Part II by Sheldon Litt, Ph.D. The problem of normality in the field of psychology is a complicated one, diffused as it is with theories of health. The difficulty is that each practitioner has his own notion of what 'human nature' is, and what a healthy individual should look like. And these fundamental theories of what is normal may be explicit or, as is more often the case, implicit and unstated. There are deep-ranging currents that each psychologist may or may not admit, but nevertheless expects his patients to approach some hidden definition of normality, for example, that everyone ought to be heterosexual. And often, therapists may not even be aware of their own underlying assumptions.
Some people accept a purely arithmetic definition of normality, what fits most people.
But the word 'normal' also has a broader connotation. For example, in a society where most people have malaria, it is statistically speaking 'normal' to have this infection, but no one would call this pathological condition healthy. Thus, we see that statistical approaches err in omitting the human dimension. A humanization of psychology is necessary here. A certain amount of eccentricity and nay-saying to the social code is probably a positive thing, despite those psychologists who stress adaptation to society.