To be a minority is to have a disorder

I think when you say this

"
However, when one applies the same logic to any other area they are disputed.

According to what I have defined, any deviant to the normal would be a disorder. Homosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality are all disorders- for they are not the normal functions of sexuality, which normal is defined as the 'masses'.

Being an INFJ is a disorder, for they are not the normal functions of personality, which are defined by the masses. "

you might be stumbling upon an answer.

As homogeneous as a majority seems, it's easy to split it up into minorities. We all have such unique characteristics that forming a majority that is reasonably similar is going to be hard. There are always ways to split and divide even what appears to be a uniform majority.

I think people are always shifting in and out of the majority depending on the issue, disorder, and so on. It's not a group of people who are the majority (people can slip into the minority depending on the focus), but rather a group of ideas that happen to have a majority of support.

If we ruled things by majority rule, everyone would end up being oppressed in some way. That's why, in my opinions, minorities are important. No person is always part of the majority and we shouldn't govern life off of what is explicitly best for the majority.
 
Yeah I thought that the line 'minorities have disorders' was enough of a line to spark disagreement, but I guess not.
 
Well, if what is considered normal correlates with perceived definitions of positivity, progression, and reduction of negativity, regression; than there is some validity to the definition of abnormal, insofar as it is associated with either of the latter. Having a deformity is in no way applicable to progression and positivity, because it is a limitation to physical (if physiological disorder), mental (psychological disorder), or social (personality disorder) understanding and acceptance of cultural norms, which exist because the culture in which they are noticed to be abnormal defines them in this way. This is why there are disparities in the ways different cultures represent or define a disorder in the DSM IV, ICD (whatever that is), even dictionaries. The term is too relative and broad to be applied on the entire spectrum of understanding as it relates to universal implications. In short, you have to reduce your inquiry to a specific sulture and go from there.
If you mean western culture, then yes, having any trait that would implicate a negative diversion to cultural norms woud be considered a disorder because of its potential destruct valuable and perceived validity of an accepted definition of any belief system. There are two types of abnormal; one is acceptable and one is not. You have to be perceptive enough to see the difference.
Normal is like size 4 pants-for the ones who can fit them. Abnormal for someone who is size 7. Application depends on the state of the applicable.
Normal cannot be defined on objective terms, unless science (universal logic) can apply each to a variety of situations, and dictatorially impose the most variable one on all situations, which is what they are trying to do now. (globalization)
 
I've got some thoughts, Slant. And I'm surprised no one has said this already.
  1. Are we talking medical disorders, or some other kind of disorder?
  2. 'Disorder' is an emotionally charged word. If 'disorder' simply means different from the norm, then yes, INFJs by definition have a disorder.
  3. 'Normal' is FAR too subjective to use as a base for determining what is HEALTHY (in the context of physical/mental/emotional disorders). If normal is the measure, then in certain countries, people of healthy weight would be considered abnormal (having a disorder) because their weight is less than that of a NORMAL person.
If I think of anything else, I'll add it. But this is a good starting point to begin with.

(Quoth the INFJ with a supposed disorder.)

Edit: Thought #4:
If evolution is true, then human beings haven't reached perfection evolution yet. Differences should be welcome as this can lead us to something better. (I'm saying it poorly right now, but I think you all know what I mean.) If creation is more your cup of tea, then you have to look at the diversity we were created with. Either way you slice it, diversity is good. Also, monocultures have never survived very well outside laboratory experiments.
 
Last edited:
Well, in scientific terms, which I assume she is implying, then normal = healthy. Which is why we do not necessarily associate abnormal with bad, because INFJs are not locked up in mental institutions for being INFJs.
 
I think the whole point behind 'disorder' is to have some criteria to measure health or viability with. We need something better than 'normal' to do this. What that is, I don't know. We don't exactly have 'perfect' people running around to compare to.

Physically, we could come up with numerous metrics to determine a person's overall health, and this is already in place to a degree. But what about mental health? What about emotional health? Heck, what about spiritual health for those who are spiritual?

Now we step into a subjective realm, and our best efforts at objective measurement are meaningless - which is why (logically) we must conclude that minorities have a disorder.

Thought: Would it not be better to develop a system to analyze an individual and discover their unique effectiveness (or something similar)? THAT would be a FAR better "measurement" than NORMAL ever could be.
 
Milon said:
I think the whole point behind 'disorder' is to have some criteria to measure health or viability with. We need something better than 'normal' to do this. What that is, I don't know. We don't exactly have 'perfect' people running around to compare to.

Physically, we could come up with numerous metrics to determine a person's overall health, and this is already in place to a degree. But what about mental health? What about emotional health? Heck, what about spiritual health for those who are spiritual?

Now we step into a subjective realm, and our best efforts at objective measurement are meaningless - which is why (logically) we must conclude that minorities have a disorder.

Thought: Would it not be better to develop a system to analyze an individual and discover their unique effectiveness (or something similar)? THAT would be a FAR better "measurement" than NORMAL ever could be.
Click to expand...
Well entropy is also disorder, and the universe is tending to increase its entropy. This is natural, and therefore normal...
 
InTheWomblikeCocoon said:
Well entropy is also disorder, and the universe is tending to increase its entropy. This is natural, and therefore normal...
Click to expand...
So the universe is it's healthy, normal self. :P

People, hopefully, do not increase their entropy until they're quite old. Hey - how about a definition of health based on personal entropy? LOL
 
Milon said:
So the universe is it's healthy, normal self. :P

People, hopefully, do not increase their entropy until they're quite old. Hey - how about a definition of health based on personal entropy? LOL
Click to expand...
thats funny lol. i think its two diferent meanings though. entropy means that stability is decreasing, and in this case stability means 0 potential energy. in short the universe is not meant to be stable, things are supposed to change, and change means disorder while people think disorder means wild. human body maintains a degree of stability but changes, but then what eventually happens? death. the universe's disorder increases its instability, do you think it will die? we are not like the universe we are just in it. you cant use toothpaste to wash your hair.
 
InTheWomblikeCocoon said:
thats funny lol. i think its two diferent meanings though. entropy means that stability is decreasing, and in this case stability means 0 potential energy. in short the universe is not meant to be stable, things are supposed to change, and change means disorder while people think disorder means wild. human body maintains a degree of stability but changes, but then what eventually happens? death. the universe's disorder increases its instability, do you think it will die? we are not like the universe we are just in it. you cant use toothpaste to wash your hair.
Click to expand...

Actually, entropy is INcreasing. Stability means things WON'T change. Stars and black holes won't explode, chemical reactions won't take place. If I utterly destroy your Lego city, it has maximum entropy, and no potential energy. Entropy is increasing in the universe, and things will tend to grind to a halt. Cars rust and breakdown. It's the tendency towards the lowest point of being, if I may word it that way.

Gradually, we're losing our ability to change because entropy is increasing. But universal entropy really isn't appreciable on the timescale of human life.
 
Milon said:
Actually, entropy is INcreasing. Stability means things WON'T change. Stars and black holes won't explode, chemical reactions won't take place. If I utterly destroy your Lego city, it has maximum entropy, and no potential energy. Entropy is increasing in the universe, and things will tend to grind to a halt. Cars rust and breakdown. It's the tendency towards the lowest point of being, if I may word it that way.

Gradually, we're losing our ability to change because entropy is increasing. But universal entropy really isn't appreciable on the timescale of human life.
Click to expand...
Stability:no change
Increasing entropy i guess i should have said decreases likelihood of stability while increasing the potential for stabilizing...so you think the universe will then die? no, its dynamic
entropy--->stability <---entropy--->stability
 
Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entropy

–noun
1.Thermodynamics.
a.(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b.(in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2.(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3.(in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).
4.a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.
Click to expand...
Yes, the universe will die. Maximum homogeneity = maximum stability = no change. Life requires change (all metabolic functions ARE change). No change = No life.

But this is also WAY off topic now. :D
 
Last edited:
Image edit:
stay%20on%20topic.jpg


We need a better measuring stick than 'normal' for determining mental/emotional health. Any thoughts? Or, will anyone counter what I've said? Slant, where are you at in this?
 
Last edited:
Milon said:
Back on topic:

We need a better measuring stick than 'normal' for determining mental/emotional health. Any thoughts? Or, will anyone counter what I've said? Slant, where are you at in this?
Click to expand...
If what is normal for society = what is good for society then normal is healthy (and here good means improving in ways that decrease likelihood of failure of a positive thing)
If what is normal for society=opposite of what is expected to be normal but is not necessarily destructive to society than normal=prejudice
 
I don't think there is any logical way to determine mental/emotional health.
 
Me, me, I'll disagree! I didn't read the whole thread, I just want to disagree with this part.

slant said:
Physical disorders are easier to accept because if you have something in your body that is visibly not working the way it should be in contrast to how it works in the majorities of other peoples, it is understood to be abnormal, a disorder, and therefore should be fixed.

Usually physical disorders are labeled as 'diseases' or 'conditions'.
Click to expand...

Wheelchair users and a lot of other physically disabled people do not have disorders, diseases or conditions. Some of them and the disability rights movement would pretty strongly disagree with this quote.

What was the point of this thread again? Sorry, I'm tired.
 
It's fairly easy to establish a physical 'healthy normal' for humans, as humans come in one basic physical shape. Certain conditions can be farily easily determined to be better or worse for physcal health than other conditions.

When it comes to mental/emotional health, it's much trickier. There are the 16 MBTI preferences (and many inbetween), there are personalities, past experiences, etc. In short, there is no one "shape" when it comes to mental/emotional health, so "normal" doesn't have much validity.

And yet, we can easily identify certain thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, or response which are neither normal nor healthy - provided they're different enough from normal or healthy ones. Anyone want to take a stab at compare/contrast to try to isolate the root differences?
 
slant said:
I don't think there is any logical way to determine mental/emotional health.
Click to expand...
if logical=natural laws, yes
normal (as defined by natural law) =healthy
abnormal (as defined by natural law)=sick
sick performs below standard
superb performs above
both are "abnormal"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top