Normality as opposed to being deviant, eccentric or unusual. Behavior can be normal for an individual (intrapersonal normality) when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person. Normal is also used to describe individual behaviour that conforms to the most common behaviour in society (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms. Normal behavior is often only recognized in contrast to abnormality. In its simplest form, normality is seen as good while abnormality is seen as bad.[1] Someone being seen as normal or not normal can have social ramifications, such as being included, excluded or stigmatized by larger society.

no I don't agree with your premise.

As for success, I think it's reasonable to say it means 'achieving whatever you want in life.' In the context of this thread and of course when it comes to society, the most easily identifiable form of success is how much wealth one has attained.

Two examples...

1. A person with absolutely no social skills, who has a very low paying job, who doesn't go out at all, and has no friends.

2. A person who has excellent social skills, who has a very high paying job, is always out partying and going on holidays with the lots of friends they have.


In your opinion, which person reaches a universal (or as universal as possible) standard of being 'normal' and 'successful' in life?

These two people. The low paid guy that never goes out may never go out because he can't afford it. The few friends he has may well be true friends that really look out for each other. Or he may have a pastime that he loves, birdwatching or stamp collecting and he may be perfectly happy and enjoying his life.

The other guy he may be loaded he may have loads of friends who are very superficial and fickle and would be gone in a flash once the champagne dried up. This guy may hate the stress of having to work so hard and go out all the time even though he's feeling depressed, sometimes suicidal. He hates his life.

So where do you measure success. is it defined by happiness or wealth.

Person one may be perfectly happy with his lot, not everyone judges themselves by the number of people they surround themselves with.

Person 2 may eventually become jaded with the constant competition with this bunch of competitive arseholes he has picked up since 6th form but can't get rid of, but he's stuck now, and can't face the fact that he has wasted his life trying to keep them all happy. It will come to a head when, at 43 one of his (single) mates suggest a lads weekend in Dubai or [cloud9] Vegas before realising he's far too old for this sh#t. He will them trade in his wife for a younger model in order to recapture his 20s who will constantly cheat on him, then leave him, taking g the other half of his stuff.
He dies sad and alone.

Person one is still going through his life as he always has done.


Person 3 thinks that attempting to make judgements on other people without walking a mile in their shoes is an idiot.

today is the only day that matters. If you have enough to eat and a dry and comfortable place to sleep, and shoes that fit, you are probably doing a lot better than millions of people in this world.

The irony is (as it seems to me) is that with all our wealth, property and superfast gadgets, the western world is amongst the unhappiest. The more we have, the less content we are. The definition of a "first world problem."

The lack of community, the isolation brought about by social media i.e. the lack of real contact, all contributes to this. So being successful is being happy. And wealth has little to do with that.