Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(May 16, 2018 04:08 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...ng-normal/

EXCERPT: We use the term “normal” so casually and so often that it seems utterly…normal.

Familiar, certainly.

Quote:But [...] Yale University neuroscientists Avram Holmes and Lauren Patrick argue we must move beyond the traditional concept of “normal”

We "must"? Where does that implied necessity come from? It doesn't seem to be logical necessity. Once again, morality and moral exhortation seem to be sneaking into what is ostensibly "science".

Perhaps what intelligent people should be doing is displaying a little skepticism by not giving other people's personal opinions special credence just because magic words like "Yale university" and "neuroscientists" have been invoked.

Quote:because it doesn’t exist—at least, not as a single, fixed entity.

Their idea of the "traditional concept of 'normal'" looks like a straw man to me. Has anyone ever suggested that 'normality' is 'a single, fixed entity'?  

Quote:Instead, they contend, it represents a wide spectrum of healthy variability. They shed light on why this variability exists, and what it contributes to the process of evolution.

Of course. That doesn't mean that the idea of normality is something that should be rejected. Beyond that, defining the scope and range of 'normality' becomes a philosophical problem (not a neuroscience problem).

I personally think that an Aristotelian approach to that question might be fruitful. 'Normality' would be defined in terms of our human functions and by the purposes that our various behaviors fulfill. Those in turn are probably defined in large part by evolution, I guess.

So normality in the biological sense would be behavior that's functional, that succeeds in achieving ends. Normal liver function would be a liver doing its biochemical job. Normal brain function would be function that allows people to solve the problems that they are faced with in life and to function effectively with other people.  

Quote:It’s a position that is increasingly embraced by cognitive neuroscientists

There's the appeal to "scientific" authority again.

Quote:and it has clinical implications. The current assumption is mental pathology reflects a deviation from or disruption of “normal” behavior, which is in turn defined as the average behavior across the larger population; if you don’t behave like most people, then something’s gone wrong.

That's probably true, if we assume that most individuals are reasonably healthy and behave effectively within the limits imposed by their biology and their circumstances. Just biologically, it would be reasonable to assume that. Evolution selects for it.

Quote:Consider depression. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, depression is defined by a constellation of symptoms [...] The systematic lumping of non-normal behaviors into a discrete diagnosis gives the impression mental illness is a cognitive stepping out of bounds—that the mind has broken and requires fixing.

Absent an understanding of the underlying neurological etiology, I think that's probably a good way of conceptualizing depression. We obviously recognize it in terms of symptoms.

Quote:This concept of a fixed “normal,” Holmes and Patrick argue, is an erroneous and unrealistic (could one say “unhealthy”?) misconception that doesn’t reflect the healthy variation produced by evolution.

People who aren't depressed obviously do display an almost infinite variety of psychological states. I'm not aware that anyone has ever disputed that. But all of those states share the characteristic that they are reasonably functional in their circumstances. If somebody's psychology deviates too far from functionality in a particular direction (defined symptomatically in the DSM) then mental health professionals call it "depression".

I'm still unclear why that's supposedly "erroneous and unrealistic" and something that "must" be rejected.

Quote:Evolution, they maintain, doesn’t converge on a stable “healthy”

The straw-man again.

Quote:—or even a narrow range of healthy values within a given trait. Instead, there is a large range of healthy variability that depends greatly on the environment.

Ok, let's say that 'normal' means the ability to respond effectively to the surrounding environment. Let's say that can happen in many different ways. That doesn't mean that the idea of 'normality' is something to be rejected. (In favor of... what? Anything goes?) Even if these "scientific" clowns succeed in banishing the idea of "normality", they will still have to replace it with another idea that does the same work.  

What appears to be happening here is another in the seemingly never-ending attempts to package political/moral social-change rhetoric in the guise of "science", usually by way of bad philosophy.

It's one of several reasons why whenever I hear the phrase "scientists say..." I suspect that I'm about to be bullshitted.

(May 17, 2018 05:46 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]What appears to be happening here is another in the seemingly never-ending attempts to package political/moral social-change rhetoric in the guise of "science", usually by way of bad philosophy.

It's one of several reasons why whenever I hear the phrase "scientists say..." I suspect that I'm about to be bullshitted.

Hear, hear.

(May 17, 2018 05:46 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. That doesn't mean that the idea of normality is something that should be rejected. Beyond that, defining the scope and range of 'normality' becomes a philosophical problem (not a neuroscience problem).

I personally think that an Aristotelian approach to that question might be fruitful. 'Normality' would be defined in terms of our human functions and by the purposes that our various behaviors fulfill. Those in turn are probably defined in large part by evolution, I guess.

So normality in the biological sense would be behavior that's functional, that succeeds in achieving ends. Normal liver function would be a liver doing its biochemical job. Normal brain function would be function that allows people to solve the problems that they are faced with in life and to function effectively with other people.  

That’s the problem with normal people, they think they’re normal.  

An appeal to nature, eh, Yazata?  Animals adapt to the environment, and so do we, but most of our activities are shaped by superimposed myths—culture.

[…]It is not possible to view the life of man apart from culture; for there is no man whose life has not been shaped from birth to death by its cultural matrix.

[…]Clearly character cannot remain fixed while the conditions of life change. And clearly the conditions of life have always been changing. Any culture tends to produce in individuals that social character which is fitted for survival in that culture; and as a culture evolves, an evolution in the prevailing character of the individuals who adapt to it is to be expected. That there should have been a characterological change of some kind in western society during the past two generations occasions no surprise, nor should it. For the conditions of life have, during that time, undergone such radical alteration that it would be a greater mystery if no corresponding change in character had occurred.
The Quest for Identity – Allen Wheelis

Science—an instrumental process that is bound to reality.  The final appeal is to evidence.

Authority—an institutional process that is bound to human desire and fear.  The final appeal is to force.

The emotional needs of men fastening onto the products of reason are dominated by the quest for certainty.
 

(Apr 14, 2018 03:51 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So people who are overly concerned with what others think of them (like obsessively seeking societal approval) may let that dominate all else, even to the extreme of child abuse. Sad.

Yes.  Alexander Hamilton died for it. People have always died for it and probably always will. Social norms are extremely powerful.

To those, who with me abhorring the practice of Dueling may think that I ought on no account to have added to the number of bad examples—I answer that my relative situation, as well in public as private aspects, enforcing all the considerations which constitute what men of the world denominate honor, impressed on me (as I thought) a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. The ability to be in future useful, whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those crises of our public affairs, which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular.

Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr

(May 18, 2018 02:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 17, 2018 05:46 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Of course. That doesn't mean that the idea of normality is something that should be rejected. Beyond that, defining the scope and range of 'normality' becomes a philosophical problem (not a neuroscience problem).

I personally think that an Aristotelian approach to that question might be fruitful. 'Normality' would be defined in terms of our human functions and by the purposes that our various behaviors fulfill. Those in turn are probably defined in large part by evolution, I guess.

So normality in the biological sense would be behavior that's functional, that succeeds in achieving ends. Normal liver function would be a liver doing its biochemical job. Normal brain function would be function that allows people to solve the problems that they are faced with in life and to function effectively with other people.  

That’s the problem with normal people, they think they’re normal.  

An appeal to nature, eh, Yazata?  Animals adapt to the environment, and so do we, but most of our activities are shaped by superimposed myths—culture.

[…]It is not possible to view the life of man apart from culture; for there is no man whose life has not been shaped from birth to death by its cultural matrix.

[…]Clearly character cannot remain fixed while the conditions of life change. And clearly the conditions of life have always been changing. Any culture tends to produce in individuals that social character which is fitted for survival in that culture; and as a culture evolves, an evolution in the prevailing character of the individuals who adapt to it is to be expected. That there should have been a characterological change of some kind in western society during the past two generations occasions no surprise, nor should it. For the conditions of life have, during that time, undergone such radical alteration that it would be a greater mystery if no corresponding change in character had occurred.
The Quest for Identity – Allen Wheelis

The OP article is making a direct appeal to evolution, so why should anyone neglect addressing that?
The vast majority of our culture is actually predicated upon our evolutionary psychological drives, with differences in culture reflecting different challenges and their subsequent survival strategies. Just like different environmental pressures cause the adaptation of differing traits.
People can insulate themselves from cultural influence, whether through ideological bubbles or reasoned principles. A man can be rational, but people, collectively, are instinctive animals.

Quote:

(Apr 14, 2018 03:51 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So people who are overly concerned with what others think of them (like obsessively seeking societal approval) may let that dominate all else, even to the extreme of child abuse. Sad.

Yes.  Alexander Hamilton died for it. People have always died for it and probably always will. Social norms are extremely powerful.

To those, who with me abhorring the practice of Dueling may think that I ought on no account to have added to the number of bad examples—I answer that my relative situation, as well in public as private aspects, enforcing all the considerations which constitute what men of the world denominate honor, impressed on me (as I thought) a peculiar necessity not to decline the call. The ability to be in future useful, whether in resisting mischief or effecting good, in those crises of our public affairs, which seem likely to happen, would probably be inseparable from a conformity with public prejudice in this particular.

Statement on Impending Duel with Aaron Burr

That's a highly dubious moral equivalency, comparing child abuse to a leader who must maintain a level of respect to continue leading. External judgements of parental inadequacy do not hinder parenting (other than through the parent's own insecurity) the way public loss of confidence would hinder a leader.

(May 18, 2018 07:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]That's a highly dubious moral equivalency, comparing child abuse to a leader who must maintain a level of respect to continue leading. External judgments of parental inadequacy do not hinder parenting (other than through the parent's own insecurity) the way public loss of confidence would hinder a leader.

No it’s not.  It’s an old story but still in play even today.  Brothers kill brothers and sisters.  Fathers kill daughters and wives.  Mothers kill their own children or send them off to die. How many dead do you think lie underneath our feet because of it?

In every situation, for every person, there is a realm of freedom and a realm of constraint. One may live in either realm. One must recognize the irresistible forces, the iron fist, the stone wall-must know them for what they are in order not to fall into the sea like Icarus.—Wheelis

There’s no denying it. We’re all psychological slaves to honor and shame.

SS Wrote:We’re all psychological slaves to honor and shame.

Ouch!

(May 18, 2018 02:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]An appeal to nature, eh, Yazata?

I was responding to opinions written in a popular science magazine written by a 'neuroscientist' along with the suggestion that those views reflect the findings of neuroscience in general. (I'm skeptical about that. I suspect that they are more specific to this particular author.)

Quote:Animals adapt to the environment, and so do we, but most of our activities are shaped by superimposed myths—culture.

I'd question that. My activities seem to be shaped largely by my desires and by my physical circumstances. I eat food and not rocks or ectoplasm. I get into the next room by opening the door and walking through it, not by teleporting or by walking though the wall.

Of course, how I conceptualize what I do and my motives for doing it, does have a large cultural element.

The ancient Greeks didn't walk through walls or jump over the Moon either. They ate food. But how they imagined solid matter, human metabolism, or the heavens, might have been rather different than how I conceive of those things. It's that latter conceptual element that's more culturally determined.

Natural science is obviously a conceptual system (or systems). It obviously exists in a cultural context. But at the same time it addresses a natural reality that's presumably the same for all of us.

That's one of the places where I think Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions went off the rails. He seems to have reduced everything to his "paradigms", insisting that adherents of different paradigms occupy different worlds. So... how do they manage to bump into each other in the hall?

If Kuhn was right, then natural science would seem to be impossible. (That's a pretty nihilistic philosophy of science in my opinion.)

So I guess that the question in this thread is whether (on one hand) 'normal' is an arbitrary (and presumably oppressive) social construct. Or whether (on the other) it has valuable descriptive content in describing the objective world.

That's why I tried to ground 'normality' in the ability to function as human beings, in the ability to live human life successfully. (And yes, there may be an almost infinite number of ways of doing that.) Those who aren't succeeding, whether by problems of cognition or affect, would seem to have slipped out of the boundaries of normality. That's when psychiatric assistance might be called for (assuming that any effective psychiatric assistance is possible). And that's where natural selection ultimately gets its grip in neuroscience.

(May 19, 2018 02:27 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 18, 2018 07:35 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]That's a highly dubious moral equivalency, comparing child abuse to a leader who must maintain a level of respect to continue leading. External judgments of parental inadequacy do not hinder parenting (other than through the parent's own insecurity) the way public loss of confidence would hinder a leader.

No it’s not.  It’s an old story but still in play even today.  Brothers kill brothers and sisters.  Fathers kill daughters and wives.  Mothers kill their own children or send them off to die. How many dead do you think lie underneath our feet because of it?

In every situation, for every person, there is a realm of freedom and a realm of constraint. One may live in either realm. One must recognize the irresistible forces, the iron fist, the stone wall-must know them for what they are in order not to fall into the sea like Icarus.—Wheelis

There’s no denying it. We’re all psychological slaves to honor and shame.

Yes, it is. A duel involves two voluntary parties, for whatever motivations, while murder involves at least one decidedly involuntary party. Trying to equate the motives while ignoring the actual acts is morally reprehensible. If you really think someone risking their own life for the same motives as killing their child are equivalent, you should be ashamed of yourself.

All freedom involves constraints and responsibilities. You don't actually get to choose. Ignoring constraints and flaunting responsibility is a sure way to lose your freedom.

And speak for yourself, slave. No amount of honor or shame can make me murder someone.

(May 19, 2018 03:55 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 18, 2018 02:30 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Animals adapt to the environment, and so do we, but most of our activities are shaped by superimposed myths—culture.

I'd question that. My activities seem to be shaped largely by my desires and by my physical circumstances. I eat food and not rocks or ectoplasm. I get into the next room by opening the door and walking through it, not by teleporting or by walking though the wall.

Well, I tend to agree with them.  

"There is no universal and optimal profile of brain function, evolution has resulted in surprisingly diverse" human behavior "psychiatric illness. We think that we are in the field of mutation-related patterns and functions in the distributed system of the brain, instead of separating individual actions. "

Like Alexander Shackman and Andrew S. Fox said, certain behavioral or psychological traits are neither good nor bad.  Most are associated with a combination of costs and benefits, with the ultimate consequences for health and disease conditional on the larger environment, such as with the presence of danger, exposure to stress, or adversity.

Just look at our history, and think about how our ancestors would view us, and us them. Our culture shapes our brains and behavior in various ways.  You may not eat rocks but there are people that believe that eating dirt can be beneficial.  Your surrounding environment can impact, not only what you eat, but when you eat, and how you eat.  It can change your measure of quantity, space, and even time.

---

(May 19, 2018 09:31 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And speak for yourself, slave. No amount of honor or shame can make me murder someone.

Spoken like a true southern brat.  You can’t predict what you’d do in harsher circumstances or if you were born into a culture that promotes such behavior.  You could very well be a man that would throw acid in his wife's face or murder his sister for family honor.  

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”

(May 20, 2018 02:52 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(May 19, 2018 09:31 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And speak for yourself, slave. No amount of honor or shame can make me murder someone.

Spoken like a true southern brat.  You can’t predict what you’d do in harsher circumstances or if you were born into a culture that promotes such behavior.  You could very well be a man that would throw acid in his wife's face or murder his sister for family honor.  

So now you've moved your own goalpost from duels and adoptive parents who kill/abuse their kids to, what, honor killings. But no, as an man, I'm less likely to be swayed by social pressure, and IQ is also inversely correlated to a need for social approval. I resist much less morally dubious social pressures all the time, and people do resist traditions like honor killing: https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...er/245691/

Principle over pressure. But lacking such principles, that's probably lost on you.