Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Normality

Normality refers to the condition of conforming to an established standard or pattern, most rigorously defined through empirical observation as the prevalent or average state within a given population or system, often aligning with functional optimality rather than subjective ideals.^[1]^[2] In statistics, normality describes data distributed according to the Gaussian or bell curve, characterized by symmetry around the mean and specific tail behaviors, enabling reliable inference in parametric tests like t-tests and ANOVA; deviations from this are assessed via tests such as Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov, crucial for validating assumptions in empirical analysis.^[3]^[4] Philosophically and in the social sciences, normality exhibits a dual character—descriptive, as statistical frequency or typicality, and normative, implying inherent goodness or adaptiveness—though academic definitions in psychology and sociology frequently blur these by prioritizing cultural relativism over biological or causal realities, reflecting institutional tendencies toward egalitarian reinterpretations that downplay empirical deviations as equivalent variants.^[5]^[6]

Etymology and Historical Development

Linguistic Origins

The noun normality, denoting the state or quality of being normal, entered English in the 1830s, with the earliest recorded use in 1839 in the Morning Chronicle.^[7] It is derived from the adjective normal combined with the suffix -ity, and may have been modeled on the French term normalité.^[7] The root normal traces to Late Latin normalis, first attested around 1500, signifying "made according to a carpenter's square" or forming a right angle.^[8] This, in turn, stems from the Latin noun norma, which denoted a carpenter's square (a T-shaped tool for ensuring perpendicularity), a rule, or a standard measure, evoking geometric precision and conformity to an established pattern.^[9] In classical Latin, norma carried connotations of regulation or precept, later extending in Late Latin to broader ideas of alignment with a norm or rule.^[8] Early English usages of normal retained geometric senses, such as "perpendicular" or "at right angles," before broadening in the 19th century to imply typicality, regularity, or adherence to a standard, reflecting a shift from literal measurement to abstract conformity.^[9] This evolution parallels the term's adoption in scientific and statistical contexts, though normality itself initially described qualitative states rather than quantitative norms.^[7]

Shift from Descriptive to Prescriptive Usage

The concept of normality originated in mathematical and statistical contexts as a descriptive term denoting the average or typical state within a distribution, as formalized by Carl Friedrich Gauss's work on the Gaussian distribution in 1809, which described probable error patterns in astronomical observations. In this usage, normality referred empirically to the central tendency around which variations clustered, without implying value or obligation.^[10] This descriptive foundation evolved with Adolphe Quetelet's 1835 publication Sur l'homme et le développement de ses facultés, where he applied statistical averages to human attributes, introducing the "average man" (l'homme moyen) as not merely a statistical artifact but an ideal type representing perfection in physical, intellectual, and moral qualities.^[11] Quetelet argued that deviations from this average signified inferiority or error, thereby infusing the term with prescriptive implications—elevating the statistical norm to a societal and biological standard that ought to be emulated.^[12] By the late 19th century, amid advances in evolutionary theory and biometrics, normality's prescriptive dimension intensified in medicine, psychology, and social policy, where deviations were increasingly framed as pathological or degenerate, justifying interventions like eugenics programs and psychiatric classifications.^[13] Philosopher Georges Canguilhem later critiqued this conflation in his 1943 thesis The Normal and the Pathological (expanded 1966), asserting that biological and medical normality inherently carries normative weight, defined not by mere statistical frequency but by an organism's adaptive capacity relative to valued environments, thus underscoring the term's shift toward prescribing functional ideals over neutral descriptions.^[14] This evolution reflected broader societal uses of normality to enforce conformity, as seen in early 20th-century intelligence testing, where "normal" IQ ranges (e.g., 85-115 on the Stanford-Binet scale) prescribed educational and occupational norms.^[11]

Technical Applications

Normality in Mathematics and Statistics

In statistics, normality refers to the property of a dataset or population being distributed according to a normal distribution, also known as the Gaussian distribution, which is a continuous probability distribution characterized by its bell-shaped curve, symmetry around the mean, and parameters of mean μ and variance σ².^[15]^[16] This distribution is defined by the probability density function f(x) = (1/(σ√(2π))) exp(-((x-μ)²/(2σ²))), where approximately 68% of values lie within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two, and 99.7% within three, known as the empirical rule.^[17] The normal distribution's ubiquity stems from the central limit theorem, which states that the sampling distribution of the mean from sufficiently large samples of any distribution with finite variance approaches normality, enabling approximations in inferential statistics even when underlying data deviate from perfect normality.^[18] Normality assumptions underpin many parametric statistical tests, such as the t-test, which requires the sampled data or residuals to be normally distributed for valid inference on means, and ANOVA, where deviations can inflate Type I error rates if unaddressed.^[19]^[20] Violations are assessed via tests like Shapiro-Wilk, which evaluates goodness-of-fit to the normal pdf and rejects the null hypothesis of normality for small p-values (e.g., p < 0.05), or graphical methods like Q-Q plots comparing sample quantiles to theoretical normal quantiles.^[21] In mathematics, particularly abstract algebra, normality denotes a structural property of subgroups within groups: a subgroup N of a group G is normal if for every g ∈ G and n ∈ N, gng⁻¹ ∈ N, ensuring left and right cosets coincide and permitting the formation of the quotient group G/N.^[22]^[23] All subgroups of abelian groups are normal, as conjugation reduces to identity, but in non-abelian groups like the symmetric group S₃, only specific subgroups (e.g., the alternating group A₃) satisfy this invariance under conjugation. This concept facilitates homomorphic images and is foundational to classification theorems, such as the first isomorphism theorem linking kernels of homomorphisms to normal subgroups. Other mathematical uses include normal matrices, which commute with their adjoint (AA* = A*A), diagonalizable over the complex numbers via unitary matrices, though these are termed "normal" rather than invoking "normality" as a standalone property.

Normality in Chemistry and Physical Sciences

In chemistry, normality denotes the concentration of a solution expressed as the number of gram equivalents of solute per liter of solution. A gram equivalent represents the mass of solute that supplies or reacts with one mole of reactive units, such as protons in acid-base reactions, electrons in redox processes, or ions in precipitation reactions.^[24]^[25] The equivalent weight of a solute is calculated as its molecular weight divided by the equivalence factor n, where n equals 1 for monoprotic acids like HCl, 2 for diprotic acids like H₂SO₄ in complete dissociation, or the number of electrons transferred in redox reactions.^[26] The normality N of a solution is computed using the formula N = (weight of solute in grams / equivalent weight) / volume of solution in liters, or equivalently, N = (moles of solute × n) / volume in liters.^[26]^[27] This differs from molarity M, which measures moles of solute per liter regardless of reactivity; thus, N = n × M, making normality reaction-specific and potentially higher than molarity for polyvalent species.^[28]^[29] For instance, a 0.5 M solution of H₂SO₄ has a normality of 1 N when acting as a diprotic acid, as each mole provides two equivalents of H⁺.^[26] Normality facilitates stoichiometric calculations in analytical chemistry, particularly for titrations, where the product of normality and volume (N₁V₁ = N₂V₂) holds at the equivalence point for reacting species with equivalent reactivities.^[30] It is applied in acid-base neutralizations, such as determining unknown concentrations via titration with a standard base; redox titrations, like permanganate against reducing agents where equivalents reflect electron transfer; and precipitation reactions involving ion exchange.^[26]^[31] In physical sciences contexts, such as electrochemistry, normality quantifies charge carriers in solutions for Faraday's laws, where equivalents correspond to ampere-hours per faraday.^[24] Despite its utility for reactive capacity, normality's dependence on the defined reaction limits its general applicability, prompting preference for molarity in modern quantitative chemistry to avoid ambiguity across contexts.^[32] It remains relevant in legacy protocols, industrial formulations like battery electrolytes, and educational settings for emphasizing equivalence concepts, though international standards increasingly favor SI-consistent molar units.^[33]^[34]

Psychological and Behavioral Normality

Criteria for Normality in Mental Health

In psychiatry and psychology, normality in mental health is typically defined by the absence of clinically significant impairment, distress, or deviation from adaptive functioning, though no universal criterion exists. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, published 2013) implicitly frames normality through its exclusion criteria for disorders, requiring evidence of behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction associated with distress, disability, or heightened risk of suffering, rather than mere statistical rarity or cultural nonconformity.^[35] This functional-distress model prioritizes empirical indicators of harm, such as inability to meet basic responsibilities in work, relationships, or self-care, over subjective social judgments.^[36] A complementary approach emphasizes statistical norms, where mental states deviating significantly from population averages—often measured via standardized scales like the bell curve distribution—are flagged as potentially abnormal, provided they correlate with dysfunction. For instance, traits falling beyond two standard deviations from the mean (encompassing about 95% of the population) may warrant scrutiny, but this method alone falters empirically, as rare adaptive traits like exceptional intelligence are not pathological.^[37] Critics note that psychological data often exhibit skewed, zero-inflated distributions rather than perfect normality, undermining rigid statistical cutoffs and highlighting the need for contextual evaluation.^[38] Positive or ideal mental health models, such as Marie Jahoda's 1958 framework, propose proactive criteria beyond mere absence of illness, including positive self-attitudes (e.g., self-acceptance and confidence), self-actualization (pursuit of personal growth), autonomy (resistance to undue social pressures), accurate reality perception (empathy and environmental mastery), personality integration (coherent coping with stress), and overall adaptation to one's environment.^[39] These criteria, derived from mid-20th-century humanistic psychology, align with causal mechanisms of well-being, such as evolutionary adaptations for social cohesion and resilience, but face challenges in operationalization due to cultural variability and subjective interpretation.^[40] Empirical validation remains limited, as fulfillment of all criteria is rare; Jahoda herself acknowledged their aspirational nature, not as diagnostic thresholds but as benchmarks for thriving.^[41] The "four D's" heuristic—deviance from norms, personal distress, dysfunction in roles, and danger to self or others—integrates these perspectives for assessing abnormality, with normality reflecting conformity across most domains without eliciting harm.^[42] However, institutional biases in academia and clinical practice, including tendencies toward relativism, have led to critiques of overpathologization, where normative variations (e.g., high sensitivity or nonconformity) are mislabeled as disorders absent clear causal evidence of impairment.^[43] Rigorous application demands longitudinal data on outcomes like reproductive fitness and societal contribution, prioritizing causal realism over ideological expansions of diagnostic categories.^[44]

Statistical and Functional Models

In psychological and behavioral contexts, the statistical model conceptualizes normality as conformity to the central tendency of a population's trait or behavior distribution, typically assuming a Gaussian (normal) curve. Under this framework, normal behaviors encompass roughly 95% of occurrences within two standard deviations of the mean, rendering extremes—such as intelligence quotients below 70 or above 130, affecting about 2.3% and 2.3% of the population, respectively—as statistically infrequent and potentially abnormal.^[37]^[45] This approach facilitates quantifiable thresholds, as in psychometric assessments where deviations beyond 2-3 standard deviations signal rarity, but it overlooks whether such rarity impairs adaptation, leading critics to note its inadequacy for non-normally distributed psychological variables like symptom severity, which often show positive skewness.^[38] The functional model shifts emphasis from prevalence to adaptive efficacy, defining normality as the ability to fulfill social, occupational, and personal roles without marked distress or disability. In clinical practice, this manifests in diagnostic systems like the DSM-5, where mental disorders necessitate "clinically significant disturbance" accompanied by impairment in key functioning domains, such as sustained employment or interpersonal relationships, rather than mere statistical outlier status.^[46] For instance, persistent anxiety is abnormal only if it substantially hinders daily activities, distinguishing it from adaptive responses; this criterion prioritizes causal impacts on real-world performance over abstract averages, though it risks cultural variability in defining "essential" functions.^[47] These models often intersect in hybrid applications: statistical rarity may flag candidates for evaluation, but functional assessment determines pathology, as evidenced in neurocognitive disorder criteria where cognitive deficits must yield observable daily living impairments to warrant diagnosis.^[48] Empirical studies underscore limitations, with psychological traits rarely fitting ideal normality assumptions, prompting calls for robust, non-parametric alternatives in behavioral analysis.^[49] Social normality acts as a prescriptive benchmark for behavior, compelling individuals to conform to group expectations to secure belonging and avoid exclusion. Normative social influence, a key driver of this process, motivates alignment with perceived standards of acceptability, where deviation from the "normal" invites disapproval or punishment.^[50] In Solomon Asch's 1951 experiments, participants exposed to unanimous but erroneous group judgments on line lengths conformed in approximately 37% of critical trials, yielding to the apparent normality of the majority despite clear perceptual evidence to the contrary.^[51] This illustrates how normality, as embodied in collective consensus, exerts causal pressure overriding individual judgment to preserve social harmony. Social norms, functioning as enforceable expectations of appropriate conduct, derive much of their potency from the association of normality with majority adherence or cultural ideals. Conformity to these norms is conditional on anticipated compliance by others, enabling coordinated action in uncertain environments.^[52] Enforcement mechanisms, including reputational damage, ostracism, and informal sanctions like shunning, target deviations from normality to deter non-conformity and sustain group cohesion.^[53] Empirical data from field studies show that such pressures reduce variance in behaviors, as individuals monitor and mimic the normal to evade costs, thereby reinforcing norms through self-perpetuating cycles of imitation.^[54] Evolutionarily, the drive toward normality in conformity likely adaptive for ancestral humans, facilitating transmission of survival-enhancing practices within small groups where isolation posed lethal risks. Conformity biases, observed across species, promote cultural evolution by favoring majority strategies, with human norm-psychology co-evolving to punish outliers and reward alignment.^[55] In modern contexts, this manifests in heightened conformity under observation, as replicated in 2023 studies extending Asch's paradigm, where social monitoring amplified adherence to group normals by up to 40% compared to private settings.^[56] Consequently, normality causally underpins norm stability, channeling individual actions toward collective functionality while marginalizing adaptive innovations that initially appear aberrant.^[57]

Cross-Cultural and Evolutionary Perspectives

From an evolutionary standpoint, normality in human behavior encompasses traits and patterns that have been preserved through natural selection due to their enhancement of survival and reproductive success. Evolutionary psychology posits that prevalent behaviors, such as parental investment in offspring and aversion to incest, represent statistical norms because they align with fitness-maximizing strategies shaped over millennia in ancestral environments.^[58] These norms emerge from gene-environment interactions, where deviations often correlate with reduced adaptability unless compensated by niche-specific advantages.^[59] Cross-cultural anthropological research reveals persistent universals in social norms, undermining strong cultural relativism and pointing to shared evolutionary underpinnings. A study analyzing ethnographic data from 60 societies identified seven recurrent moral rules—helping kin, aiding one's group, reciprocating favors, being brave, deferring to authority, sharing resources fairly, and respecting property ownership—as near-universal, present in the majority of cases regardless of societal complexity or geography.^[60] These patterns align with evolutionary mechanisms like kin selection and reciprocal altruism, which favor cooperation in small-group settings typical of human evolutionary history.^[61] While surface-level variations exist—such as differing emphases on individualism versus collectivism—core normative structures, including prohibitions on cheating in social exchanges, exhibit cognitive adaptations detectable across diverse populations.^[61] This suggests that normality is not merely arbitrary but rooted in pan-human psychological predispositions, with cultural divergence often amplifying rather than originating these foundations.^[62] Empirical evidence from game-theoretic models integrated with cross-cultural data further indicates that heightened environmental threats strengthen norm adherence universally, reflecting adaptive responses to uncertainty.^[63]

Philosophical and Ethical Dimensions

Normativity versus Statistical Normality

Statistical normality describes phenomena that conform to the average or most frequent patterns in a given population, typically measured via distributions such as the Gaussian curve where approximately 68% of observations fall within one standard deviation of the mean. This conception, rooted in descriptive statistics, treats "normal" as a quantitative deviation from centrality rather than an evaluative category.^[64] Normativity, by contrast, involves prescriptive standards of what ought to be, grounded in functional, ethical, or teleological ideals rather than mere prevalence.^[65] In philosophical terms, normative judgments assess alignment with purposes or values, such as biological adaptation or moral rectitude, independent of statistical frequency; for example, a rare capacity for innovation may be normatively superior despite its statistical rarity.^[66] Georges Canguilhem, in his 1966 work The Normal and the Pathological, critiqued the reduction of normality to statistical averages, arguing that such a view, popularized by 19th-century physiologists like Adolphe Quetelet, conflates quantitative regularity with qualitative vitality.^[67] Canguilhem posited that true normality entails normativity—the capacity of living systems to establish and transcend their own norms through adaptation—rather than passive conformity to a mean, which could pathologize resilient deviations or normalize maladaptive commonalities.^[68] This distinction underscores causal realism in biology: statistical clusters may reflect environmental pressures but not inherent telos, as evidenced by evolutionary shifts where "abnormal" traits (e.g., bipedalism in early hominids) become normative through selective advantage.^[69] In psychological and ethical contexts, equating the two risks ideological distortion; for instance, if societal averages skew toward dysfunction—such as widespread sedentary behavior correlating with health declines—the statistical normal does not prescribe it as ideal, yet policy or therapeutic frameworks sometimes infer normativity from data alone.^[70] Empirical studies in cognitive science reveal humans intuitively blend statistical and normative cues, but philosophical analysis insists on disentangling them to avoid deriving "ought" from "is," as Hume warned against in ethical reasoning.^[71] Thus, while statistical tools aid prediction, normativity demands first-principles evaluation of ends, such as human flourishing defined by capacities for rational agency rather than modal frequencies.^[72]

Implications for Individual and Societal Well-Being

In philosophical traditions such as virtue ethics, adherence to normative standards—virtues aligned with human flourishing (eudaimonia)—promotes individual well-being by fulfilling innate potentials for rational activity, moderation, and purpose, as articulated by Aristotle and echoed in contemporary eudaimonist frameworks.^[73] Empirical studies in positive psychology support this, showing that engagement in eudaimonic pursuits, such as skill development and meaningful goal attainment, correlates with sustained life satisfaction and reduced depressive symptoms, outperforming hedonic pleasure-seeking in longitudinal assessments.^[74] Deviations from such norms, conversely, often yield suboptimal outcomes, as evidenced by meta-analyses linking rigid or maladaptive conformity to certain cultural norms (e.g., excessive emotional restraint) with elevated mental health risks, though flexible alignment with functional norms buffers these effects.^[75] Normative ethical perspectives further imply that individual well-being is intertwined with self-regulation toward objective goods, such as health and social bonds, rather than subjective relativism; for instance, biological normativity in medicine posits deviations from species-typical functioning as impairing welfare, justifying interventions to restore alignment.^[76] This causal link is substantiated by research indicating that prosocial norm adherence fosters psychological resilience and interpersonal trust, thereby enhancing personal agency and reducing isolation-related pathologies.^[77] At the societal level, robust normative frameworks underpin stability and collective well-being by enabling predictable cooperation and sanctioning free-riding, as social norms function as informal enforcement mechanisms for reciprocity and fairness.^[52] Empirical cross-cultural data reveal that societies with strong, internalized norms exhibit higher trust levels and lower conflict incidence, correlating with improved public health metrics and economic productivity; for example, cohesive norm systems in high-conformity groups predict greater resource sharing and adaptive responses to challenges.^[78] Erosion of shared normativity, by contrast, disrupts these dynamics, leading to fragmented trust and elevated social pathologies, as observed in studies of norm shift where rapid descriptive changes precede injunctive breakdowns and diminished group welfare.^[79] Thus, ethical normativity serves as a causal anchor for societal resilience, prioritizing evidence-based standards over relativistic flux to sustain intergenerational thriving.^[70]

Controversies and Modern Debates

Pathologization of Traditional Norms

The pathologization of traditional norms involves framing historically normative behaviors, such as gender-specific roles emphasizing stoicism in men or nurturance in women, as maladaptive or symptomatic of underlying psychological issues within clinical and academic discourse. This process has accelerated since the late 20th century, coinciding with expansions in diagnostic criteria and cultural shifts toward individualism, where adherence to longstanding societal expectations is increasingly interpreted through lenses of toxicity or oppression rather than functionality. Empirical critiques highlight that such labeling often conflates descriptive correlations with prescriptive pathology, overlooking adaptive contexts where these norms foster resilience and social cohesion.^[80]^[81] A prominent example is the American Psychological Association's (APA) 2018 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men, which characterize traits linked to traditional masculinity—such as emotional restraint, competitiveness, and risk tolerance—as ideologically driven and associated with adverse outcomes including aggression, substance abuse, and reluctance to seek help, based on syntheses of research spanning over 40 years.^[82] The guidelines recommend clinicians address these traits to mitigate "harm" from masculinity ideology, positioning them as barriers to mental health. However, this approach has drawn scholarly rebuttals for methodological overreach, including failure to distinguish harmful extremes from normative expressions and potential exacerbation of stigma against men embodying these traits, which may deter treatment-seeking among traditional demographics.^[83]^[84] Countervailing evidence underscores benefits of traditional norms, challenging their wholesale pathologization. A meta-analysis of 58 studies from 1978 to 2021 found masculinity measures correlated with reduced depression symptoms and enhanced well-being, particularly when not viewed negatively by individuals.^[85] Similarly, conformity to certain masculine ideals has been linked to higher relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couples, suggesting causal roles in stability rather than inherent dysfunction.^[86] Critics attribute the pathologizing trend to field-wide ideological skews, with surveys indicating psychologists are disproportionately progressive (e.g., 87% self-identifying as liberal in a 2012 representative sample), potentially prioritizing cultural relativism over biological or evolutionary data on sex differences. This dynamic risks redefining normality to exclude traditional adherents, fostering iatrogenic effects like increased self-doubt without commensurate gains in empirical validity.^[81]

Critiques of Relativism and Neurodiversity Paradigms

Critics of relativism in conceptions of normality argue that it undermines objective criteria for mental health by positing that standards of functionality and well-being vary solely by cultural or subjective context, ignoring cross-cultural empirical consistencies in disorder symptomatology. For instance, core features of conditions like schizophrenia, including hallucinations and delusions, manifest similarly worldwide, suggesting biological universals that transcend cultural boundaries rather than purely relativistic interpretations. ^[87] Overemphasis on relativism risks discrediting psychiatric practice by framing universal impairments as mere cultural artifacts, potentially excusing untreated suffering under the guise of tolerance for diverse expressions. ^[88] Philosophical objections further contend that normative relativism is conceptually incoherent, as its claim to universality about the relativity of norms self-undermines, while empirical data reveal shared human adaptive norms rooted in evolutionary biology, such as social reciprocity and emotional regulation, which deviate harmfully in disorders regardless of societal variance. ^[89] In psychiatric contexts, this relativism has been critiqued for fostering diagnostic inconsistency, as seen in historical shifts like the depathologization of homosexuality in the DSM, where cultural pressures overrode statistical and functional evidence of deviation from reproductive norms. ^[87] The neurodiversity paradigm, which reframes neurodevelopmental conditions like autism as natural variations rather than deficits requiring remediation, faces similar critiques for relativizing normality to individual neurology, thereby downplaying verifiable impairments. Clinicians and researchers note that the movement is largely unrepresentative, dominated by high-functioning advocates who minimize the profound challenges of severe autism, such as nonverbal communication and lifelong dependency, affecting an estimated 30% of cases per CDC data. ^[90] ^[91] A primary clinical concern is the paradigm's opposition to evidence-based interventions, exemplified by campaigns against Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), which meta-analyses show improves adaptive skills and reduces maladaptive behaviors in autistic children, yet is labeled abusive by advocates seeking to defund it. ^[91] This stance, critics argue, harms those with severe impairments by prioritizing ideological affirmation over treatments that enable functionality, as evidenced by parental reports of twins remaining nonverbal and self-injurious without intervention. ^[90] ^[91] Furthermore, by rejecting the medical model, neurodiversity relativism is accused of romanticizing pathology, such as denying "severe autism" exists despite DSM-5 classifications and prevalence data indicating substantial subsets require constant care, thus sidelining empirical needs for research and support in favor of a mere-difference narrative that conflates mild traits with debilitating disorders. ^[91] ^[90]

References

[1]
Normality | Philosophy | Cambridge Core
Feb 25, 2009 · A normal person is one who is not diseased or crooked or mad, can learn and may forget, sleeps well, performs some job of work adequately.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[2]
The Concept of Normality - Oxford Academic - Oxford University Press
Aug 18, 2022 · The concept of 'normal' emerged from statistical and biomedical fields, and is critical in modern knowledge. The 'new normal' catchphrase may ...
[3]
Descriptive Statistics and Normality Tests for Statistical Data - PMC
For the continuous data, test of the normality is an important step for deciding the measures of central tendency and statistical methods for data analysis.
[4]
Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data - PubMed
For the continuous data, test of the normality is an important step for deciding the measures of central tendency and statistical methods for data analysis.
[5]
Normality: a Two-Faced Concept - ResearchGate
Mar 14, 2020 · On the dual-nature hypothesis, a normality evaluation depends on the object's goodness (how good do you think it is?) and frequency (how ...Abstract And Figures · References (30) · Recommended Publications<|separator|>
[6]
[PDF] The Meaning of Clinical Normality - UDSpace - University of Delaware
Jul 31, 2022 · Many writers have called the term 'normal' highly ambiguous both in and out of medicine, especially between descriptive and normative.
[7]
normality, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English ...
OED's earliest evidence for normality is from 1839, in Morning Chronicle. normality is formed within English, by derivation; perhaps modelled on a French ...
[8]
Normal - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating c. 1500 from Late Latin normalis, meaning "made according to a carpenter's square," the word means "typical, common," and "conforming to ...Missing: linguistic | Show results with:linguistic
[9]
What Exactly Is 'Normal'? - Merriam-Webster
Normal came to English around the 17th century, from the Latin normalis, which means “made according to a carpenter's square, forming a right angle.”
[10]
Normal distribution - Wikipedia
In probability theory and statistics, a normal distribution or Gaussian distribution is a type of continuous probability distribution for a real-valued random ...Multivariate normal distribu · Log-normal · Generalized normal · Matrix normal
[11]
[PDF] The History and Cognitive Science of an Everyday Scientific Practice
Evaluative and descriptive meanings of. “normality” were intertwined in the field of medicine during the nineteenth century. Physicians held. “the normal state” ...
[12]
How the Concept of 'Normal' Was Invented - Brainwaves and Tangents
May 17, 2025 · This essay traces how the idea of normality emerged—and how it came to shape our world ... shifted from a descriptive term to a prescriptive one.
[13]
Adolphe Quetelet: Social Physics, Determinism, and 'The Average ...
His idea of the average man (l'homme moyen) was just as confusing: at times it seemed that Quetelet was describing ideal characteristics rather than average ...
[14]
What Is Normal? A Historical Survey and Neuroanthropological ...
... descriptive and the normative. People's beliefs about normality are descriptive and prescriptive and depend on both an average and an ideal. Besides, the ...
[15]
https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section5/pmc51.htm
[16]
6.5.1. What do we mean by "Normal" data?
The Normal distribution model, "Normal" data are data that are drawn (come from) a population that has a normal distribution.
[17]
The Normal Distribution - Utah State University
The normal distribution is also called the "Gaussian distribution" or "bell curve". A normal distribution has two parameters, the mean μ , and the variance σ2 .
[18]
Normal Distribution -- from Wolfram MathWorld
A normal distribution, also called a Gaussian distribution or bell curve, has a mean (mu) and variance (sigma^2) and is often assumed for random variates.
[19]
Chapter 1: Descriptive Statistics and the Normal Distribution
We then use descriptive statistics to organize and summarize our sample data. ... normality. Our primary method is the normal probability plot. This plot ...
[20]
What is the Assumption of Normality in Statistics? - Statology
1. One sample t-test: It's assumed that the sample data is normally distributed. · 2. Two sample t-test: It's assumed that both samples are normally distributed.
[21]
about the basic assumptions of t-test: normality and sample size - PMC
The normality assumption means that the collected data follows a normal distribution, which is essential for parametric assumption. Most statistical programs ...
[22]
Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians
The assumption of normality needs to be checked for many statistical procedures, namely parametric tests, because their validity depends on it. The aim of this ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[23]
5.3: Normal Subgroups - Mathematics LibreTexts
Apr 16, 2022 · Definition: Normal Subgroup. Let G be a group and let H ≤ G . If a ⁢ H = H ⁡ a for all a ∈ G , then we say that H is a normal subgroup.Missing: theory | Show results with:theory
[24]
Normal Subgroup -- from Wolfram MathWorld
Normal subgroups are also known as invariant subgroups or self-conjugate subgroup (Arfken 1985, p. 242). All subgroups of Abelian groups are normal.
[25]
16.1: Normality - Chemistry LibreTexts
Sep 11, 2021 · Normality is the number of equivalent weights, EW, per unit volume. An equivalent weight is the ratio of a chemical species' formula weight, FW, ...
[26]
Understand What Normality Means in Chemistry - ThoughtCo
Jan 31, 2020 · Normality is a measure of concentration equal to the gram equivalent weight per liter of solution. Gram equivalent weight is the measure of the ...
[27]
Normality - BYJU'S
Normality = Number of gram equivalents × [Volume of solution in litres] · Number of gram equivalents = Weight of solute × [Equivalent weight of solute] · N = ...How to Calculate Normality? · Relation between Normality... · Normality vs Molarity
[28]
How to Calculate Normality of a Solution - Chemistry - ThoughtCo
Jul 27, 2024 · The normality of a solution is the gram equivalent weight of a solute per liter of solution. It may also be called the equivalent concentration.
[29]
What Is the Difference Between Molarity and Normality? - ThoughtCo
Jun 9, 2025 · Molarity is moles of solute per liter, while normality is gram equivalent weight per liter, depending on the solution's role in the reaction.
[30]
[PDF] Molarity and Normality
Normality is a measure of the moles of protons in the solution. Since 2 protons are available to react on each molecule of H2SO4, the normality is 2 N. The same ...<|separator|>
[31]
Normality in Chemistry | Definition, Formula & Examples - Study.com
Thus, normality is used in redox reactions and in neutralization reactions. For example, a student may be titrating an acid of unknown concentration with a base ...
[32]
Normality - Definition, Formula, Equations and Solved Examples
May 17, 2022 · Redox reactions, precipitation reactions, and acid-base chemical reactions all often make use of normality. It depends on the temperature and ...
[33]
What is the Difference Between Molarity & Normality?
Dec 13, 2020 · Molarity is moles of solute per liter (mol/L), while normality is gram equivalent weight of solute per liter (Eq/L), and can vary depending on ...
[34]
Review of Molarity, Molality, and Normality
Like molarity, normality relates the amount of solute to the total volume of solution; however, normality is specifically used for acids and bases.
[35]
Normality in Chemistry: Formula, Definition & Easy Calculation Guide
Rating 4.2 (373,000) Grasping normality helps improve accuracy in stoichiometric calculations and quickly identifies the exact reactive capacity of chemical solutions.<|separator|>
[36]
What is a Mental/Psychiatric Disorder? From DSM-IV to DSM-V - PMC
Criterion B DSM-IV notes that mental disorders are associated with distress, disability, or a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability ...
[37]
Mental disorders: exploring normality models to distinguish what is ...
Therefore, the distinction between normality and disease is central to psychiatry. The DSM proposes that mental disorders are necessarily linked to distress ...
[38]
What Is Abnormal Psychology? Definition and Examples
Nov 9, 2023 · Under this definition of abnormality, a person's trait, thinking or behavior is classified as abnormal if it is rare or statistically unusual.
[39]
The normal distribution is not normal in psychological data
Aug 12, 2025 · The majority of individuals tend to report minimal or no symptoms, while a small subset experiences severe distress. This leads to zero-inflated ...
[40]
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-20880-000
[41]
Current concepts of positive mental health. - APA PsycNet
Positive mental health includes attitudes toward oneself, realizing potential, unified personality, independence from social influences, seeing the world, and ...Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
[42]
What is ideal mental health? - FutureLearn
Jahoda (1958) identified six conditions associated with ideal mental health and any deviation is regarded as abnormal.
[43]
Defining Abnormality: The Four D's and Cultural Context
Jul 29, 2024 · Cultural relativity in defining abnormality ... Cultural norms and values significantly influence which behaviors are perceived as abnormal.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[44]
What is Normal? The Impact of Psychiatric Classification on Mental ...
Nov 26, 2013 · Most mental states are generally thought of as dichotomous entities that can be identified by applying certain operationalized criteria.
[45]
Delineating the Structure of Normal and Abnormal Personality - NIH
Here, we argue that abnormal and normal personality variation is best described within a single integrative hierarchy.
[46]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3683251/
[47]
The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes - PubMed Central
DSM-5's major neurocognitive disorder (NCD) is roughly equivalent to DSM-IV's dementia, although criteria for dementia have been revised to also form a ...
[48]
Understanding Normality: Key Traits and Functional Perspectives
Jul 27, 2024 · Normality is a complex concept on a spectrum, defined by traits like appropriate reality perception, and perspectives such as health, utopia, ...
[49]
DSM-5 and Neurocognitive Disorders
Jun 1, 2014 · “Major and mild NCDs exist on a spectrum of cognitive and functional impairment” (Ref. 5, p 607). “The distinction between major and mild ...
[50]
How to Address Non-normality: A Taxonomy of Approaches ...
This review identified at least eight distinct methods suggested to address non-normality, which we organize into a new taxonomy.
[51]
What Is Conformity? Definition, Types, Psychology Research
Sep 23, 2025 · Normative influence leads people to conform to avoid standing out or being punished. Social pressure can sometimes lead us to change our ...
[52]
6.5C: The Asch Experiment- The Power of Peer Pressure
Feb 19, 2021 · Overall, there was a 37% conformity rate by subjects averaged across all critical trials. In a control group, with no pressure to conform to an ...Missing: normality | Show results with:normality
[53]
Social Norms - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mar 1, 2011 · It is important to understand that conformity to a social norm is always conditional on the expectations of what the relevant other/s will do. ...1. General Issues · 5. Game-Theoretic Accounts · 7. Evolutionary Models
[54]
Social norms and social sanctions - Institute for Social Capital
Dec 13, 2020 · Social norms are socially enforceable expectations about what constitutes normal and appropriate action in a particular context.Social Norms At Different... · Social Norms And Social... · About The Author
[55]
Norm theory and the action-effect: The role of social norms in regret ...
Kahneman and Miller's (1986) norm theory postulated that the action-effect can be explained by normality, meaning that actions are more abnormal than inactions ...
[56]
The Biological Bases of Conformity - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Jun 14, 2012 · We review the relevant literature considering the causation, function, history, and ontogeny of conformity, and describe a computer-based experiment on human ...
[57]
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of ... - NIH
Nov 29, 2023 · In this paper, we pursue four goals: First, we replicate the original Asch experiment with five confederates and one naïve subject in each group.
[58]
Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding
May 7, 2015 · Conformity is the act of fitting in with the group. As a group-living species, much of our behavior is focused on preserving group cohesion .
[59]
How Evolutionary Psychology Explains Human Behavior
Nov 6, 2023 · Evolutionary psychologists explain human emotions, thoughts, and behaviors through the lens of the theories of evolution and natural ...
[60]
[DOC] Normality and Abnormality - Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences
Evolutionary perspectives regard normal human emotions and behaviors as products of the interaction between people and their environments. Normal humans ...
[61]
Seven moral rules found all around the world | University of Oxford
Feb 11, 2019 · Anthropologists at the University of Oxford have discovered what they believe to be seven universal moral rules.
[62]
Cross-cultural evidence of cognitive adaptations for social exchange ...
Social contract algorithms are predicted to be cross-culturally universal, because complex adaptations in long-lived species with open population structures, ...
[63]
Cross-Cultural Universals and Variations: The Evolutionary Paradox ...
The evolutionary basis for these psychological mechanisms underlying culture ap pears rooted in a process of "runaway social selection". (Alexander, 2005; Flinn ...
[64]
Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms
Integrating research in cross-cultural psychology with evolutionary game theory, we show that groups that face a high degree of threat develop stronger norms ...
[65]
The Explanatory Link Account of Normality | Philosophy
Sep 18, 2019 · Well, any theorist of normality will agree that 'normal' in the non-statistical sense describes properties which characterize a kind ...
[66]
6 Value Judgements and Normative Claims - Oxford Academic
A normative claim is one about what standard ought to be followed, as distinct from what is normal, standard, or average. The distinction just presented ...
[67]
Georges Canguilhem on Normality - Dictionary of Arguments
... Statistical normality refers to things that are common or typical. Normative normality refers to things that are good, right, or desirable. See also Norms ...
[68]
[PDF] The Normal and the Pathological - Monoskop
In the history of science, such as it was practiced in France, Georges. Canguilhem brought about a significant shift. Broadly speaking, the history of ...
[69]
GEORGES CANGUILHEM: THE NORMAL & THE PATHOLOGICAL
Oct 5, 1999 · Canguilhem is concerned about the distinction between the normal and the normative, and their relation to the definition of health and disease.
[70]
Can populations be healthy? Perspectives from Georges ...
For Canguilhem, far from rejecting every notion of norm outside of biology, the Darwinian theory of selection shows the existence of a normativity in the living ...
[71]
Normality in medicine: an empirical elucidation
Dec 21, 2022 · Normality is both a descriptive and a normative concept. Undoubtedly, the normal often operates normatively as an exclusionary tool of ...
[72]
The Psychology of Normative Cognition
Aug 25, 2020 · That said, behaviors that are perceived to be statistically normal in a community are particularly salient to individuals' norm psychology ...
[73]
normality - Sage Journals
The normative approach drops the statistical aspect of normality and treats what is normal entirely as conformity to a stan- dard or ideal. In contrast to ...<|separator|>
[74]
Virtue Ethics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 18, 2003 · The distinctive feature of eudaimonist versions of virtue ethics is that they define virtues in terms of their relationship to eudaimonia. A ...
[75]
[PDF] Eudaimonia as a way of living: Connecting Aristotle with self ...
Before examining the empirical evidence that eudaimonic living indeed makes us happier, it must be noted that happiness and similar positive feelings by no ...
[76]
[PDF] Meta-Analyses of the Relationship Between Conformity to Masculine ...
Jun 17, 2016 · Despite theoretical postulations that individuals' conformity to masculine norms is differentially related to mental health-related outcomes ...
[77]
[PDF] Beyond biological and social normativity: varieties of norm deviation ...
Jan 27, 2025 · Mental disorders are deviations from biological, social, individual well-being, and regulatory norms, according to the paper.
[78]
Norms and the Flexibility of Moral Action - PMC - PubMed Central
Social norms, like fairness, altruism, trust, and cooperation, are standards for behavior based on shared expectations, promoting flexible moral choices.
[79]
When normal is normative: The ethical significance of conforming to ...
Mar 1, 2022 · Unsurprisingly, empirical studies suggest mutually inter-locking expectations and behaviours lead to greater social cohesion (Theriault et al., ...
[80]
Social norm change: drivers and consequences - PMC - NIH
Jan 22, 2024 · Social norms are unwritten rules that are collectively understood, prescribe what people ought (not) to do, and motivate people to engage in ...
[81]
The Pathologizing of a Culture | Psychology Today
Feb 1, 2009 · I am suggesting that, in part, it is with the pathologizing of stressful, yet normal human experience that we indeed create a culture of pathology.
[82]
Why the APA Guidelines for Men's Mental Health Are Misguided
Feb 25, 2019 · The new APA guidelines are a wasted opportunity to address the men's mental health crisis. In fact, they could even make things worse.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly<|separator|>
[83]
APA issues first-ever guidelines for practice with men and boys
Jan 1, 2019 · APA's new Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men strive to recognize and address these problems in boys and men while remaining sensitive to ...Missing: pathologizing | Show results with:pathologizing
[84]
Twelve Scholars Respond to the APA's Guidance for Treating Men ...
Feb 4, 2019 · Masculine stoicism, the APA tells us, prevents men from seeking treatment when in need, while beliefs rooted in “masculine ideology” perpetuate ...
[85]
The American psychological Association's practice guidelines for ...
It is concluded that there are reasonable concerns that the current guidelines may do more harm than good by dissuading traditional men and families from ...
[86]
Masculinity can be good for men's mental health, but thinking it's bad ...
Jun 30, 2022 · A review of 58 research studies conducted between 1978 and 2021 found that masculinity is, in fact, linked to lower depression.
[87]
(PDF) Men's Conformity to Traditional Masculinity and Relationship ...
Oct 9, 2025 · Men's conformity to masculine norms was more strongly associated with women's relationship satisfaction than with men's relationship satisfaction.
[88]
Psychiatric diagnosis – is it universal or relative to culture? - PMC
Method. Empirical studies were used to present evidence in favor of or against a universalist or relativistic view of child psychiatric disorders using a model ...
[89]
Cultural relativism and psychiatric illness - PubMed
This study describes the concept of cultural relativism, reviews its applications to illness, and analyzes its implications from a historical and theoretical ...
[90]
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements ...
[91]
Critiques of the Neurodiversity Movement - SpringerLink
Nov 8, 2019 · The main critiques of the neurodiversity movement are then listed as follows: first, the movement has been accused of being unrepresentative of all people who ...
[92]
Why the neurodiversity movement has become harmful | Aeon Essays
Sep 12, 2019 · However, neurodiversity advocates consider ABA to be cruel and unethical, and campaign for withdrawal of government funding for the treatment.