Foreigner
Bluelighter
I had this discussion tonight with a friend in person. He has Aspberger's syndrome, which is an autistic spectrum disorder. He was telling me that his greatest challenge growing up was that society stigmatized him as being "abnormal". He believes that if society had a more broad definition of what is normal, or tossed out "normal" altogether, then more kinds of people could gain acceptance and thus achieve higher functionality. In short, most "disorders" are diagnosed on the basis of how well a person functions in society. The difference between someone hearing voices and someone who is "schizoaffective" relates to a professional diagnosis, which is often determined based on their ability to function in the human world. When people can no longer function they get slapped with the label.
Think about what people were put into asylums for 100 years ago compared to today. Some things that were hopeless diseases back then are now just considered part of the normal human spectrum that we don't even bother treating, i.e. homosexuality.
Given this information, I ask what determines normal and abnormal, or sanity vs. insanity, in a world where philosophical, intellectual and cultural diversity is so high? Could factors like the information age and the internet contribute to a higher degree of subjectivity around social norms and thus acceptance of differences?
Think about what people were put into asylums for 100 years ago compared to today. Some things that were hopeless diseases back then are now just considered part of the normal human spectrum that we don't even bother treating, i.e. homosexuality.
Given this information, I ask what determines normal and abnormal, or sanity vs. insanity, in a world where philosophical, intellectual and cultural diversity is so high? Could factors like the information age and the internet contribute to a higher degree of subjectivity around social norms and thus acceptance of differences?