This definition requires a judge of what is to be "expected." Who will judge what is to be expected? Who will decide if that fits the definition of "normal?" — Questioner

Of course. That is how the word works. The speaker may have an idea of what "normal" is, the listener may share it, or may not. They talk past each other to the degree that their concepts of "normal" differ. The listener may realize this, or may not have a concept of normal at all, and ask, "What is 'normal' here?"

When we try to apply the concept of "normality" to all human beings - who demonstrate a great deal of variation - the concept kind of breaks down. — Questioner

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality.

(normalcy) cannot work without marginalizing people who don't fit the parameters of what others "expect." — Questioner

When applied to humans (which is only a fraction of the usage of 'normal'), yes this kind of marginalization happens. What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do.

It is best to describe prescriptive baggage when defining a word, describing how it actually functions.

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality. — hypericin

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors.

"Normal" is a limiting term - and since we are all humans, we should all be included as full humans?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that?

What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do. — hypericin

It may lead to suppression or oppression.

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors. — Questioner

It depends on what we are talking about. Behavior? Physiology? Ability? Appearance?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that? — Questioner

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met.

To exclude. Humans are often excluded based on abnormality, for reasons that are legitimate as well as reasons we would probably object to.

It may lead to suppression or oppression. — Questioner

Indeed, it may. But this belongs in a discussion of the ethics of normality, not the meaning.

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met. — hypericin

This just sounds like judging people, and this can be fraught with potential for abuse.

It slots all humans into a hierarchy (which is then equated to worthiness) and as we all know this has not gone well in the past. We can talk about majorities, and minorities, but minorities are as normal - and natural - as the majority.

I can't think of a reason to exclude an individual from humanity.

Difference is normal.

:point: :point:
It’s within one standard deviation of the mean
— T Clark — NotAristotle

Keeping in mind this is a definition, not the definition.

That's natural (central tendency). — Copernicus

Isn't natural tendency inherent character or states from the birth or origin of objects or agents? Normal is expected state, situation, response or character which are induced or forced via environmental, social or devised factors and systems.

So, what’s the normal human body temperature. 98.6°F. What does that mean? I assume that’s the arithmetic mean of values measured in many humans. If you plot a graph of specific temperature ranges versus frequency of occurrence in the sample population, it’s likely the graph will show a bell shaped curve, i.e. a normal distribution. As I understand it, for body temperature the amount of variability around that mean will be small.

Temperatures significantly above or below that value are dangerous to health. It’s reasonable for me to say a temperature of 104° or 93° is abnormal.

Sure. It’s within one standard deviation of the mean

I disagree. If the question is: having how many fingers is normal? The average or mean (less than 10) isn't "normal", neither is the median, nor your range. The correct answer is the mode, that is: 10.

I disagree. If the question is: having how many fingers is normal? The average or mean (less than 10) isn't "normal", neither is the median, nor your range. The correct answer is the mode, that is: 10. — LuckyR

In the post I just submitted, I was talking about human body temperature, not number of fingers. Number of fingers is not normally distributed, although most characteristics, including body temperature, are.

Actually, as I think about it, my definition would work for your situation also. The arithmetic mean of the number of fingers on a human hand would be very close to 10, so that my identification of normal as within one standard deviation of the mean would still be reasonable.

Can you define Normal?[/quote]
Normal is not to ask what is "normal".

I see your point, but haven't heard a reason why a range around the mean is superior to the mode. Especially in cases of a bimodal distribution.

I see your point, but haven't heard a reason why a range around the mean is superior to the mode. Especially in cases of a bimodal distribution. — LuckyR

In a normal distribution, the mode, mean, and the median are all the same. For characteristics with a non-normal distribution, it probably doesn’t make sense to talk about normality at all. That certainly is true of a bimodal distribution.

I’ll say it again, my definition is a reasonable one, but it’s not the only reasonable one.

The best way to determine the meaning of "normal" is to evaluate its use over as many contexts as possible and statistically determine its most common usage.

Fortunately, ChatGPT already does that for us.

Stay weird my friends.

I agree there are situations (such as body temperature) that a range is at least as accurate (to the common meaning of "normal") as a single number. I guess my understanding of the word "normal" excludes outliers (since they're by definition, not "normal"), hence the superiority of the mode. For example, statistically the answer to the question at what age do kids normally graduate from high school, should not be lowered because a small percentage of genius 12 year olds have accomplished the feat, in my opinion.

You mean it's "normal" meaning? wink, wink...

You’re not paying any attention to what I said. We’ve taken this far enough. I am all done.

I taught ChatGPT to do analysis in the style of J L Austin. I'd forgotten until you mentioned it.
It gave me the following:


______________________
1. Range of uses (family of senses)

“Normal” is not univocal. It operates across several neighbouring but distinct practices:

1. Statistical
Normal ≈ common, average, within a distribution.

• “A normal temperature”
• “This result is within the normal range”

Here, abnormal need not imply bad—only rare.

2. Functional / teleological
Normal ≈ working as it should.

• “Normal vision”
• “The engine is running normally”

This invokes standards of function, not frequency.

3. Normative / social
Normal ≈ socially expected or acceptable.

• “That’s not normal behaviour”
• “A normal family life”

Here “normal” quietly slides into ought.

4. Medical / clinical
Normal ≈ absence of pathology.

• “The scan came back normal”

Crucially, this is contrastive with pathological, not immoral or rare.

5. Conversational / reassuring
Normal as a speech-act:

• “That reaction is perfectly normal”

The function is to allay concern, not to describe statistics.

2. Characteristic contrasts

Austin insists we ask: what does it contrast with here?

• normal / abnormal
• normal / pathological
• normal / exceptional
• normal / deviant
• normal / malfunctioning

The contrast chosen fixes the sense. Many philosophical confusions arise from sliding between these without notice.

3. Conditions of correct application

We do not call something normal when:

• The relevant comparison class is unspecified. Normal for whom? For what system? At what time?
• The speaker conflates frequency with value. Common ≠ good; rare ≠ bad.
• The context is evaluative but masquerades as descriptive. “It’s not normal” used as moral condemnation.

4. Misuses and temptations

Austin would highlight several philosophical temptations:

• Reification — Treating “the normal” as a property things have, rather than a judgement relative to a practice.
• Illicit normativity — Smuggling ought into is under cover of medical or statistical language.
• False objectivity — Speaking as though “normal” names a natural kind rather than a shifting standard.
• Category drift — Moving from “statistically normal” to “functionally proper” to “morally acceptable” without noticing the slide.

5. What “normal” is not

• Not a synonym for natural
• Not equivalent to healthy in all contexts
• Not a fixed standard across domains
• Not value-free, despite appearances

6. Philosophical moral (very Austinian)

“Normal” is a context-governed, contrastive, interest-relative term. Its philosophical danger lies precisely in how ordinary it is: it does work quietly, often without announcing which job it is doing.

When we say something is “normal”, we had better ask:
normal as opposed to what, for what purpose, and in whose mouth?

_________________

Pretty good, I reckon. Shows how limited the conversation has been, focusing on only the first item in the first sense - statistics. Plenty of good material here for a discussion.

and now ChatGPT will remember how to format stuff for Plush forums... I hope.

I took your concern to be disability ought be considered an interplay of person upon environment, focusing more upon the deficiencies in the environment than the person. Under this model, we view the environment needing modification and correcting, leaving challenges to dignity of the person undisturbed. This requires we recalibrate the conceptual, pointing to the deficient environment, not the person.

"Normal" talk seemed to smuggle back in judgment of the person, endangering calling some people abnormal and then figuring out what needed be done to normalize them.

That then led us to ask "what is it to be "normal" anyway?" I think that's a tangential rabbit hole to go down. As long as we don't attribute worth to normality, the issue of normality remains only a statistical consideration for the engineer who wants to build a sidewalk ramp as accommodating to as many as possible.

We can recognize that our definition of disability is imperfect where it speaks only of environmental deficiency and not of human deficiency, and we can insist upon such a definition without being disosant just because our goal isn't definitional perfection. Our goal is promotion of Enlightenment happiness. How we refer to people and how we think of people matters in how we treat people, and so if the achievement of better "doing" is served, that is sufficient whether we've sorted out the dozens of varieties of normalness.