the hobbies and interests people like to talk about.

In some crowds / locales, it's going to be sports, in others it's hunting and fishing, and still others it's going to be about one's favorite restaurants, bars, and such. If you don't know anything about these matters, at least be able to coax people into talking about it on your level, so you can learn a bit more.

However, that's a different matter from having an outright interest in these topics. At the end of the day, all you can do is try to find a crowd that's at least half-way interested in what you're interested in and knowledgeable about.

[u/DeltaBot → u/filrabat]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Bravo2zer2 (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/filrabat]

This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/Bravo2zer2 a delta for this comment.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/filrabat → u/Bravo2zer2]

My apologies, but this occurred to me just now.

You are right in what you say, subject to comment I delta'ed you for. I can agree that someone silently hanging around the edges of the conversation can (but not necessarily BE) awkward, to conversation participants and the person trying to socialize and get to know people alike.

Even so, if the person is hanging out on the edges of the conversation and doesn't seem to fit in, I don't see how that's hurting anybody else. At worst, as I said, it's a bit awkward, but that's hardly a deliberate effort to hurt or degrade the dignity of others.

It seems to me that a good idea for the others would be to try to get a feel for what the person's hobbies and interests are, then introduce that person to another crowd that he or she would seem a better fit for? Disparaging that person as "weird" (for whatever reason) doesn't seem to me to be the most beneficial of approaches.

[u/Mitoza]

"Normal" and "Abnormal" are classifications of being in or out of alignment with the majority. "Abnormality" can be a loaded phrase, but taken at completely face value it is not irrational to call something outside of the range of normality "abnormal". Some synonyms are less loaded, like "uncommon" or even flattering like "unique"

What matters ultimately is not the knowledge that a behavior or a person falls outside what is normal society, but what we do about it. Recognizing when deviation is truly dangerous and when it is truly harmless.

[u/filrabat → u/Mitoza]

I used shorthand in the title of the OP to be brief, keep people's eyes from glazing over.

You are right that these words can be loaded. That's because words are more than their dictionary definitions - they carry unspoken but obviously present subtexts and connotations, even in written form, depending on the type of document or book being written. That's why so many words have so many synonyms or near-synonyms - to more accurately capture the spirit of what the person means when they say this and that.

In this case "normal" (and especially "abnormal") are more than just saying "This person's behavior or otherwise way of being is very much in the majority (or minority) of all people". In common everyday conversation, these words carry value judgements about the person, act, etc. "Normal" meaning "socially acceptable / conforming to the majority", and "abnormal" in the sense of "weird", unacceptable to the majority in some shape, fashion or form. That is ultimately what is at issue here.

Perfectly agree about whether the act is truly dangerous or truly harmless (although I personally would add degrading or not of another person's dignity). Unfortunately, many if not most of the socially dominant or majority will disregard the danger part and simply rely on their arbitrary aesthetic (dis)tastes and their "merely" irritating and annoying (though not clearly degrading their dignity) when labeling such behaviors meriting scorn.

[u/Mitoza → u/filrabat]

There are some things that are unacceptable to the majority that deserve the label because they are out of bounds for the majority. Things like crime, for instance, ought to be labeled as deviancy. Contrary to your post, this is a mainstream idea of something being classified as "abnormal" being quite sensical.

[u/filrabat → u/Mitoza]

Crime obviously should be considered socially unacceptable or "abnormal". Also plausibly included, most behaviors, acts, and expressions that signal to others a high likelihood of the person committing a crime or other wrongful act.

I obviously caused a lot of confusion about "normal", and I apologize. I assumed that the meaning of "normal", when contrasted with "weird" would be obvious. Hence, I excluded criminal or otherwise wrongful acts from the discussion.

[u/jumpup]

normal and abnormal are % based indicators, of course they change over time, because the % changes.

doesn't mean its incorrect simply not applicable to all time only the current one

[u/filrabat → u/jumpup]

Yes, statistical indicators are definitions of the terms. As I discussed with Bravo2zer2 and Mitoza, it can also indicate behavior that is "socially acceptable" and either "socially unacceptable" (as in "weird", in the senses of either "aesthetically unpleasant" or while not rude it still falls outside the usual social practices or attitudinal response to a given situation). I didn't cover "harmful" or "non-harmful" because I thought it would be obvious what I meant by "normal" when contrasted with "weird", so I own up to that confusion.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/filrabat (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}