Risks of obliterating 'normal'?

Post Reply New Topic

I was in another thread when I realized I had a topic that I think would be great to have here.

The question is ultimately this: by denormalizing everything, by assigning an 'ism' to almost any human behavior (starting from different modes of sexuality - even modes within modes - and working outward to all kinds of other things) that we may essentially cause a 'heat death' for cohesive society as we know it?

I'm not meaning to be so forboding as to suggest that it would cause anarchy, collapse, or even ice cold indifference to fellow human beings, but it seems like conceptually exploding the normal curve and deleting the middle just by assigning everyone too many isms for such a thing to exist anymore - essentially we're just shifting goalposts, changing definitions, but at the same time these are remarkably powerful definitions we're working with.

What do you think are the benefits? What do you think are the perils? Would the perils outweigh the benefits in your opinion or would the benefits outweigh the perils?

I think the main benefactors would/will be the pharmacutical industry.

Lol, but how to do you get anyone to take medication when there's no standard?

The main benefactors would be the pocket dictionary industry.

The losers in it would be trees.

Ultimately, it sounds absurd.

Wow, I think that might just be the perfect answer - and it came within two posts of the OP.

Behold, NT brains!

*Demonstrates brains*

You forgot to quote the absurd part.

Perils
Overmedication and the idea that literally everything that every person does is somehow mentally unhealthy

Benefits
Neurodiversity becomes a default. To paraphrase The Incredibles, when everybody is different, nobody is different.

I think the perils outweight the benfits, especially the overmedication part.

Meh, never been a believer in spectrumite intellectual supremacy.

And any local board of education would mimic US Congress.

Trees? Wha...?

Multiple standards. Everybody will meet at least some of the standards. Nobody will meet all of them. So people get medicated for whichever of the standards they don't meet. This already happens to some extent in general medicine. By the time you get to my age (middle age) many people are on at least one medication for one physical standard they don't meet, whether it be cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, blood sugar. Nobody fails to meet all the standards but many don't meet at least one. The same could happen for mental health.

Not everyone is willing to reach into the grab bag of side-effects though. I know they've been talking about getting people who have genetic cholesterol risks on statons by the age of 8 or 10 but - it makes a lot more sense for physical health than mental because we know what we're doing is - psychologically at least - developmentally neutral. With psychiatric meds its a much more complicated world.

I may not be on the AS, but I don't think I have NT brains either. I have MT brains.

Nevermind, I get the tree thing now.
I'm thick sometimes.

This is basically what the book Future Shock was all about, though the concept there was a bit more expansive. He was talking about more than just defining (though that was part of it), he was talking about the complete fragmentation of society into sub-cultures and the loss of a common experience.

Not possible. No matter what happens, there will always be a "normal"... unless every single person was entirely different in their tastes or there were exactly equal numbers of every possible combination of the "isms".