This definition requires a judge of what is to be "expected." Who will judge what is to be expected? Who will decide if that fits the definition of "normal?" — Questioner

Of course. That is how the word works. The speaker may have an idea of what "normal" is, the listener may share it, or may not. They talk past each other to the degree that their concepts of "normal" differ. The listener may realize this, or may not have a concept of normal at all, and ask, "What is 'normal' here?"

When we try to apply the concept of "normality" to all human beings - who demonstrate a great deal of variation - the concept kind of breaks down. — Questioner

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality.

(normalcy) cannot work without marginalizing people who don't fit the parameters of what others "expect." — Questioner

When applied to humans (which is only a fraction of the usage of 'normal'), yes this kind of marginalization happens. What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do.

It is best to describe prescriptive baggage when defining a word, describing how it actually functions.

Why does it break down? Sure they display variation, but this variation is still within pretty tight bands. Human variation is far from pure chaos. There are innumerable patterns that may be used to define normality. — hypericin

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors.

"Normal" is a limiting term - and since we are all humans, we should all be included as full humans?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that?

What of it? You may think this shouldn't happen; but it does. Maybe we shouldn't use the word with humans at all; but we do. — hypericin

It may lead to suppression or oppression.

What criteria do you use to decide if they are normal or not? We're made up of a lot of different parts and behaviors. — Questioner

It depends on what we are talking about. Behavior? Physiology? Ability? Appearance?

What is the purpose of being able to call someone "abnormal?" What is the application of that? — Questioner

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met.

To exclude. Humans are often excluded based on abnormality, for reasons that are legitimate as well as reasons we would probably object to.

It may lead to suppression or oppression. — Questioner

Indeed, it may. But this belongs in a discussion of the ethics of normality, not the meaning.

To describe. To give context to a description of someone's behavior, physiology, ability, or appearance. Where do these fall within the human spectrum?

To diagnose. Sometimes abnormality indicates a problem that requires correction.

To reward or praise. Where spectrums are value-laden, norms can be exceeded as well as fail to be met. — hypericin

This just sounds like judging people, and this can be fraught with potential for abuse.

It slots all humans into a hierarchy (which is then equated to worthiness) and as we all know this has not gone well in the past. We can talk about majorities, and minorities, but minorities are as normal - and natural - as the majority.

I can't think of a reason to exclude an individual from humanity.

Difference is normal.

:point: :point:
It’s within one standard deviation of the mean
— T Clark — NotAristotle

Keeping in mind this is a definition, not the definition.

That's natural (central tendency). — Copernicus

Isn't natural tendency inherent character or states from the birth or origin of objects or agents? Normal is expected state, situation, response or character which are induced or forced via environmental, social or devised factors and systems.

So, what’s the normal human body temperature. 98.6°F. What does that mean? I assume that’s the arithmetic mean of values measured in many humans. If you plot a graph of specific temperature ranges versus frequency of occurrence in the sample population, it’s likely the graph will show a bell shaped curve, i.e. a normal distribution. As I understand it, for body temperature the amount of variability around that mean will be small.

Temperatures significantly above or below that value are dangerous to health. It’s reasonable for me to say a temperature of 104° or 93° is abnormal.

Sure. It’s within one standard deviation of the mean

I disagree. If the question is: having how many fingers is normal? The average or mean (less than 10) isn't "normal", neither is the median, nor your range. The correct answer is the mode, that is: 10.

I disagree. If the question is: having how many fingers is normal? The average or mean (less than 10) isn't "normal", neither is the median, nor your range. The correct answer is the mode, that is: 10. — LuckyR

In the post I just submitted, I was talking about human body temperature, not number of fingers. Number of fingers is not normally distributed, although most characteristics, including body temperature, are.

Actually, as I think about it, my definition would work for your situation also. The arithmetic mean of the number of fingers on a human hand would be very close to 10, so that my identification of normal as within one standard deviation of the mean would still be reasonable.

Can you define Normal?[/quote]
Normal is not to ask what is "normal".

I see your point, but haven't heard a reason why a range around the mean is superior to the mode. Especially in cases of a bimodal distribution.

I see your point, but haven't heard a reason why a range around the mean is superior to the mode. Especially in cases of a bimodal distribution. — LuckyR

In a normal distribution, the mode, mean, and the median are all the same. For characteristics with a non-normal distribution, it probably doesn’t make sense to talk about normality at all. That certainly is true of a bimodal distribution.

I’ll say it again, my definition is a reasonable one, but it’s not the only reasonable one.