Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> What are the criteria for judging someone as abnormal?


Question: What are the criteria for judging someone as abnormal!?
We want to say to ourselves that everyone is normal!. Is that just the easy way out of actually answering the question!? Are serial killers for example, normal because 'everyone is normal'!?

How do we differentiate between normal people and abnormal people!?Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
One criterion for "abnormality" that may appear to apply in the case of abnormal behavior is statistical infrequency!. This has an obvious flaw — the extremely intelligent, honest, or happy are just as abnormal as their opposites!. Therefore, individual abnormal behaviors are considered to be statistically unusual as well as undesirable!. The presence of some form of abnormal behavior is not unusual!. About one quarter of people in the United States, for example, are believed to meet criteria for a mental disorder in any given year!. Mental disorders, by definition, involve unusual or statistically abnormal behaviors!.

This will vary depending on society and culture!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The answer is subjective!. For instance, a serial killer would not classify himself as an " abnormal person" and he might think that everyone who oppose to his way of thinking is abnormal!. Think about religion, sect, and some cultures for instant!. We all have our own opinions on the way they operate!. Are they normal or abnormal!? It all comes down to your value system!.

I think some people engage in deviant activities but I don't necessarily think that they're abnormal!.

Hope I was helpfulWww@QuestionHome@Com

Generalizing is not logical, especially in extreme cases of serial killers!.

In the court, suspects are usually assumed innocent until proven guilty, note however that only serious suspects are put on trials!. The process requires more than a simple judgment, but a number of them as well as hard evidences to cause arrests, trials and then convictions if and only if necessary!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

That is highly subjective and debated!. I recently read about it and don't remember where :(

Anyway, one of the way is statistical!.!.!. the rare are abnormal!.!.!. but here's a problem, geniuses are rare too!.

Another one is based on adaptation!.!.!. you don't adapt to the context, you're not normal!. I don't like this too much, because it forces people to be submissive!.

Another is by scientists vote!.

Still subjectively, but one that I like more is!.!.!. the normal person is the one socially responsible and can be independent, like!.!.!. can take care of him or herself!. This is adapted to the age!.!.!. as you grow up, you have different responsibilities!.

This is about psychological normality!. I believe in medicine things are different, perhaps better defined!.

You can deal with social problems without placing this label of abnormality, but this makes it easier, isn't it!?

Thanks for the question!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

well it really depends on what your definition of normal is !?
to you and i watching tv is normal because its something we do everyday
but to someone who lives on the streets or in a third world country watching tv everyday is not normal
it A) depends on what your definition of normal is and B) being normal and abnormal is all in comparison to one another somethings normal comapred to one thing and abnormal to another
plus who are we to say what normal or abnormal!? Www@QuestionHome@Com

Behavior that goes against an established social criteria is generally judged as abnormal!.

To an individual, the criteria varies form one individual to another!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

any and every deviation from the norm!.!.!. the tearany of the majority!.!.!. the abnormal suffer for their differences!.!.!. no loud music after 10:00!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com