4 ms·

Yes, I think you see my point. Talking about normality in regard to human behavior is incredibly superficial. Normality in that sense is more like a mask that i

Yes, I think you see my point. Talking about normality in regard to human behavior is incredibly superficial. Normality in that sense is more like a mask that is put on, which the wearer is often unaware they are doing. We are herd animals, and trying to blend into the herd is a behavior many of us feel compelled to do (and can involve as much self-deception as it can deception of others). In my experience, the normal distribution of people I have met are from families that have problems (some more severe than others), yet that is the last thing they would share. They feel compelled to be normal and present themselves as happy, normal families.

Retric 3y ago
Normality isn’t some mask it’s what you get from reasonably typical genetics and reasonably typical environments. Most people have something unusual about them, and the existence of such divination is completely normal because there’s so many different criteria. Similarly, the vast majority of 90 year olds have multiple significant health issues even if there isn’t a specific issue that’s nearly as universal. It’s therefore normal for people to speak at least one language even if no specific language is universal. PS: Humans aren’t herd animals, we’re social animals but there’s many kinds of social species. Ants, wolves, gorilla, and prairie dogs all have very distinct social structures from each other while cows, elk, etc have quite a lot in common with each other.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  We are back to the ambiguity that affects all conversations about this. In my experience, most of the time when people are referring to what is normal, they are not actually referring to normal distribution, but to how they believe things should be concerning human behavior. Outside of ethicists who might be concerned with specifying norms, this is usually based upon group belief that they have adopted without reflection (i.e., herd behavior, trying to blend in, fit other people's expectations, etc).
  - Retric 3y ago
    > they have adopted without reflection I’ve spoken to many people from many different backgrounds about their beliefs and it’s extremely unusual for people to not reflect on their beliefs. However it’s easy to miss that frameworks of belief are self reinforcing. By which I mean belief in X increases the likelihood to believe in Y, and believing in Y increases the likelihood of believing in X. Therefore examining individual beliefs doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything and it’s much easier to swap to a new self consistent belief system than to adopt something unique to you yourself.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > Therefore examining individual beliefs doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything I think some beliefs are more foundational than others. Foundational beliefs include beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality (e.g. materialisms vs dualisms vs idealisms), the nature of logic and rationality, the nature of knowledge (epistemology), metaethics (is ethics objective or subjective? and if objective, how so?), the basic principles of normative ethics (such as consequentialism vs non-consequentialism), etc. If one changes one's foundational beliefs, very often the rest of one's belief system must change, like falling dominoes. However, a lot of people don't seem very interested in even examining their foundational beliefs, or aware that they even have them – things are so "obvious" to them that they are unaware anyone disagrees, or else they write off disagreement as "backward"/"superstitious"/etc without ever seriously intellectually engaging with it.
      - Retric 3y ago
        I agree people hold foundational beliefs, but they don’t seem to be things like materialism which then impose some logical consequences. Instead it’s stuff like the fundamental nature of specific organizations/ideas. You can far more easily find an agnostic Catholic than one who believes the Catholic Church is irredeemably evil. I’d call it tribalism rather than herd behavior because animal herds don’t attack other herds. Meanwhile football fans will fight each other over effectively arbitrary teams.
skissane 3y ago
> In my experience, the normal distribution of people I have met are from families that have problems (some more severe than others), yet that is the last thing they would share. They feel compelled to be normal and present themselves as happy, normal families. I think you are now talking about a third thing – "normality" as an appearance to which one feels social pressure to conform. In many cultures, it is viewed as inappropriate to "air one's dirty laundry" with acquaintances, work colleagues, etc – "oversharing" – something which should be limited to close friends/family.
- beedeebeedee 3y ago
  Yes, this is why I cringe whenever I hear someone use the word normal when referring to human behavior. It is used uncritically, and loaded with meaning stolen from other contexts, and has caused real harm. Addendum: I'm not able to reply to your comment below, so I will add this here. Anytime you ground your argument on what normal people do, you are almost certainly deluding yourself. This is not an objective statement you can make. It is a subjective statement about your own beliefs that you have puffed up by appealing to your impression that other people share them. Real harm has been done and continues to be done for the sake of "normalness". I felt the need to poke that hole because it really bothers me that in this day, most folks still are unreflective about this.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Addendum: I'm not able to reply to your comment below Did you try clicking on the "X minutes ago" link? Usually, even if the reply link is hidden on the comment, it is visible if you go to the comment's individual page. > Anytime you ground your argument on what normal people do, you are almost certainly deluding yourself. This is not an objective statement you can make. I don't agree appeals to "normality" are necessarily self-delusion. I prefer not to use that kind of language myself, due to its ambiguity. But, I believe in the principle of charitable interpretation, which means I try to understand what a person meant by what they were saying (based on my background knowledge of how they think), and attempt to prefer the strongest possible reading of what someone else says (seek to steelman rather than strawman). To say that putting strong emphasis on family ties is descriptively normal in terms of the bulk of human history–I think that is an objective factual claim which is true. If you think it is incorrect, I'm interested to know your evidence for that. As I said, I'd prefer to make this point without unqualified use of the ambiguous word "normal", but a point is not incorrect just because it was stated in a potentially ambiguous way. If we are talking about normative senses, well that depends on what ethics one adopts, which in turn depends on what metaethics one adopts. Many people believe that ethics is inherently subjective, but I don't agree with them. Not a "self-delusion" unless you apply that label to anyone who adopts different axioms than you do – in which case they can throw it right back at you. > Real harm has been done and continues to be done for the sake of "normalness" I think it is true that harm is sometimes done in the name of the "normal" – but conversely, one can also argue that some harm has been caused by the rejection of that concept. Which harm is greater is determined both by one's ethical values, and also one's conclusions on disputed factual questions.

Retric 3y ago

Normality isn’t some mask it’s what you get from reasonably typical genetics and reasonably typical environments. Most people have something unusual about them, and the existence of such divination is completely normal because there’s so many different criteria. Similarly, the vast majority of 90 year olds have multiple significant health issues even if there isn’t a specific issue that’s nearly as universal. It’s therefore normal for people to speak at least one language even if no specific language is universal. PS: Humans aren’t herd animals, we’re social animals but there’s many kinds of social species. Ants, wolves, gorilla, and prairie dogs all have very distinct social structures from each other while cows, elk, etc have quite a lot in common with each other.

beedeebeedee 3y ago
We are back to the ambiguity that affects all conversations about this. In my experience, most of the time when people are referring to what is normal, they are not actually referring to normal distribution, but to how they believe things should be concerning human behavior. Outside of ethicists who might be concerned with specifying norms, this is usually based upon group belief that they have adopted without reflection (i.e., herd behavior, trying to blend in, fit other people's expectations, etc).
- Retric 3y ago
  > they have adopted without reflection I’ve spoken to many people from many different backgrounds about their beliefs and it’s extremely unusual for people to not reflect on their beliefs. However it’s easy to miss that frameworks of belief are self reinforcing. By which I mean belief in X increases the likelihood to believe in Y, and believing in Y increases the likelihood of believing in X. Therefore examining individual beliefs doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything and it’s much easier to swap to a new self consistent belief system than to adopt something unique to you yourself.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Therefore examining individual beliefs doesn’t necessarily accomplish anything I think some beliefs are more foundational than others. Foundational beliefs include beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality (e.g. materialisms vs dualisms vs idealisms), the nature of logic and rationality, the nature of knowledge (epistemology), metaethics (is ethics objective or subjective? and if objective, how so?), the basic principles of normative ethics (such as consequentialism vs non-consequentialism), etc. If one changes one's foundational beliefs, very often the rest of one's belief system must change, like falling dominoes. However, a lot of people don't seem very interested in even examining their foundational beliefs, or aware that they even have them – things are so "obvious" to them that they are unaware anyone disagrees, or else they write off disagreement as "backward"/"superstitious"/etc without ever seriously intellectually engaging with it.
    - Retric 3y ago
      I agree people hold foundational beliefs, but they don’t seem to be things like materialism which then impose some logical consequences. Instead it’s stuff like the fundamental nature of specific organizations/ideas. You can far more easily find an agnostic Catholic than one who believes the Catholic Church is irredeemably evil. I’d call it tribalism rather than herd behavior because animal herds don’t attack other herds. Meanwhile football fans will fight each other over effectively arbitrary teams.

skissane 3y ago

> In my experience, the normal distribution of people I have met are from families that have problems (some more severe than others), yet that is the last thing they would share. They feel compelled to be normal and present themselves as happy, normal families. I think you are now talking about a third thing – "normality" as an appearance to which one feels social pressure to conform. In many cultures, it is viewed as inappropriate to "air one's dirty laundry" with acquaintances, work colleagues, etc – "oversharing" – something which should be limited to close friends/family.

beedeebeedee 3y ago
Yes, this is why I cringe whenever I hear someone use the word normal when referring to human behavior. It is used uncritically, and loaded with meaning stolen from other contexts, and has caused real harm. Addendum: I'm not able to reply to your comment below, so I will add this here. Anytime you ground your argument on what normal people do, you are almost certainly deluding yourself. This is not an objective statement you can make. It is a subjective statement about your own beliefs that you have puffed up by appealing to your impression that other people share them. Real harm has been done and continues to be done for the sake of "normalness". I felt the need to poke that hole because it really bothers me that in this day, most folks still are unreflective about this.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Addendum: I'm not able to reply to your comment below Did you try clicking on the "X minutes ago" link? Usually, even if the reply link is hidden on the comment, it is visible if you go to the comment's individual page. > Anytime you ground your argument on what normal people do, you are almost certainly deluding yourself. This is not an objective statement you can make. I don't agree appeals to "normality" are necessarily self-delusion. I prefer not to use that kind of language myself, due to its ambiguity. But, I believe in the principle of charitable interpretation, which means I try to understand what a person meant by what they were saying (based on my background knowledge of how they think), and attempt to prefer the strongest possible reading of what someone else says (seek to steelman rather than strawman). To say that putting strong emphasis on family ties is descriptively normal in terms of the bulk of human history–I think that is an objective factual claim which is true. If you think it is incorrect, I'm interested to know your evidence for that. As I said, I'd prefer to make this point without unqualified use of the ambiguous word "normal", but a point is not incorrect just because it was stated in a potentially ambiguous way. If we are talking about normative senses, well that depends on what ethics one adopts, which in turn depends on what metaethics one adopts. Many people believe that ethics is inherently subjective, but I don't agree with them. Not a "self-delusion" unless you apply that label to anyone who adopts different axioms than you do – in which case they can throw it right back at you. > Real harm has been done and continues to be done for the sake of "normalness" I think it is true that harm is sometimes done in the name of the "normal" – but conversely, one can also argue that some harm has been caused by the rejection of that concept. Which harm is greater is determined both by one's ethical values, and also one's conclusions on disputed factual questions.