## Categories

- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)

## Recent Questions

- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?

The whole history of mankind is a deviation from the norm, since we were created by evolution clearly not for the sake of building a technically advanced civilization, but simply in order to survive. And now, when our body has to work in completely different conditions, it will never be normal. And I would even say that we should run away from this natural normality, which is based on the instincts that govern us, disguised as traditions and a system of social rules (the desire to make a career, stand out — the instinct of dominance and control of territory, and respect for our superiors — respect for alpha individuals; the desire to earn as much as possible and buy material goods — a modified food instinct). Man must overcome the instincts that are harmful to social evolution, this normality inherent in nature, because of which wars begin, social stratification occurs, and many other problems. This is possible with the help of controlled artificial evolution of our species with the help of information technology (they have already begun to change us) and genetics.

This is stated more simply: there is no absolute norm. Or even easier: “there are no healthy ones. there are some underexamined ones.” But this is more of a joke.

Moreover, the absolute norm itself can be regarded as an anomaly. An inflexible pedant who strictly adheres to the golden mean in everything is very likely to turn out to be a schizoid.

And what is the norm ? Let's say we determine the norm not by subjective estimates , but by objective ones – statistical, mathematical. That can be accurately evaluated. Then the norm of something can be defined as a value within the limits of the standard deviation (i.e. , close to the average)

But there are a huge number of indicators for which we can determine for a person whether they are normal. Starting from height and weight, ending with the characteristics of the nervous system, and up to the number of friends on Facebook. And if we take at least 30 such indicators and just mathematically try to calculate the probability that all of them will be within the normal range, according to the formula known from school, then the chance of this will be less than 5%. Which is much less than normal. And then, from the objective definition of the norm given by us, it turns out that it is absolutely abnormal to be normal (in everything).