*HTML is OFF *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WYin quote:What’s Normal?John PerryAccording to the OED, the usual sense of `normal’ is:2. a. Constituting or conforming to a type or standard; regular, usual, typical; ordinary, conventional.But do these uses constitute a single sense? It seems that there is nothing very normative about being typical, regular, usual and ordinary; but conforming to a type or standard seems like something one ought to do. We set standards, live up to standards or fail to do so, and the like. The original use of the word `standard', was for battle flags and such, then for weights and measures; then for things more generally; there are standards of comparison, accepted standards; official standards. These generate at least conditional oughts; if you want to submit an article to The Philosophical Review, you should do your best to follow its standards. We can talk of standards for all sorts of things one doesn't aspire to be: the standard idiot. This seems ironic, though.The word `norm' also seems to have this dual use. Things can return to the norm; this may be good or may be bad. But norms are supposed to be rules, things one ought to follow, at least in appropriate circumstances. Let's legislate a bit, and distinguish between the use of normal as typical, and the normative use.Now is some cases, one ought to do what people typically do. If people in England typically drive on the left, one ought to drive on the left when in England, however intrinsically absurd that may seem. That's a pretty important ought. If people in England hold the fork in their left hand, perhaps one ought to do that too, although it's not so important. These are both matters of conventions, solutions to a coordination problem, according to David Lewis, although what the problem that holding a fork in one's left hand solves is not terribly apparent. I'm not sure what Lewis said about etiquette. You can look it up.But in general there seems to be a slide from the typical or average to the normative and required where there is no particular rationale for it. Teenagers, as we know, like to dress like their peers, and so do adults, for that matter. Dressing differently than the people around you usually suggests that you are identifying with a different group as your peer, not ignoring peer-pressure altogether. It seems that what we regard and handsome and beautiful are not what is typical, strictly speaking, but sort of an averaging of the faces and bodies we encounter.In the areas of physical and mental health, it is often a bit difficult to separate the average and typical side of being normal and the normative, meeting standards side. If my blood pressure is normal, that seems like a good thing; is it that normal means average, and people on the average have a healthy blood-pressure? Or is it that normal means the blood-pressure one has when everything is working the way it should? If a doctor said that virtually everyone has an abnormally high blood-pressure, we'd understand what she was getting at. One the other hand, if I am abnormally short or tall, is there any norm involved, or just what is typical and average? But then peer-pressure, or something along those lines, turns that into a standard, and the whole issue becomes medicalized, so you may be able get your kid treated if it appears he or she is going to be abnormally short or tall.Abnormal psychology deal with the different, the aberrant, the dysfunctional, people who are different than most of us, so surely not normal in that sense. So is that roughly the same as mental health? An if someone is not mentally healthy, does than mean they have a disease? And how are the norms for mental health related to the norms for clear and logical thinking?What a mess. http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2010/03/what-is-normal.html What is normal to you?Is being left-handed normal? What about being left-handed in a place where everybody has to write with the right hand and you are punished if you are caught sneaking in that devilish left hand?Is having only one pair or jeans normal?What about having only one pair of jeans in a place where you can have tens of pairs and not in any way deplete your finances, not to mention it's considered of poor taste?Now imagine a culture that embraces shamanism. Imagine being born or developing some kind of a neurological or psychological disorder in that culture. You will most likely become the new shaman. Now imagine a culture that treats mental illness by locking away all who display any sign of it. Compare that to the first culture. Which one is normal and which one isn't? Is that a valid question?cpn_edgar_winnernormal people worry me.that being said. World wide, I am not sure how much strides have been taken, but here in the US, they are pretty much de-institutionalised, and care is changing even today, as we speak. with person centered planning. meaning, realizing all are individuals with different needs and a team of people design a person centered paln to integrate them into society as much as possible. many now hold jobs, pay bills, and do any number of things that were not options in the past.The problem i personally have in dealing with persons with these issues, is they don't recognize boundries. if they had blood sugar problems and were having an episode, I would know exactly what to do. if they are bi-polar and having an episode, they present a danger to themselves and others and I have no idea what to do, or how to best deal with that individual and what thier needs may be. so I mostly try to avoid the situations and persons with these problems. ESPECIALLY those that refuse medications. Not sure about the shaman thing, if there is any evidence of the claim that mentally ill and shaman linkage or not, i guess I would beleive that if there were hard statistics to back up the claim. If those are provided, I will trust that it is true and factual.since de-instituationalization, many who refuse the treatment available, end up homeless and ostracized from society. I know personally, that I have had to deal with a loved one who does not understand how to work inside of the "norms" acts out, lashes out, says unwarranted hurtful things, and how I eventually had to deal with it, is not have that person in my life and not deal with it at all. it was the safest option. the other option is, you take abuse after abuse of someone who has no concept of even the fact that what they are doing is over the line and mean, a person can only take so much. So the right choice for me is to protect myself from potential abuse, verbal and otherwise, pray for the person and go on with my life. I can not help that particular individual, nor do i want to be thier verbal punching bag, so I stay completely away.the particular individual i am writing about, got worse over time, and now is in poor health in thier 60's, 3,000 miles away, with no one available to help. and no one will, due to the fact that people like to be treated with respect and they have no idea how to do that.I don't have simple answers yin, I wish i did, as it is very sad to me. so i guess my answer would be, i don't care how many pairs of jeans anyone has.or which hand they write with. nor do i think institations are the answer for people with social skills problems, nor do I think shamanism is the solution, as I feel shamans more than anyone would treat others with the utmost respect, and I am not sure those with these illnesses qualify them for that. as respect seems to be something they don't even comprehend.since I don't know the answers, I just try my best to avoid those individuals, as most seem to have self control problems and I really don't want to be in the line of fire that they find perfectly acceptable. I don't have a masters in behavoiral science but since I can't help them and they hurt me, i just try to avoid the situation. knowing I have a loved one who suffers alone. there isn't much I can do about it.ValusGood questions, Yin. Sometimes I wish we could regress to the "good ole days" of the the 1940's and 50's, when you knew who your enemies were and (after the war) things were superficially peaceful and "normal", and hardly anybody had heard of the civil right's movement, or women's liberation, or animal rights, or gay marriage, or psychedelics, or polyamory, or shamanic healing, or... It's just not the same.But every now and then we get to sweep important issues under the rug and enjoy a brief return to "normalcy". It's almost like Ozzy and Harriet. Valus LaraNORMAL??ummm normal to be is the kiss of death. It makes me reach for the sick bag or break out in a rash. It's on a level with "nice".As far as IQ's Valus, i'm happy to see i'm in the 4% and massively ABnormal LEXXEwwwwwwwwwwwww!The normalcy of the 1940s and 50s???????????Those were some of the creepiest bigoted stifling times!"shudder"My generation tried to put an end to all that fake nicey nice which hid the terrible ugliness of what really was going on.....and let folks know they did not have to live in a McCarthy like world, with faux enemies....with hate..... I find it odd you would want such a world....a world which would have either had you committed by now, and or jailed you. ------------------Everyone is a teacher...Everyone is a student...Learning is eternal.}><}}(*>.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥LEXXLara! quote:NORMAL??ummm normal to be is the kiss of death. It makes me reach for the sick bag or break out in a rash. It's on a level with "nice".As far as IQ's Valus, i'm happy to see i'm in the 4% and massively ABnormal LOL!Me too!LOL! Not enough range on that graph however!PS.Also you would be 1% or far less!------------------Everyone is a teacher...Everyone is a student...Learning is eternal.}><}}(*>.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥katatonicyin as far as cultures go i don't think you can use the word "normal". normal within a culture, yes, but between cultures doesn't work. it's too much like apples and oranges.the different uses of the word make it hard to pin down. personally i don't care for being normal but have learned after many years of discriminating against them that many so-called normal people are anything but!! they just don't go around pushing their individuality under your nose in a blatant way. i even wrote a song about that once when i was fed up with all the youth parading around in their identical "abnormal" gear and attitudes...as to the special people in your last example, they can be normal if their specialness can be found to serve a purpose. did you ever read the "four gated city" by lessing? it traces the evolution of a schizophrenic character from "crazy" and useless to "telepathic" and of crucial importance in saving the human race when the communication grid goes down. fascinating.AcousticGodWhat 4%? There is none suggested in the IQ chart. The only mention of percentage is the cumulative amount of society at the bottom.LEXXI noticed that too. http://www.thesmartbaby.com/iq_chart.htm IQ chartDesignation Intelligence intervalAverage 85 - 115Above average 115 - 125Gifted 125 - 135Highly gifted 135 - 145Genius 145 - 155Genius 156 - 165High genius 166 - 180Highest genius 181 - 200The following is a chart of I.Q. scores from 100 to 202. The rarity column shows how many people in the general population are expected to achieve this percentile or higher. For example, 1 out of 100 people are expected to achieve an I.Q. score of 137 or higher.I.Q. Percentile Rarity (1/x)100 50 2.0101 52 2.1102 55 2.2103 57 2.3104 60 2.5105 62 2.7106 65 2.8107 67 3.0108 69 3.2109 71 3.5110 73 3.8111 75 4.1112 77 4.4113 79 4.8114 81 5.2115 83 5.7116 84 6.3117 86 6.9118 87 7.7119 88 8.5120 89 9.5121 91 11122 91.5 12123 92.5 13124 93.3 15125 94.1 17126 94.8 19127 95.4 22128 96.0 25129 96.5 29130 97.0 33131 97.4 38132 97.7 44133 98.0 50134 98.3 60135 98.6 70136 98.8 80137 99.0 100138 99.1 110139 99.3 140140 99.4 160141 99.5 190142 99.57 230143 99.64 280144 99.70 340145 99.75 400146 99.80 500147 99.83 600148 99.87 700149 99.89 900150 99.91 1,100151 99.93 1,400152 99.94 1,700153 99.95 2,200154 99.96 2,700155 99.97 3,400156 99.977 4,000157 99.982 5,000158 99.986 7,000159 99.989 9,000160 99.991 11,000161 99.993 15,000162 99.995 19,000163 99.996 24,000164 99.997 30,000165 99.997 6 40,000166 99.998 1 50,000167 99.998 6 70,000168 99.998 9 90,000169 99.999 2 120,000170 99.999 4 160,000171 99.999 5 220,000172 99.999 66 300,000173 99.999 75 400,000174 99.999 81 500,000175 99.999 86 700,000176 99.999 90 1,000,000177 99.999 93 1,300,000178 99.999 95 1,800,000179 99.999 96 2,500,000180 99.999 97 3,500,000181 99.999 98 5,000,000182 99.999 985 7,000,000183 99.999 989 9,000,000184 99.999 992 13,000,000185 99.999 995 20,000,000186 99.999 996 30,000,000187 99.999 997 40,000,000188 99.999 998 50,000,000189 99.999 998 7 80,000,000190 99.999 999 1 110,000,000191 99.999 999 4 150,000,000192 99.999 999 6 220,000,000193 99.999 999 7 300,000,000194 99.999 999 8 500,000,000195 99.999 999 85 700,000,000196 99.999 999 90 1,000,000,000197 99.999 999 93 1,500,000,000198 99.999 999 95 2,000,000,000199 99.999 999 97 3,000,000,000200 99.999 999 98 5,000,000,000201 99.999 999 986 7,000,000,000202 99.999 999 991 11,000,000,000------------------Everyone is a teacher...Everyone is a student...Learning is eternal.}><}}(*>.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥Valus quote:Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!The normalcy of the 1940s and 50s???????????Those were some of the creepiest bigoted stifling times!"shudder"My generation tried to put an end to all that fake nicey nice which hid the terrible ugliness of what really was going on.....and let folks know they did not have to live in a McCarthy like world, with faux enemies....with hate.....Well said. quote: ...a world which would have either had you committed by now, and or jailed you. See: Facetious ValusYin,You might appreciate this. I thought up an interesting slogan,for a T-Shirt, cap, or bumper-sticker:"Either I'm a GENIUS,Or you're F*CKING RETARDED.You be the judge."I think that says it all. LEXX quote:See: Facetious quote:fa·ce·tious /fəˈsiʃəs/ Show Spelled[fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA–adjective1.not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.2.amusing; humorous.3.lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.No Valus...I was not being Facetious. Many folks were committed or jailed for doing their own thing so to speak.Your lifestyle and all would have totally freaked folks out back then. They would havemost likely locked you up.That is not meant as an insult Valus.Those were very narrow minded and bigoted intolerant times.------------------Everyone is a teacher...Everyone is a student...Learning is eternal.}><}}(*>.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥katatonicthe trouble with IQ tests is the multitude of very bright people who will never get high scores on them because they don't relate to the "normal" background on which the tests rest. and the multitude of "genius" or very high IQs who frankly find it hard to function in the world of "normal".kind of the same trouble as with the word normal itselfValusNo, LEXX.I was being facetious.You didn't get the joke.Nevermind. AcousticGodActually, IQ tests are quite accurate these days according to Nurture Shock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. The "cultural biases" that were said to exist don't if I remember right (and I was listening to that section not that long ago).Valus"IQ tests are a great test ofhow well you do on IQ tests."~ (i forget who said that)The trouble with IQ tests is the same as the trouble with a society that thinks it can determine who is sociable on thebasis of how well they fit into the society,without upsetting a majority of its members.Valus.GlaucusI know that I am far from normal. I knew that since my special education early school years."Actually, IQ tests are quite accurate these days according to Nurture Shock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. The "cultural biases" that were said to exist don't if I remember right (and I was listening to that section not that long ago)."Actually not for many neurodivergents, especially people that have extreme autism They tend to be very uneven compared to the neurotypical. Many are twice exceptional. They can score low on parts of an intelligence test and score high on parts of an intelligence test. Also their considerable strengths and considerable weaknesses can balance each other out that they score average overall and/or in certain sections. Extreme Autistics tend to score a lot higher on Matrice Raven intelligence tests that test visual problem solving skills. They tend to have problems with intelligence tests that depend on the use of verbal skills. People with Aspergers Syndrome is a different story because they tend to have advanced verbal skills. They are just mildly autistic. Their problems are mainly with social communications mainly as well as possible sensory issues but not as extreme as people with extreme autism. The book,RIGHTBRAINED CHILDREN IN A LEFTBRAINED WORLD (a book on ADHD children) discusses the problems with IQ tests for people that are rightbrained. The authors say that they should throw them out. They say that they are only for the leftbrained and wholebrained types.but yeahthe more extreme the neurodivergence, the more likely they will have problems with IQ tests. ------------------RaymondSupporting the Neurodiversity MovementA Different Mind Is Not A Deficient Mind. http://people.tribe.net/4b0cf8c4-1fc3-4171-92d3-b0915985bf95/blog YinRaymond, see "The Horse Boy" thread if you haven't done so already. It talks about horse therapy for autistic children. http://www.horseboyfoundation.org/ AcousticGodNurture Shock is full of interesting stuff. http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/08/30/a-5-minute-intelligence-test-for-kids.aspx YinThanks, AG. It looks interesting.listenstotrees"Normal" is just a perspective given by point of perception. koiflower.....boorish.
quote:What’s Normal?John PerryAccording to the OED, the usual sense of `normal’ is:2. a. Constituting or conforming to a type or standard; regular, usual, typical; ordinary, conventional.But do these uses constitute a single sense? It seems that there is nothing very normative about being typical, regular, usual and ordinary; but conforming to a type or standard seems like something one ought to do. We set standards, live up to standards or fail to do so, and the like. The original use of the word `standard', was for battle flags and such, then for weights and measures; then for things more generally; there are standards of comparison, accepted standards; official standards. These generate at least conditional oughts; if you want to submit an article to The Philosophical Review, you should do your best to follow its standards. We can talk of standards for all sorts of things one doesn't aspire to be: the standard idiot. This seems ironic, though.The word `norm' also seems to have this dual use. Things can return to the norm; this may be good or may be bad. But norms are supposed to be rules, things one ought to follow, at least in appropriate circumstances. Let's legislate a bit, and distinguish between the use of normal as typical, and the normative use.Now is some cases, one ought to do what people typically do. If people in England typically drive on the left, one ought to drive on the left when in England, however intrinsically absurd that may seem. That's a pretty important ought. If people in England hold the fork in their left hand, perhaps one ought to do that too, although it's not so important. These are both matters of conventions, solutions to a coordination problem, according to David Lewis, although what the problem that holding a fork in one's left hand solves is not terribly apparent. I'm not sure what Lewis said about etiquette. You can look it up.But in general there seems to be a slide from the typical or average to the normative and required where there is no particular rationale for it. Teenagers, as we know, like to dress like their peers, and so do adults, for that matter. Dressing differently than the people around you usually suggests that you are identifying with a different group as your peer, not ignoring peer-pressure altogether. It seems that what we regard and handsome and beautiful are not what is typical, strictly speaking, but sort of an averaging of the faces and bodies we encounter.In the areas of physical and mental health, it is often a bit difficult to separate the average and typical side of being normal and the normative, meeting standards side. If my blood pressure is normal, that seems like a good thing; is it that normal means average, and people on the average have a healthy blood-pressure? Or is it that normal means the blood-pressure one has when everything is working the way it should? If a doctor said that virtually everyone has an abnormally high blood-pressure, we'd understand what she was getting at. One the other hand, if I am abnormally short or tall, is there any norm involved, or just what is typical and average? But then peer-pressure, or something along those lines, turns that into a standard, and the whole issue becomes medicalized, so you may be able get your kid treated if it appears he or she is going to be abnormally short or tall.Abnormal psychology deal with the different, the aberrant, the dysfunctional, people who are different than most of us, so surely not normal in that sense. So is that roughly the same as mental health? An if someone is not mentally healthy, does than mean they have a disease? And how are the norms for mental health related to the norms for clear and logical thinking?What a mess.
John Perry
According to the OED, the usual sense of `normal’ is:
2. a. Constituting or conforming to a type or standard; regular, usual, typical; ordinary, conventional.
But do these uses constitute a single sense? It seems that there is nothing very normative about being typical, regular, usual and ordinary; but conforming to a type or standard seems like something one ought to do. We set standards, live up to standards or fail to do so, and the like. The original use of the word `standard', was for battle flags and such, then for weights and measures; then for things more generally; there are standards of comparison, accepted standards; official standards. These generate at least conditional oughts; if you want to submit an article to The Philosophical Review, you should do your best to follow its standards. We can talk of standards for all sorts of things one doesn't aspire to be: the standard idiot. This seems ironic, though.
The word `norm' also seems to have this dual use. Things can return to the norm; this may be good or may be bad. But norms are supposed to be rules, things one ought to follow, at least in appropriate circumstances. Let's legislate a bit, and distinguish between the use of normal as typical, and the normative use.
Now is some cases, one ought to do what people typically do. If people in England typically drive on the left, one ought to drive on the left when in England, however intrinsically absurd that may seem. That's a pretty important ought. If people in England hold the fork in their left hand, perhaps one ought to do that too, although it's not so important. These are both matters of conventions, solutions to a coordination problem, according to David Lewis, although what the problem that holding a fork in one's left hand solves is not terribly apparent. I'm not sure what Lewis said about etiquette. You can look it up.
But in general there seems to be a slide from the typical or average to the normative and required where there is no particular rationale for it. Teenagers, as we know, like to dress like their peers, and so do adults, for that matter. Dressing differently than the people around you usually suggests that you are identifying with a different group as your peer, not ignoring peer-pressure altogether. It seems that what we regard and handsome and beautiful are not what is typical, strictly speaking, but sort of an averaging of the faces and bodies we encounter.
In the areas of physical and mental health, it is often a bit difficult to separate the average and typical side of being normal and the normative, meeting standards side. If my blood pressure is normal, that seems like a good thing; is it that normal means average, and people on the average have a healthy blood-pressure? Or is it that normal means the blood-pressure one has when everything is working the way it should? If a doctor said that virtually everyone has an abnormally high blood-pressure, we'd understand what she was getting at. One the other hand, if I am abnormally short or tall, is there any norm involved, or just what is typical and average? But then peer-pressure, or something along those lines, turns that into a standard, and the whole issue becomes medicalized, so you may be able get your kid treated if it appears he or she is going to be abnormally short or tall.
Abnormal psychology deal with the different, the aberrant, the dysfunctional, people who are different than most of us, so surely not normal in that sense. So is that roughly the same as mental health? An if someone is not mentally healthy, does than mean they have a disease? And how are the norms for mental health related to the norms for clear and logical thinking?
What a mess.
What is normal to you?
Is being left-handed normal? What about being left-handed in a place where everybody has to write with the right hand and you are punished if you are caught sneaking in that devilish left hand?
Is having only one pair or jeans normal?What about having only one pair of jeans in a place where you can have tens of pairs and not in any way deplete your finances, not to mention it's considered of poor taste?
Now imagine a culture that embraces shamanism. Imagine being born or developing some kind of a neurological or psychological disorder in that culture. You will most likely become the new shaman. Now imagine a culture that treats mental illness by locking away all who display any sign of it. Compare that to the first culture. Which one is normal and which one isn't? Is that a valid question?
that being said. World wide, I am not sure how much strides have been taken, but here in the US, they are pretty much de-institutionalised, and care is changing even today, as we speak. with person centered planning. meaning, realizing all are individuals with different needs and a team of people design a person centered paln to integrate them into society as much as possible. many now hold jobs, pay bills, and do any number of things that were not options in the past.
The problem i personally have in dealing with persons with these issues, is they don't recognize boundries. if they had blood sugar problems and were having an episode, I would know exactly what to do. if they are bi-polar and having an episode, they present a danger to themselves and others and I have no idea what to do, or how to best deal with that individual and what thier needs may be. so I mostly try to avoid the situations and persons with these problems. ESPECIALLY those that refuse medications. Not sure about the shaman thing, if there is any evidence of the claim that mentally ill and shaman linkage or not, i guess I would beleive that if there were hard statistics to back up the claim. If those are provided, I will trust that it is true and factual.
since de-instituationalization, many who refuse the treatment available, end up homeless and ostracized from society.
I know personally, that I have had to deal with a loved one who does not understand how to work inside of the "norms" acts out, lashes out, says unwarranted hurtful things, and how I eventually had to deal with it, is not have that person in my life and not deal with it at all. it was the safest option. the other option is, you take abuse after abuse of someone who has no concept of even the fact that what they are doing is over the line and mean, a person can only take so much. So the right choice for me is to protect myself from potential abuse, verbal and otherwise, pray for the person and go on with my life. I can not help that particular individual, nor do i want to be thier verbal punching bag, so I stay completely away.
the particular individual i am writing about, got worse over time, and now is in poor health in thier 60's, 3,000 miles away, with no one available to help. and no one will, due to the fact that people like to be treated with respect and they have no idea how to do that.
I don't have simple answers yin, I wish i did, as it is very sad to me.
so i guess my answer would be, i don't care how many pairs of jeans anyone has.or which hand they write with. nor do i think institations are the answer for people with social skills problems, nor do I think shamanism is the solution, as I feel shamans more than anyone would treat others with the utmost respect, and I am not sure those with these illnesses qualify them for that. as respect seems to be something they don't even comprehend.
since I don't know the answers, I just try my best to avoid those individuals, as most seem to have self control problems and I really don't want to be in the line of fire that they find perfectly acceptable. I don't have a masters in behavoiral science but since I can't help them and they hurt me, i just try to avoid the situation. knowing I have a loved one who suffers alone. there isn't much I can do about it.
Sometimes I wish we could regress to the "good ole days" of the the 1940's and 50's, when you knew who your enemies were and (after the war) things were superficially peaceful and "normal", and hardly anybody had heard of the civil right's movement, or women's liberation, or animal rights, or gay marriage, or psychedelics, or polyamory, or shamanic healing, or...
It's just not the same.
But every now and then we get to sweep important issues under the rug and enjoy a brief return to "normalcy". It's almost like Ozzy and Harriet.
ummm normal to be is the kiss of death. It makes me reach for the sick bag or break out in a rash. It's on a level with "nice".
As far as IQ's Valus, i'm happy to see i'm in the 4% and massively ABnormal
I find it odd you would want such a world....a world which would have either had you committed by now, and or jailed you.
------------------Everyone is a teacher...Everyone is a student...Learning is eternal.}><}}(*>.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥ ¸.☆¨¯`♥
quote:NORMAL??ummm normal to be is the kiss of death. It makes me reach for the sick bag or break out in a rash. It's on a level with "nice".As far as IQ's Valus, i'm happy to see i'm in the 4% and massively ABnormal
the different uses of the word make it hard to pin down. personally i don't care for being normal but have learned after many years of discriminating against them that many so-called normal people are anything but!! they just don't go around pushing their individuality under your nose in a blatant way. i even wrote a song about that once when i was fed up with all the youth parading around in their identical "abnormal" gear and attitudes...
as to the special people in your last example, they can be normal if their specialness can be found to serve a purpose. did you ever read the "four gated city" by lessing? it traces the evolution of a schizophrenic character from "crazy" and useless to "telepathic" and of crucial importance in saving the human race when the communication grid goes down. fascinating.
The following is a chart of I.Q. scores from 100 to 202. The rarity column shows how many people in the general population are expected to achieve this percentile or higher. For example, 1 out of 100 people are expected to achieve an I.Q. score of 137 or higher.I.Q. Percentile Rarity (1/x)100 50 2.0101 52 2.1102 55 2.2103 57 2.3104 60 2.5105 62 2.7106 65 2.8107 67 3.0108 69 3.2109 71 3.5110 73 3.8111 75 4.1112 77 4.4113 79 4.8114 81 5.2115 83 5.7116 84 6.3117 86 6.9118 87 7.7119 88 8.5120 89 9.5121 91 11122 91.5 12123 92.5 13124 93.3 15125 94.1 17126 94.8 19127 95.4 22128 96.0 25129 96.5 29130 97.0 33131 97.4 38132 97.7 44133 98.0 50134 98.3 60135 98.6 70136 98.8 80137 99.0 100138 99.1 110139 99.3 140140 99.4 160141 99.5 190142 99.57 230143 99.64 280144 99.70 340145 99.75 400146 99.80 500147 99.83 600148 99.87 700149 99.89 900150 99.91 1,100151 99.93 1,400152 99.94 1,700153 99.95 2,200154 99.96 2,700155 99.97 3,400156 99.977 4,000157 99.982 5,000158 99.986 7,000159 99.989 9,000160 99.991 11,000161 99.993 15,000162 99.995 19,000163 99.996 24,000164 99.997 30,000165 99.997 6 40,000166 99.998 1 50,000167 99.998 6 70,000168 99.998 9 90,000169 99.999 2 120,000170 99.999 4 160,000171 99.999 5 220,000172 99.999 66 300,000173 99.999 75 400,000174 99.999 81 500,000175 99.999 86 700,000176 99.999 90 1,000,000177 99.999 93 1,300,000178 99.999 95 1,800,000179 99.999 96 2,500,000180 99.999 97 3,500,000181 99.999 98 5,000,000182 99.999 985 7,000,000183 99.999 989 9,000,000184 99.999 992 13,000,000185 99.999 995 20,000,000186 99.999 996 30,000,000187 99.999 997 40,000,000188 99.999 998 50,000,000189 99.999 998 7 80,000,000190 99.999 999 1 110,000,000191 99.999 999 4 150,000,000192 99.999 999 6 220,000,000193 99.999 999 7 300,000,000194 99.999 999 8 500,000,000195 99.999 999 85 700,000,000196 99.999 999 90 1,000,000,000197 99.999 999 93 1,500,000,000198 99.999 999 95 2,000,000,000199 99.999 999 97 3,000,000,000200 99.999 999 98 5,000,000,000201 99.999 999 986 7,000,000,000202 99.999 999 991 11,000,000,000
quote:Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!The normalcy of the 1940s and 50s???????????Those were some of the creepiest bigoted stifling times!"shudder"My generation tried to put an end to all that fake nicey nice which hid the terrible ugliness of what really was going on.....and let folks know they did not have to live in a McCarthy like world, with faux enemies....with hate.....
Well said.
quote: ...a world which would have either had you committed by now, and or jailed you.
See: Facetious
You might appreciate this.
I thought up an interesting slogan,for a T-Shirt, cap, or bumper-sticker:"Either I'm a GENIUS,Or you're F*CKING RETARDED.You be the judge."
I think that says it all.
quote:See: Facetious
quote:fa·ce·tious /fəˈsiʃəs/ Show Spelled[fuh-see-shuhs] Show IPA–adjective1.not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.2.amusing; humorous.3.lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.
kind of the same trouble as with the word normal itself
I was being facetious.
You didn't get the joke.
Nevermind.
The trouble with IQ tests is the same as the trouble with a society that thinks it can determine who is sociable on thebasis of how well they fit into the society,without upsetting a majority of its members.
"Actually, IQ tests are quite accurate these days according to Nurture Shock by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman. The "cultural biases" that were said to exist don't if I remember right (and I was listening to that section not that long ago)."
Actually not for many neurodivergents, especially people that have extreme autism
They tend to be very uneven compared to the neurotypical. Many are twice exceptional. They can score low on parts of an intelligence test and score high on parts of an intelligence test. Also their considerable strengths and considerable weaknesses can balance each other out that they score average overall and/or in certain sections.
Extreme Autistics tend to score a lot higher on Matrice Raven intelligence tests that test visual problem solving skills. They tend to have problems with intelligence tests that depend on the use of verbal skills.
People with Aspergers Syndrome is a different story because they tend to have advanced verbal skills. They are just mildly autistic. Their problems are mainly with social communications mainly as well as possible sensory issues but not as extreme as people with extreme autism.
The book,RIGHTBRAINED CHILDREN IN A LEFTBRAINED WORLD (a book on ADHD children) discusses the problems with IQ tests for people that are rightbrained. The authors say that they should throw them out. They say that they are only for the leftbrained and wholebrained types.
but yeah
the more extreme the neurodivergence, the more likely they will have problems with IQ tests.
------------------Raymond
Supporting the Neurodiversity Movement
A Different Mind Is Not A Deficient Mind. http://people.tribe.net/4b0cf8c4-1fc3-4171-92d3-b0915985bf95/blog
Copyright 2000-2023 Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a