| From: | Martin Nicholson |
| Date: | 11 Aug 2000 at 15:58:40 |
| Subject: | Re: Talkin to computers |
Hiya Ross
On 10-Aug-00, Ross Whiteford wrote:
> I'm not sure how you would go about defining normality. Each of us
> have our own physical/personality traits that make us different from
> the next person. Appearance is one thing and "natural talent" is
> another. Both are influenced either by genetic makeup or your
> upbinging - these and many other factors differentiate us from
> others. Differentiation is crucial to the survival of all species -
> with the progress being made in genetic science, it could be
> possible for the physical (and later personality) characteristics of
> an unborn baby to be altered to suit "its" (sex could aslo be
> changed early on) parents choices. This, IMO, would be a very bad
> idea - the world is a much better place with diversity (of all
> kinds).
I thought I had defined "normality"? That is, it is a attribute that
is shared by the majority of the human race, of a particular sex, or
of a society. I agree, even within what is considered normal" there is
still a large amount of differentiation. So that, in truth, your
measure of "normality" is anything falling within the second and third
quartiles of a distribution curve. So basically, if you consider
yourself normal, you must also consider yourself as average. Within
the distribution curve, for every person that you recognize as
sub-normal and therefore not as competant as yourself in whatever
field you are measuring, there is likely to be someone in the fourth
quartile, who is above normal and much more competant than you are.
Thus, proclaiming soneone as less normal as yourself, must mean you
accept that someone else is above you. If you are normal, you are in
fact an under-achiever, a sheep amongst many, a follower of people
more superior and what's more, unlike those who have a disability,you
have no excuse :)
> Get THAT back on topic! :))
Well, I would think from above it's obvious how you get this back on
topic :) A normal distribution graph of a population is a bell graph.
The large bulge in the middle represents the majority. In terms of
computer users, it would represent all the millions of PC owners that
are out there. Obviously, the first quartile (the lowest scoring)
would have to be the people who still use Spectrums, C64s, Amstrads,
etc. This means the only place left for Amiga owners is in the fourth
quartile. So whether we like it or not, we are all above normal
computer users :)
With Regards
Worzel
I installed a skylight in my apartment...The people who live above me are furious!
Quote carefully and read all ADMIN:README mails