Debunking the Normalcy Myth: Exploring the Limitations of Psychological Norms

Dr. Donna L. Roberts

I think normalcy is a myth. The idea that some people have pathology and the rest of us are normal is crude. There’s nothing about any mentally ill person — and it doesn’t matter what their diagnosis is — that I couldn’t recognize in myself. - Gabor Maté

The concept of "normal" has been widely used and misused in the realm of psychology. From diagnostic criteria to societal expectations, the idea of normalcy has long governed our understanding of mental health and human behavior.

Historically, the idea of normal has been rooted in statistical averages and deviations from the mean (Gould, 1981). This quantitative approach to normalcy, however, fails to capture the vast diversity of human experience and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and stigmas. As we delve into this myth of normal, it is essential to consider the broader implications of these ideas for both individuals and society.

The Origins of Normal

The concept of normalcy can be traced back to the 19th century when Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian mathematician, and sociologist, developed the concept of the "average man" (Gould, 1981). Quetelet's average man was a statistical construct, representing the mean of various physical and social measurements within a population. His work laid the foundation for the use of normal distribution and standard deviations in various disciplines, including psychology (Gould, 1981).

While the notion of the average man was groundbreaking at the time, it has since been criticized for its reductionist nature and inability to account for individual variation (Gould, 1981). Nevertheless, this concept of normal has become deeply ingrained in psychology and continues to inform our understanding of mental health and behavior.

The Limitations of Normal

The idea of normalcy, as rooted in statistical averages, has several limitations. Primarily, the concept of normal is inherently arbitrary, as it depends on the specific population under study and the cultural and historical context (Szasz, 1974). What is considered normal in one society or time period may be abnormal in another, a concept referred to as cultural relativism. For example, homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) but has since been removed due to evolving understanding and societal acceptance (Drescher, 2015).

Relatedly, the idea of normalcy can be used to marginalize and stigmatize those who deviate from the perceived norm. This is especially true in the realm of mental health, where diagnostic labels can lead to discrimination and social isolation (Corrigan, 2000). The pressure to conform to societal expectations of normal can contribute to internalized shame and self-stigmatization among individuals who do not fit the mold (Mak, Poon, Pun, & Cheung, 2007).

Furthermore, the myth of normal can contribute to an overly pathologizing approach to mental health. In attempting to define and categorize human behavior and emotions, we may inadvertently label normal variations in experience as disorders, leading to unnecessary medicalization and treatment (Frances, 2013). This can result in a narrow focus on symptom reduction, rather than promoting overall well-being and personal growth (Slade, 2010).

Moving Beyond Normal

In light of these limitations, it is essential to challenge the notion of normal and adopt a more inclusive and compassionate approach to psychological well-being. This involves recognizing the vast diversity of human experience and the complex interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to mental health (Engel, 1977).

Moreover, it is crucial to prioritize a strengths-based perspective that acknowledges the unique assets and resilience of individuals, rather than solely focusing on deficits and disorders (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This approach can help to destigmatize mental health and promote a more holistic understanding of well-being that transcends arbitrary norms and values individuality (Slade, 2010).

One way to move beyond the myth of normal is to adopt a dimensional approach to mental health, which views psychological traits and symptoms as existing on a continuum rather than discrete categories (Insel et al., 2010). This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of mental health, recognizing that individuals may experience varying degrees of psychological distress without necessarily meeting the threshold for a clinical diagnosis (Hyman, 2010).

Additionally, embracing a cultural humility framework can help challenge the ethnocentric biases often present in psychological theory and practice (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). By acknowledging the influence of culture on mental health and well-being, we can work towards a more inclusive and contextually sensitive understanding of normalcy that respects the diversity of human experience (Kirmayer, 2007).

Acknowledging Neurodiversity

Another essential aspect of challenging the myth of normal is embracing the concept of neurodiversity, which posits that variations in neurological functioning are a natural part of human diversity (Armstrong, 2011). This perspective recognizes that conditions such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and dyslexia represent different ways of thinking and processing information, rather than deficits or disorders (Silberman, 2015).

By adopting a neurodiversity framework, we can move beyond a pathologizing approach to mental health and focus on the unique strengths and abilities of individuals with diverse neurological profiles (Armstrong, 2011). This shift can help to reduce stigma, promote social inclusion, and advocate for accommodations and support tailored to the specific needs of neurodivergent individuals (Robertson & Ne'eman, 2008).

The myth of normal has long been a pervasive influence in the field of psychology, shaping our understanding of mental health and human behavior. However, this concept is inherently flawed, failing to account for the vast diversity of human experience and contributing to the stigmatization and pathologization of those who deviate from the perceived norm. By critically examining the origins and limitations of this concept, we can challenge the status quo and work towards a more inclusive, compassionate, and nuanced approach to psychological well-being. Embracing dimensional, culturally sensitive, and neurodiversity frameworks can help us move beyond the myth of normal and foster a more equitable and just society for all.


Armstrong, T. (2011). The Power of Neurodiversity: Unleashing the Advantages of Your Differently Wired Brain. Da Capo Lifelong Books.

Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for research methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7(1), 48–67.

Drescher J. (2015). Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)5(4), 565–575.

Engel G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science (New York, N.Y.)196(4286), 129–136.

Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: An insider's revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnosis, DSM-5, big pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. William Morrow.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton & Company.

Hyman S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification. Annual review of clinical psychology6, 155–179.

Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. The American journal of psychiatry167(7), 748–751.

Kirmayer L. J. (2007). Psychotherapy and the cultural concept of the person. Transcultural psychiatry44(2), 232–257.

Mak, W. W., Poon, C. Y., Pun, L. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2007). Meta-analysis of stigma and mental health. Social science & medicine (1982)65(2), 245–261.

Robertson, S.M., & Ne’eman, A. (2008). Autistic Acceptance, the College Campus, and Technology: Growth of Neurodiversity in Society and Academia. Disability Studies Quarterly, 28.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

Silberman, S. (2015). NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Penguin.

Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: The central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 26.

Szasz, T. S. (1974). The myth of mental illness: Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. Harper & Row.

Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: a critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved9(2), 117–125.

This is original content from NewsBreak’s Creator Program. Join today to publish and share your own content.

Comments / 1

Published by

Writer and university professor researching media psych, generational studies, addiction psychology, human and animal rights, and the intersection of art and psychology.

Canandaigua, NY

More from Dr. Donna L. Roberts

Comments / 0