What makes this question intellectually interesting is not whether I'm accurate in measuring my weirdness but in determining whether I am capable of measuring my weirdness.
If I were weird, one could presume that I do not know, or do not acknowledge or give value to behavioral norms such that evaluating my own conduct would be skewed. It would be either difficult or impossible for me to self-evaluate if I were actually weird.
If I believe that my behavior meets to expectations for my age, race, background, educational history, then I might be able to rate myself at or near "1" for normal (where "10" is extremely weird).
Then what becomes intellectually interesting is whether the scale of 1 to 10 should be organized as a bell curve where 5 is normal and 10 is extremely weird in one direction (in attempts to deviate from social norms) and 1 is extremely weird in the other direction (in attempts to confirm to "perfect" expectations), because wouldn't a person who was married at the average age according to the census and had the average number of kids according to the census and did everything the way that could have been statistically predicted, be just a bit weird too?
I think the second scale where 5 is normal and 10 is one type of weird and 1 is another type of weird is the scale I'd like to use and I'd rate myself a 4, slightly towards trying to be conventional.
Buzzer. Time.
No comments:
Post a Comment