Defining Normal

Before I jump into a small rant, let me say that I believe there are true differences between sociopaths and neurotypicals. I also believe that the number of people who could be classified "neurotypicals" may be an actual minority (e.g. less than 50%). Furthermore, I understand that defining someone as being neurotypical does not necessarily mean that this person is "normal" or somehow better than everybody else who is not neurotypical. Let's call those the three assumptions.

My problem with some of the sociopathy research et al. is that too often people do not account for these assumptions. We talk about sociopaths being 1-4% of the population as if the other 96-99% are normal, maybe even the opposite of the sociopath. Maybe we believe that if sociopaths have low empathy, then everyone else has robust empathy? Maybe if we believe that if sociopaths do not feel guilt, everyone else must? Maybe if we say that sociopaths frequently engage in crime, then no one else does?

It's interesting, I started this blog in part to help people realize that sociopaths are natural human variants. I thought at the time that the big challenge would be to try to showcase some of our strengths in a more positive light, that we have more in common than people maybe realize. Recently I have been thinking that the real problem is not in getting people to believe that we're better than they think, but that they are worse than they think.

The weird thing about the three assumptions mentioned at the beginning is that I think most people don't believe them, not really. Most people assume that they are that minority of "normal" people instead of thinking that they might be one of those majority of people who are a little jacked up. Equally if perhaps more troubling is that many people lament that the psychological world would label half or more of us with a diagnosis/neurosis. So what if the majority of people have a label? Doesn't that seem equally if not more probable than assuming that half of the people in the world are pretty much interchangeable in terms of brain/emotional function? I understand the urge to define normal as the way most people are, but if there is not a clear way that most people are, is it really that helpful to distort our definition of "normal" to arbitrarily include some small deviations and not others?

The appeal of defining normal as whatever you happen to be is quite convenient. No need to confront the possibility that maybe you aren't as empathetic as they seem. Maybe your conscience doesn't have quite the sway that you thought it did. Maybe you are both capable and incapable of much more than you had hoped. Maybe you have a lot more in common with sociopaths than you'd like to think. Maybe it is just one big long spectrum with only a few of us at the extremes and the rest of us huddled closer to the middle. Could it be that self-diagnosed sociopaths are just much more honest with themselves than the rest of you who sneer, "that's not sociopathic, everyone does that." Could both be true? That something could be sociopathic and that everyone does that? Or most people do that? Specifically, you -- that you sometimes do those things? Does that make "YOU" normal or "ME"?

Source: dominant-male.blogspot.com