Dervish said
@Protagonist (I always thought that was a fairly clever user name for a roleplaying site, by the way) (also, I am on the phone. Typos other other fuck ups are going to happen)I'm going to have to disagree with your list being normal for a couple reasons. IQ tests, for instance, aren't a great way to determine someone's overall intelligence, because some people aren't geared towards that kind of intelligence or testing but may be brilliant in other areas. Case in point, I almost always need a pen and paper to do most math because I have a hard time keeping it together in my mind, but I excel at stuff like writing and sciences. Someone who may not be scholarly may be brilliant as a mechanic. An athlete can be brilliant at understanding sport related sciences, but struggles with social sciences. A musician may be able to pick up an instrument like it's nothing, but may not know how to read or write well, and so on. Point I'm trying to make is that intelligence covers a lot of different areas that don't fit nicely in an IQ test, and we're all set up differently. Likewise, most people have some kind of health condition or another, so is it really normal to have a clear bill of health if most people don't? And how many people fit cultural expectations perfectly? Everybody has something they do or like that's outside of the norm. I mean, you can be a socially awkward goth kid who collects knives but works a steady job, pays his or her bills, and drives an economy car. You can be a store manager who seems like a regular old mom but she collects discarded dolls and takes part in a sex club on weekends. You honestly never know what somebody's like unless you get to know them. Most people aren't cookie cutter bland, even if they appear that way from a casual glance. If you try to find people who are normal and discard anyone who deviates from what the rest of society does, you're going to come up very, very short.And why advocate deliberately trying to defy your culture? What if you're happy? What if defying just makes you miserable and accomplishes little? More sensible advice would be to do what you're happiest doing and don't let people tell you who you should be. You can still be unique and make choices for yourself without trying to be a rebel without a cause. Going against the grain just because it's not what the majority is doing just seems silly, and you're still letting society dictate how you live. It doesn't mean if your culture is doing something you disagree with you should go along with it, it just means that if you want to do something that's what society expects, why not?Doesn't make sense to try and define yourself by being what everyone isn't. If you want to take risks and strike out on your own, go for it! Just make sure it's what you want to do rather than just because you don't want to be like most people. That's silly.

Well, you seem to be missing both my points here. My whole point was that there really is no such thing as 'normal'. It's highly subjective. In fact, a person who fit my definition of "Normal" to a "T" would be abnormally normal. They'd be like the protagonist of the Lego movie.

My second point was actually very similar to what you were advocating. I was actually trying to state that going against the grain because..."viva la resistance I suppose?" is a terrible, terrible idea.

Doing what you want and having a healthy respect for the tangible consequences that may result from you pissing off society is what I consider normal.

I think the definition of normal has already been flogged to death in this thread, so I won't go there again.

However, should someone try to be normal? That's more interesting.
While in principle I agree with Dervish and Protagonist, I find that principles and reality don't always match up. Yes, we should all simply be individuals, acting neither for or against society simply for the sake of it - as long as our individual desires do not fall too far outside of society's "norm". What happens, however, when your beliefs and desires are extreme in some way?
It may well be better for the lonely goth kid to put away the makeup and trenchcoat, go out there and make some friends without being ridiculed or feared for his appearance and interests, even if that's not being "true to himself". He's potentially more likely to be productive to society, beneficial for his community, and happy in himself if he does that, rather than being isolated or ostracised.
I'm always very much torn on this issue. I'm fairly fiercely non-conformist (not anti-, non-, i.e. what Dervish was saying about neither conforming nor not conforming for the sake of it), and have received my fair share of shit from people for being different from many of my peers, but sometimes I think being "true to yourself" can actually just make you less happy. I know that if I relinquished my principle of non-conformity a little bit, I'd probably have gotten in less trouble at school and would have avoided a lot of unpleasant things. Sometimes, despite the principle, conformity just for the sake of conformity/fitting in is a good thing, and can be positive.

tl;dr: In principle, yes, be a non-conformist, as Derv and Protagonist outlined. However, in reality, sometimes principles have to be loosened to actually get the best and happiest outcome, because principles are black-and-white and reality is not.

Halo said I think the definition of normal has already been flogged to death in this thread, so I won't go there again.However, should someone try to be normal? That's more interesting.

Being normal's boring though... :P

Seriously though just the wording there try to be normal implies there's already something about you that is currently not letting you be normal. One of the thing's that's aided humanity so much is it's variance and flexibility, we have our soldiers, our scientists, our artists, our child care workers, our programmers, our teachers, our cooks, our doctors etc. And except in the rare case of drafting or only getting _______ job because your parents Intimidated you into it people tend to be happy in all these different fields. Our species cover's a vast array of skills and professions and excels in all of them.

Variance and difference although being one of humanity's greatest fears (any High School culture demonstrates that clearly) is also one of humanity's greatest allies and reasons for succeeding. There's also been a lot of effort/work done to change places like the education system to work with, help and encourage more minds of people and students rather than killing their creativity. By extension this also hold true from a social standpoint, accepting said differences academically but then condeming them social and telling them to do X and act like Y is going to have the same effect. People not seeing or reaching their full potential.

Halo said tl;dr: In principle, yes, be a non-conformist, as Derv and Protagonist outlined. However, in reality, sometimes principles have to be loosened to actually get the best and happiest outcome, because principles are black-and-white and reality is not.

That's in order to get social acceptance and be liked by most people, not any actually growth or gain.

I'm honestly of the opinion that people simply need thicker skin and be able to handle the criticism and be who they want to be. No matter who you are you will get conflict and criticism, and to change the very person you are because you can't handle it might as well be calling defeat on life.

It's not the people who are different who should change, it's those who are fearful of it. It's the people who outcast, discriminate and destroy the self-confidence of those who are different and unique that are bring us down and limiting our species potential, not those who are different.

Yeah, 'kay brah, the idealism is really sweet, but I'm not talking about what "should" happen, what's "right", because that's to do with principle. I'm talking about what, on the ground, in the daily life of the individual, is going to have the most positive effect for them. And sometimes, that's just choosing your battles. I'm not saying change who you are, or suppress yourself. I don't think that goth kid not wearing a trenchcoat and 18 inches of makeup is going to change him inside - but it might make a big difference to his outside life and his happiness. Yes, people should be more accepting and less judgemental, and if we lived in that sort of utopia I'd completely agree with you. But that's not reality, that isn't going to happen, and honestly, sometimes I really do think the best principle to stand by above all others is just to do what benefits you (and others) most. Do what makes you and others happy - don't make people miserable for the sake of some idealistic principle.

Oh, and if you think friendship and companionship is nothing to do with personal growth and happiness, I don't really know what to say to you. Of course it does. Almost all of human existence is about desperately reaching out for connection with the outside world and with other people, in some way, shape, or form. Again, I'm not saying people should suppress everything about themselves and mould themselves into falling into the perfect average of every measure of human individuality just to get people to like them. I'm saying that sometimes, one should just "go with the flow". A good example: I never, ever wear proper school uniform, but I know I should, because it's very little effort to avoid a lot of hassle from both my teachers and friends. It might not be me "being me" or "true to myself", but that little bit of conformity would have made things easier for me... i.e. picking your battles is better than fighting every battle just on principle, and it may actually bring a brighter and better outcome for you.

Should someone try to be normal?

Only insofar as to be sufficiently compatible with society so as to be able to function. Function being defined as being able to work, pay taxes, and live independently.

If that means wearing a suit and tie at work, do that.

In your personal time though, do what you like--it's your personal time. If your definition of a good time is painting pentagrams in red crayon and summoning the flying spaghetti monster to consume the world with his noodly appendages while wearing a strainer on your head, then go ahead and do that.

Halo said
Yeah, 'kay brah, the idealism is really sweet, but I'm not talking about what "should" happen, what's "right", because that's to do with principle. I'm talking about what, on the ground, in the daily life of the individual, is going to have the most positive effect for them. And sometimes, that's just choosing your battles. I'm not saying change who you are, or suppress yourself. I don't think that goth kid not wearing a trenchcoat and 18 inches of makeup is going to change him inside - but it might make a big difference to his outside life and his happiness. Yes, people should be more accepting and less judgemental, and if we lived in that sort of utopia I'd completely agree with you. But that's not reality, that isn't going to happen, and honestly, sometimes I really do think the best principle to stand by above all others is just to do what benefits you (and others) most. Do what makes you and others happy - don't make people miserable for the sake of some idealistic principle.Oh, and if you think friendship and companionship is nothing to do with personal growth and happiness, I don't really know what to say to you. Of course it does. Almost all of human existence is about desperately reaching out for connection with the outside world and with other people, in some way, shape, or form. Again, I'm not saying people should suppress everything about themselves and mould themselves into falling into the perfect average of every measure of human individuality just to get people to like them. I'm saying that sometimes, one should just "go with the flow". A good example: I never, ever wear proper school uniform, but I know I should, because it's very little effort to avoid a lot of hassle from both my teachers and friends. It might not be me "being me" or "true to myself", but that little bit of conformity would have made things easier for me... i.e. picking your battles is better than fighting every battle just on principle, and it may actually bring a brighter and better outcome for you.

Society is already too accepting. If we were any more tolerant of people going out of their way to look funny, all of our major cities would end up looking like the Capitol from the Hunger Games.

The Nexerus said
Society is already too accepting. If we were any more tolerant of people going out of their way to look funny, all of our major cities would end up looking like the Capitol from the Hunger Games.

I never knew we agreed so much about so many things!

The Nexerus said
Society is already too accepting. If we were any more tolerant of people going out of their way to look funny, all of our major cities would end up looking like the Capitol from the Hunger Games.

I'm assuming you're saying this specifically in reference to this singular sentence amongst everything else I said: "people should be less judgemental and more accepting". Maybe just quote the bit that's relevant, man.

Anyway, I don't think society is too accepting at all. People still get bullied and discriminated against for everything from having an unusual hair colour to being gay. That doesn't particularly sound like being "accepting". People should feel free to be individuals - which doesn't at all mean that they go out of their way to look "funny". If you think that being an individual and not feeling the need to conform to societal expectations regarding appearance means people will deliberately go out of the way to look as outlandish as possible, you're freaking deluded. Anti-conformity is distinctly different from non-conformity. Several of my friends enjoy dressing smartly in school uniform and take the piss out of me for looking scruffy all the time - regardless of what's accepted, that's what they like. Same for me and my scruffiness, even though it's abnormal.

Anyway, I don't think society is too accepting at all. People still get bullied and discriminated against for everything from having an unusual hair colour to being gay. That doesn't particularly sound like being "accepting". People should feel free to be individuals

Not bullying is tolerance. Encouraging or celebrating is acceptance. I will tolerate being a PETA nut. I will never accept it.

The least the bullied could do is stop threatening the bully with force. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple, that should be tolerated.

Halo said If you think that being an individual and not feeling the need to conform to societal expectations regarding appearance means people will deliberately go out of the way to look as outlandish as possible, you're freaking deluded. Anti-conformity is distinctly different from non-conformity.

Non-conformity is a lack of adhering to societal norms. Anti-conformity is an intentional avoidance of adherence to societal norms. The only difference between the two is whether the deference is accidental or intentional. Provided a non-conformist dresses themselves, they must also be an anti-conformist.

As for why anti-conformity is a bad thing, Cracked did a good article on it awhile back.

So Boerd said
Not bullying is tolerance. Encouraging or celebrating is acceptance. I will tolerate being a PETA nut. I will never accept it. The least the bullied could do is stop threatening the bully with force. If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple, that should be tolerated.

What's your point? Either way, people are still bullied for those things on a massive scale and are therefore neither tolerated or accepted, even by your definition. So my point still stands.
As for the second part, that's going off on such a tangent that I don't really know how to address it. Okay, you're welcome to feel that the the gay rights movement is going about gaining equal rights in the wrong way, I guess? That really doesn't change the fact that they're still brutally discriminated against and are technically given subhuman treatment, considering they're not even allowed to get married in many places. Whether they're going about gaining acceptance the right way or not, that only highlights that they aren't accepted, and are but one of many groups that society is not accepting of, as I said.

The Nexerus said
Non-conformity is a lack of adhering to societal norms. Anti-conformity is an intentional avoidance of adherence to societal norms. The only difference between the two is whether the deference is accidental or intentional. Provided a non-conformist dresses themselves, they must also be an anti-conformist.As for why anti-conformity is a bad thing,

I fully agree that anti-conformity is a terrible and ridiculous thing, because it's just another type of conformity - your ideals are still dictated by society, just in a polar-opposite fashion. But non-conformity and anti-conformity are completely different things. Anti-conformity is deliberately adopting the opposite of societal norms. Non-conformity is simply not feeling pressured to conform - meaning that if your natural tendency is the same as that of those around you, you'll do the same as them, and if it isn't, you'll do something else. Your argument only works when you're discussing one specific aspect - for example, someone who anti-conforms and someone who non-conforms are indistinguishable if they both choose to dye their hair bright purple and neon green, even if their reasons for doing it are completely different. But when you look outside of a singular action or aspect like that, the difference becomes apparent - the non-conformist might have bright purple and neon green hair, but will probably act similarly to others in many other respects, because their natural tendency/desire happens to be similar to those of the people around them, whereas the anti-conformist will not act similarly to everyone else across all things, indiscriminately.

considering they're not even allowed to get married in many places.

That's a discussion for another thread.

You wouldn't want to live in a perfectly accepting or even tolerant society tolerant of whatever nonconformists do. There would be no laws preventing companies from not serving black people, and certainly Donald Sterling wouldn't be banned from the NBA as all he did was say dumb stuff, not do anything.

Halo said
I fully agree that anti-conformity is a terrible and ridiculous thing, because it's just another type of conformity - your ideals are still dictated by society, just in a polar-opposite fashion. But non-conformity and anti-conformity are completely different things. Anti-conformity is deliberately adopting the opposite of societal norms. Non-conformity is simply not feeling pressured to conform - meaning that if your natural tendency is the same as that of those around you, you'll do the same as them, and if it isn't, you'll do something else. Your argument only works when you're discussing one specific aspect - for example, someone who anti-conforms and someone who non-conforms are indistinguishable if they both choose to dye their hair bright purple and neon green, even if their reasons for doing it are completely different. But when you look outside of a singular action or aspect like that, the difference becomes apparent - the non-conformist might have bright purple and neon green hair, but will probably act similarly to others in many other respects, because their natural tendency/desire happens to be similar to those of the people around them, whereas the anti-conformist will not act similarly to everyone else across things, indiscriminately.

It's naive to believe that people are capable of not being influenced by their surroundings. Every decision that every person has ever made was weighed in based on what the reactions of their peers would be.

So Boerd said
That's a discussion for another thread.You wouldn't want to live in a perfectly accepting or even tolerant society tolerant of whatever nonconformists do. There would be no laws preventing companies from not serving black people, and certainly Donald Sterling wouldn't be banned from the NBA as all he did was say dumb stuff, not do anything.

And I didn't say I would want to live in a society tolerant of people not conforming in whatever way they like. Funny, that. For the sake of order, we need to have some degree of conformity as mandatory in the form of laws we must follow. I never said otherwise. Non-conformity is believing in not conforming just for the sake of conformity - if there is a legitimate reason to "conform" or to adhere to a certain rule, then it isn't violating that principle in some way. What hair colour the majority of people, however, does not fall under "legitimate reason" for people to not dye their hair whatever damn colour they like.

The Nexerus said
It's naive to believe that people are capable of not being influenced by their surroundings. Every decision that every person has ever made was weighed in based on what the reactions of their peers would be.

Yes, which is why your argument that a belief in a policy of non-conformity would lead to everyone looking as outlandish as possible makes no sense. Anti-conformists, yes - they would intentionally look as different as possible. Non-conformists? Half the time they'd end up with the exact same views, making the exact same choices, as everyone else anyway. They wouldn't "rebel" in every single way. They just wouldn't feel the need to do the same as everyone else if they didn't want to on certain things. Which is why people feeling free to be individuals wouldn't result in the collapse (or at least uncontrollable ludicrousness) of society as you and So Boerd seem to believe, and why people's individuality should certainly be accepted in society.

Halo said
Yes, which is why your argument that a belief in a policy of non-conformity would lead to everyone looking as outlandish as possible makes no sense. Anti-conformists, yes - they would intentionally look as different as possible. Non-conformists? Half the time they'd end up with the exact same views, making the exact same choices, as everyone else anyway. They wouldn't "rebel" in every single way. They just wouldn't feel the need to do the same as everyone else if they didn't want to on certain things. Which is why people feeling free to be individuals wouldn't result in the collapse (or at least uncontrollable ludicrousness) of society as you and So Boerd seem to believe, and why people's individuality should certainly be accepted in society.

'Conformists' ARE those individuals that you're describing. The precise people that you're labelling non-conformists, the ones who generally adhere to the norms of society because it's what they believe in, are the people that anti-conformists would call conformists. They're individuals who, using their individual thought, create a general consensus that wavers in either direction according to the changing views of the individuals that make up that social consensus. Individuality IS accepted in society. It's what determines society, even.

For the sake of order, we need to have some degree of conformity as mandatory in the form of laws we must follow.

Not baking you a cake does not destroy order.

Who gets to say what a legitimate reasom for enforcing conformity when no material concerns are involved? Society? Doesn't that defeat the point of non-conformity?

So Boerd said
Not baking you a cake does not destroy order. Who gets to say what a legitimate reasom for enforcing conformity when no material concerns are involved? Society? Doesn't that defeat the point of non-conformity?

good point, So.
There used to be a day and age when stores could post a sign that simply said, "We reserve the right to refuse service", and by that standard, the only problem the business would have, is the loss of a customer. Of course, what still strikes me as funny, is why some gay bakers haven't stepped up to fill this void...just think, you'd had customers coming out of the woodwork, with a dedicated group of supporters.

Because in a given community, the number of such customers on hand may not be enough to fund a shop that specifically caters to them. Not to mention the possibility of attack or 'reprisal'.

To walk the conversation back a bit: The only thing a non-conformist hates more than a conformist is another non-conformist who refuses to conform to the prevailing attitudes of non-conformity.

A trite quote, and one that people have said in three times as many words, but that's exactly the issue - boil your points down, or you risk losing meaning.

Conforming is also not just an action - conforming isn't just putting on a suit and tie when you go to work. Conforming is when you internalize that suit and tie mentality. To conform is to change your state of mind. Doing, externally, what you need to do to function in society is not a conformist activity.