The influence of the "normal"

The word 'normal' consensus arises from capricious, conservative and authoritarian. Can influence us or not.

We say something is "normal" when, "by their nature, shape or size, conforms to certain standards established beforehand."

To some extent we are cheating when we set standards in advance pretentious, ambitious, idealistic, whimsical, authoritarian.

For example, if you and I live on a desert island and we agree that the ideal climate for that place is "cloudy but without rain," whenever that condition is met that we have determined capriciously you and me, "we a normal climate. "

When the number of people affected by the criteria of "normal" increases, the consequences of that term increase.

What happens when for whatever reason, we think of them as "normal" is agreed upon that men with women, in groups of two, a living when you die you just completed one of the two?

Those who accept this form of "normality", shall be subject inevitably find that happening and will be painfully frustrated when they have to get divorced before they were widowed.

The inability to criticize the "rules" of living exposes us to receive the benefits of integrating a herd and the evils of our nature do not support.

In other words, if someone chooses to comply strictly with the traditions of the group it belongs to, will know that the approval and protection of the conservative leaders of that culture and will know that failure and attack liberal leaders (non-conservative ) of that culture.

Each one will turn to where you feel more comfortable and less cumbersome, ie, with more advantages and fewer disadvantages.

In summary: The word "normal" consensus emerges from whimsical, conservative and authoritarian. Can influence us or not.

 Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google: La influencia de lo normal

(This is Article No. 1,658)

●●●