Debates still rage on regarding the true meaning of the term normal. Normal is defined as that which conforms to a set standard, level, type or pattern (Radloff, 2013). Normal also most of the time implies average. The word is usually used to show comparisons between different features or characteristics. From setting a certain standard, individuals can then deduce that a certain phenomenon does not have attributes exhibited by most if not all the other phenomena.
It is then imperative to ask, how do people come up with a normal scale? Since normal refers to a reference scale, how do individuals come up with a reference point to which they compare other characteristics? Different scholars postulate several ways in which such points of reference are obtained. For instance Norton (2017) points out that the best way of coming up with a reference point is observing the characteristics that are exhibited by the majority of the population under study. For instance, the average height of a full-grown American man is given as 177 centimeters while that of a full-grown woman is 163 centimeters. This height was determined by observing and taking measurements of several people. After that, the height that was exhibited by most individuals was perceived to be the norm. Individuals that are slightly taller or shorter are viewed as being normal. It shows that the term normal has some allowance or room where individuals who fall out of the exact point of reference are accommodated. On the contrary, individuals who are too short or too tall are perceived as being abnormal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Perhaps it is important to understand why human beings come up with a scale upon which they describe certain phenomena as being normal and others abnormal. Scholars presuppose that human beings by nature rank things or look at how they compare to others. It may be argued that ranking is different to comparisons. But it depends on what qualities are used to come up with the ranks. Schools for example rank students based on their academic prowess. The best student in mathematics is determined based on how well he or she scores in Math tests. Ranking students on whether they exhibit normal traits may be a different aspect. The school may come up with rules and regulations that require students to behave in a particular manner. That set requirement is what is known as the norm. Students who do not subscribe to the set regulations are said to fall out of the standard.
But what is evident is the variations that exist among different norms. For instance, the average American height does not apply to different races across the world. The Chinese, who are relatively shorter, could be having their norm. Even among the genders, the normal height varies. Such differences elicit questions about the significance of coming up with a reference scale. If variations exist on a scale upon which all individuals are supposed to relate, does it not raise the question of biasness?
Indeed describing individuals as being normal and others as abnormal has been a basis on which some individuals are locked out. Armies around the world exclude people who do not meet particular set standards such as height or weight. The set scales are preconceived to be the ideal standards on which the army assumes the shortlisted individuals will perform the best.
Conclusively, it ought to be noted that people are different and hence coming up with scales to measure various qualities may be too harsh. Judgment, as well as prejudices that result from scales of reference, may lock out people who can do specific tasks due to lack of some observable features that are set by particular individuals. Therefore, normal is relative, and individuals need to exercise caution while selecting specific people or phenomena to avoid biasness.
References
Norton, D. L. (2017). Personal destinies: A philosophy of ethical individualism (Vol. 404). Princeton University Press.
Radloff, L. S. (2013). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied psychological measurement , 1 (3), 385-401.
