How do we define normal and abnormal behavior?
How can we determine What is Normal Behavior and What is Not?
The idea
"of physical illness is readily understood: the body becomes infected or inflamed, or grows abnormally, or is affected in any number of ways, all of which can be studied conventionally with laboratory tests or under a microscope. But a mental illness is something else altogether. Mental illnesses, or emotional illnesses, are disturbances of behavior and of feeling and thought. They are disorders of function that do not correspond readily to precise physical impairments and that seem, therefore, intangible--vague, aberrant expressions of the mind. At the same time, they are elusive, because they seem to be only exaggerations of the way ordinary people think and behave. And so they are".
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fighting-fear/201305/determining-what-is-normal-behavior-and-what-is-not
Normality is something we define, we chose, an agreement of the society we live in. ("eating spiders" here vs in the rainforest). The most behavior is like the most normality differing from the true "relaxation", the "true normality" - the state no force is activated, nothing is "needed", the state of natural changes - this state is called love (or beeing in harmony with the absolute).
The most "behavior" deviates from "beeing normal" but we (our current social system, the most religions etc) define this deviation from love as normal. Therefore so many dys-harmonic (diabolic from greec dia: apart and balein: to throw) "normalities" like pollution, patriachal structures (in a separating sence), mass-farming, war, hunger and many other love disconnected behaviors are possible. Because WE define them as "normal".
It is difficult to define normal and abnormal because it is vary from person to person and also situation/condition, but in general we can say that normal is seen good thing something that is natural , regular and routine and abnormal is any kind of activity that is not good or that is not a common or regular.
Normal behavior is socio-cultural accepted in the culture the Individuum lives. For example is Eating Spiders not "normal" in the most industrial cultures, but in some groupes in the rainforest it is "normal" because it is accepted in the peer.
When we talk abaout "illness" we have to regard another point: suffering and everyday expertise. The term "psychosis" is composed of 'psych' and the greec word osis (illness, dysfunction). So 'psychosis' means a Psycho illness (not only mental illness). To fullfill the required complex a patient needs 3 components:
1. a behavior differing from the "norm" (which is represented by the psychiatrist and his diganostic Manual (DSM or ICD))
2. subjective feel of suffering
3. reduction or loss of everyday expertise
When these three conditions come together we (the psychiatrists) designate it 'psychosis'. Therefore not only schizophrenia is psychosis, but also depression, dementia, OCD and so on...
Christian Jost@
If you say that "Normal behavior is socio-cultural accepted" , you need to take into account
the principal points: race civilisation, poverty, heredity, age sex, civil status, profession, education, organic anomalies, sensations imitation, worldly or natural influences, ethnical or demographical influences, social influences, biopsychical influences and so on, to determine who is ill, who is not normal or abnormal. In this case to define what is normal or not normal you use a socio-cultural approach and the idea of normality depends on expectations and standards of society, and thus on political, economic and social factors.
Abnormal behavior is any behavior that deviates from what is considered normal. There are four general criteria that psychologists use to identify abnormal behavior: violation of social norms, statistical rarity, personal distress, and maladaptive behavior.
Abnormal behaviour by people may be justified with respect to the following worth mentioning points
1. Prejudice expression
2. Enethical work or service
3. Against culture of society
4. Not able to manage human dignity & Tolerance in family welfare
5. Against religious ideology or Provoke religious activities in public domain
All 'Five' are generally against peaceful mind of person responsible for chaos and unrest in human life
Pankaj Tomar@
Allow me please the following question. How do we define human dignity & Tolerance ?
Will you consider the normal behavior that what is acceptable by the society within 2 SD?
When I was completing my eight weeks clinical rotation in mental health institution (requisite for completing my degree in 2014), I was so much mentally exhausted to see the pain and agony of patients suffering from mental illness, especially 18_19 years old getting ECT, teens with depression, very young mother with postpartum depression and list is ......that eight weeks seem to me like eight years; psychiatrists and psychologists, other mental health care professional behavior seems to me odd (abnormal,...body gesture, tone of voice,....may be impact of environment; one consultant psychiatrist was throwing things away while making rounds, shouting), they were normal in the eyes of society (society lay down the rules, norms, values, principles.... who should be considered normal and abnormal) but their behavior were not.... I analysed that this world is biggest mental health institution (with so many abnormal behaviors) as compared to mental health institution, it was very small.....and people realized that the inhabitants of that small institution need help,....but a few realized that in this world, how many of us actually need help to correct our behaviors.......
What is "normal" can be argued about, as is well known. Even the well-known WHO definition of normal in the sense of "healthy" therefore does not provide an objective description of the condition, but anchors the criterion in subjective well-being.
Something looks like this in the diagnosis of abnormality from medical or clinical-psychological point of view.
HIer can be distinguished - at least - from four large areas (partly overlapping):
1) Abnormality in relation to mental development (e.g. as in Down syndrome, or other genetic defcts with the consequence of mental weakness; (often with normal emotional abilities and binding.
2) Abnormality in relation to social or self-centred and self-damaging behaviour (high-grade aggression; mutism; autism; anxieties (phobias), neuroses.
3) "classic" mental diseases (schizophrenia, manic-depressive states, epilepsy, etc.); they usually occur mostly in adolescence and adulthood. Uncontrollable (problematic) actions can also occur due to injuries of the brain, especially the frontal brain.
4) Age-related abnormality, the most common forms of which are Parkinson's disease and dementia.
Abnormal behavior is any behavior that deviates from what is considered normal. There are four general criteria that psychologists use to identify abnormal behavior: violation of social norms, statistical rarity, personal distress, and maladaptive behavior.
Abnormal behavior is any behavior that deviates from what is considered normal. There are four general criteria that psychologists use to identify abnormal behavior: violation of social norms, statistical rarity, personal distress, and maladaptive behavior.
From current point of view:
If a doctor (?) wants to earn more money he/she will interpret any behavior as an abnormal behavior. Isn't it so? The same goes for so called doctor's societies with their journals and such. Disgusting...
@Antonio Russo
1. Humans are assumed to be 'Rational'
2. Human Dignity has rational reinforcement of expressions
3. Zero Tolerance is a keyword for security mechanism by state or global agencies
4. Tolerance is accepted in social/political/family welfare
5. Abnormal behaviour of human has 'Prejudice' with respect to different orientations
Normality is something we define, we chose, an agreement of the society we live in. ("eating spiders" here vs in the rainforest). The most behavior is like the most normality differing from the true "relaxation", the "true normality" - the state no force is activated, nothing is "needed", the state of natural changes - this state is called love (or beeing in harmony with the absolute).
The most "behavior" deviates from "beeing normal" but we (our current social system, the most religions etc) define this deviation from love as normal. Therefore so many dys-harmonic (diabolic from greec dia: apart and balein: to throw) "normalities" like pollution, patriachal structures (in a separating sence), mass-farming, war, hunger and many other love disconnected behaviors are possible. Because WE define them as "normal".
@ Christian Jost if "normality is something we define, we chose, an agreement of the society we live in", it is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Dear @ Pankaj Tomar
About "Humans are assumed to be 'Rational' "
allow me please to answer with a quotation:
"It necessary to revise the current taxonomic classification of humans and those apes with whom we share the most recent common ancestor, about 5-7 million years ago. Instead of placing them into distinct genera, Homo and Pan, we should use either “Pan sapiens” for humans and “Pan troglodytes” resp. “Pan paniscus” for chimpanzees and bonobos, or all three taxa should be labelled as “Homo”.
Such overdue taxonomic revision will further strengthen the case for an extension of the “community of equals”, as advocated by the “Great Ape Project”, in that our closest living relatives should be granted basic rights, such as a right to life, freedom from torture and secure habitat. One would also hope that philosophies about “human nature” (see contribution by Anthony Kenny) engage with the radical contemporary concepts of the anthropological sub-discipline of “panthropology”.
(Volker Sommer is Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology at University College London. He conducts research into the socio-ecology of primates, especially langur monkeys in India, gibbons in Thailand and chimpanzees in Nigeria.)
One can easily find the text book definition of abnormality from any source. Not a big deal. The major issues with the definition of abnormality is generalization of the definition of abnormality across different cultures.A behavior that is quite normal in one culture may be interpreted absolute bizarre and obnoxious in other culture.Similar issues arise with the body language because there are no universal codes of body language that are understood with same interpenetration across different cultures.Similarly many other behaviors and even physical dimensions are considered to normal or abnormal according to the collective understanding and acceptance of that very culture.In such state of affairs it is very difficult to set a definition of abnormal behavior that meet the requirements of all cultures.
That psychological abnormality is an invention of doctors and therapists who only want to earn money, I consider a morally questionable accusation, which must be rejected. The suffering of patients, as well as the suffering of the environment in dealing with psychologically abnormal patients, has an ethical dimension that proves such an assertion to be inappropriate. The same applies to the argument that these are only culture-specific differences in behaviour. Those who, as doctors, therapists, nursing staff or close relatives deal with mentally ill people are defamed by such statements.
However, one can disagree on criteria for the classification of mental disorders, psychologically confused, dissocial (also criminal) behavioural disorders. And should discuss about it.
@Antonio Russo
Irrationality in human life may penetrate due to unforseen inputs as people deliver performance in social/political system.
Assumption!!
Pathogenetic behavior occurs as a disturbance of the external and internal balance in a human organism. According to salutogenesis (A. Antonovsky), salutogenetic factors do battle with pathogenetic factors on a continuum, not as a polarity. The loss of human control over pathological factors is a consequence of unhealthy behavior, which adds to existential disharmony, i.e. health is a matter of the psycho-medical (internal) balance of a human organism in relation to the external world (stressors vs. resistance resources).
I believe that the problem lies in the question. Why are you asking about behavior? Are you a behaviorist who believes that the only thing relevant to observe is behavior? then ok. But if you don;t believe that, I think you open the door to all kinds of philosophical problems, like how certain behavior is normal in one society and not in another. Also, "behavior" refers to "symptoms" - but in no field of medicine do we treat the symptoms except in palliative care - usually when all else fails. But if i go to a doctor with stomach pain and he gives me a painkiller, i am not happy, and he might be exacerbating or masking a serious condition. We need to know how something functions in medicine. then we can talk about what is "abnormal" or more correctly, pathological or an illness. Also symptoms are almost always ways for the body to try to heal - pain signals a problem to deal with, pus in a wound may be disgusting, but it is the result of white blood cells converging on an intrusion of bacteria.
So what about psychological functioning? And psychological symptoms?
I'd say a healthy person would be flexible in dealing with external problems. He wouldn;t use the same mechanism blindly every time. She would be able to understand what she feels, and would have some strategies for soothing powerful emotions - within limits. These means may be considered symptoms but if they work in the long run, like a certain amount of white blood cells works in the long run, they are useful symptoms. The person would be able to form solid relationships and know who to trust and who not to trust.
etc
Seen in this light, "abnormal behavior" makes no sense.
I guess if someone's crazy, then he's not normal. But that's just a hypothesis. Perhaps somebody knows a better one.
There is a practical and theoretical aspect of this question. The fact that a person thinks and/or acts differently as compared to an averaged 'common sense' individual doesn't make one's behavior an abnormal one. What does it abnormal is when one is becoming violent or provide a clear cut picture danger for people around and/or for oneself. A decision of abnormality and incarceration into a special clinic, as well as intensive usage of behavior modification drugs should be periodically confirmed with independent opinions by other doctors to avoid fraud and crime against peoples' health and basic rights.
Zeba Aqil said
"Any behavior that pertains to accepted societal patterns is called normal behaviour whereas that is against social norms is called abnormal behaviour."
But what does that tell us? What purpose does it serve to talk about behavior that is relative to a specific society. An Italian colleague of mine who lived in scotland said his doctor there said his cholesterol was pretty good. But in italy it is considered too high. In scotland they eat more animal fats so, relative to the society, it was good. So does that mean that high cholesterol in scotland is normal? i suppose. But is it healthy? that's the question.
So i think the question about behavior is the wrong question, because it is relative to society and also implies a rejection of any non conformity. But functioning, like having relationships, being able to be flexible in diverse situations, understanding one's own and others' feelings etc, are useful. Whether behavior is "normal" or not is useless and also dangerous, because it presumes that non-conformists or people who don;t accept the status quo are somehow in need of being "cured".
Can't we psychologists finally shed the oppressive chains of behaviorism that made generations of psychologists have to frame every single argument in terms of behavior when they are really interested in experience, states of mind, motivation, perception, and the rest, none of which are, in themselves, behavior! And may or may not be reflected in behavior. Yes, they are harder to study,. So is it scientific to say, well, that's too hard to study, so let's say it's something else?
One can deal theoretically with the question that is not unimportant (e.g. is decisive in certain court hearings), then one usually criticizes some textbook definition and proves that they are insufficient - to conclude from this, the distinction does not exist or is not possible.
When one as a therapist, diagnostician or also as a caregiver and supervisor in the practice of examining cases of abnormal behaviour has to deal with such cases on a daily basis, then one has completely different experiences. This should be taken more into account in this discussion, which is very different from reality.
I am having growing concern with the labels of "normal" and "abnormal" in regards to psychological labeling. By using the labels of normal or abnormal in themselves is stigmatizing and derrogatory. What is 'normal' is determined by a culture based, societal determination. Where I think we need to focus is whether a person's behavior is inhibiting their ability to successfully participate in society.
That being said, there are several areas of the brain that provide us with physiological evidence of variation that coincide with disorders. I think a better question relating to this topic is, why do we base diagnosis on behavior and not use diagnostic tools available to exam the abnormalities of the brain? Through phsyiological diagnostics that can show that it is not just a behavior that is different from what we consider normal but physical difference contribute to psychological disorders as well, we can possibly shift the perceptions about mental illness and provide better care for those who suffer from mental illnesses.
If all we are doing is looking at labels, then we are not looking at the real cause and effect to find solutions to help. If we not in doing this kind of research to help people with these disorders and illnesses, then what is the point?
Tricky topic as some of the above answers indicate. I do find the salutogenic approach helpful, but it does not quite go to the question you have asked, Firstly as said above we should not necessarily pathologize behavior that is not normal, because (a) is may be normal in another culture and (b) there many be legitimate personal reasons for that unusual behaviour. So in a trivial sense normal is just a statistical condition relative to the culture one is in.
As a proposal we might be able to find a cross-cultural measure for what is not acceptable to all and there I think the defining criteria where a person is experiencing or inflicting on other continuous and/or extreme suffering.
In particular, behavior can be considered as either being normal or abnormal depending
on when and where it takes place.
Dr Kamath Madhusudhana
In practice behaviour is defined by whether or not the individual is preventing themselves, or others, from carrying out their usual day to day functioning. It is of course usually determined by the reactions of others rather than the individual themselves. As stated above this can be influenced by cultural and socio-political issues. Thus for many years in America many young men were identified as having schizophrenia because they were rather withdrawn. Famously of course homosexuality was 'abnormal' until the 1970s.
All of which is why pathology should never be determined by behavior. We don't diagnose stomach ache as S.A.D Stomach Ache Disorder!!! or give painkillers to eliminate the symptom. It could be ulcer, gastritis, cancer, or who knows what else.
There are four general criteria that psychologists use to identify abnormal behavior: violation of social norms, statistical rarity, personal distress, and maladaptive behavior.
Facts have different orientations while truth has uniqueness therefore assessment of normal and abnormal behavior by second person has relativity.
"Objectivity in subjectivity in democracy with respect to liberty parameters is a subject of justification"
Agree with several respondents that focusing on 'normal behaviour' is not productive. We could talk about behaviour that is harmful - to the person, to others, to society, to the environment; or behaviour that is beneficial: that serves the interests of as many as possible without doing harm to any.
This doesn't provide a full answer. You may for instance consider that my behaviour harms you, on apparently random grounds. Still, it's a good departure point - no?
And indeed as others have pointed out, even in the physical realm the distinction is not clear-cut. Who, for instance, sets the standard for 'normal' vision which leads to most people needing glasses or contact lenses? Why not just make the bus numbers or the print size bigger??? (OK I'm a psychologist not an optician...)
I enjoy discussing this topic because we all think we are 'normal' no matter how unusual we may be. In my culture eccentric behaviour was not considered to be abnormal when I was young. I once read that extremes from average are abnormal and therefore beautiful supermodels are abnormal because they are so rare. If extreme beauty is abnormal why is surgery (botox, breast implants or liposuction) increasingly being applied to normalise the abnormal ?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy