"Normal" is one of those words that we don't really think about much when we use it (e.g., "normal reaction," "normal behavior," "normal person"). However, if you take the time to think about what "normal" means and how complicated the concept really is, things begin to get murky. Some people will tell you that in this fragmented, hyper-diverse world of today, no one is really "normal" any longer. This claim, while appealing in its critique of conformity, misunderstands how psychological and medical diagnoses work. It also risks erasing the very real, statistically grounded systems that help clinicians understand human differences, not by comparing people to some ideal, flawless standard, but by referencing real-world data from representative populations.

Assuming that "normal" equals "ideal" or "health" is a major misinterpretation of how people think every day. An example of the problem is how we picture all "normal people" as emotionally balanced, physically healthy, productive, socially skilled, and able to think clearly and with sound judgment. This view of the "normal person" is not only unrealistic, but terribly wrong. The idea that normal is some gold standard that everyone must reach and that those who do not achieve this gold standard are somehow maladaptive is entirely misguided.

In actuality, the sciences that study human activity, human health, and human cognition define normal in the statistical sense rather than the moral sense. The science of medical and mental health diagnosis will use large-scale population samples to define the statistical range of normal as it relates to a particular variable (age, sex, race, and sometimes geographic location and socioeconomic status), and they will use this statistical data to evaluate individual cases. The goal is not to find a perfectly "normal" human being and establish this as the standard by which you evaluate all humans. Rather, it is about observing how someone functions........

© Psychology Today