Vortrag

Flyeraktion

Beschreibungen zu den Veranstaltungen: 

Being different is only a blessing if you are not different? How can this be

understood? Isn’t that nonsense? And who said that?  Ein Text! Sie können ihn mit

Inhalt füllen, verschieben, kopieren oder löschen.

Stop, before more questions arise. I will start answering these questions and start from

the last one.  

Who made this statement? Quite simply a normal human being to whom one has

added a breeze of autism and given him perceptions and sensations beyond and

scientific knowledge.  The question whether the statement contained in the heading is

nonsense I answer quite clearly with: NO! Why this statement is not nonsense and

how one may understand this, everyone can answer himself. For this, there is a very

easy guide: Watch yourself, when you are alone and when you are with other people,

and don’t forget to observe the reactions of those around you. During evaluation of

these observations, try to think about what would happen if you had behaved only

minimally differently, please without blaming yourself. Some things can even be tried,

such as looking at person not three but four seconds in the eyes without changing the

intention. Be careful however, there are experiments you shouldn’t do because they

cause much more than slight confusion in the other person. In this case, the following

experiment is worthwhile: think before you act.  

A short story from my life: until I was diagnosed with autism, at this time I was 19

years old. I always wanted to be normal, I wanted to be like other people around me.

Only now, four years after the diagnosis, do I realized that just wanting to be like the

others took me miles away from my goal.  

In this case my wish should be, to be different from the normality, to be normal. But to

be different from the normality it’s a daily thing I do since my birth because of autism

and so it can’t be my goal to be different.  

Some people, me included, start grinning if they hear the word “normal”. And some of

them ask a bit mockingly: “What is normal?” the answer should be: NOTHING.  

But if normal do exist how can you be different? And why do we always talk about

things that are normal or not? It usually becomes problematic when something is no

longer normal.  

I will tell you more about people how are normal and people how are different in the

following chapters.  

I believe you have to clarify something in principle and possibly change the choice of

words. In my opinion there are generally two different types of normality or let’s say

two different events in which we call something normal

The first event is very easy:  who had ever seen an apple that flews through the garden

under it’s own power for minutes? I hope nobody! Short: it is normal that an apple

falls more or less directly on the ground. The same happens with other fruits that

grows up on trees and don’t have parachutes. In other words: it’s always the same

everywhere and it always happened in the same way. We call it “normal”.

It gets more exciting when you look at the second possibility of calling things normal.

Here comes nice formulations: “this is normal for him” or “this is normal in this

situation” statements like: “that’s normal because we always do it like that” are bad.

But this is normal for this situation.

Translated: things that always go the same way for individuals or groups of people are

called normal. The normality doesn’t need to be desirable. For example: many people

are of the opinion that it is normal to have broken teeth in at higher age. A tip: keep

your teeth clean when you are 80 years old and they will be healthy in an abnormal

way. it’s the same with other parts of the body that cause difficulties at a higher age.

The justification “we always do it like that” is incidentally a reliable sign that the one

who says it about his actions – in this case – does not think about his actions. If this

condition becomes normal, we should start behaving in an abnormal way and start

thinking about our actions, what we do and why.

In this way, everything can be called normal, if it happens more or less regularly. But

if everything is normal why are there things that are different or abnormal? Ok I need

to restrict the statement that everything is normal. Many things are called normal but

this ends when the normality of one person doesn’t match with the normality of

another person. If there is a party, it’s normal for it to be loud. But if it is at night and

it disturbs the neighbor who wants to sleep, the volume of the party isn’t normal.

But do you always disturb other people when you are not normal, when you are called

different? No, fortunately not. If you are called different it doesn’t need to be a

problem. But if you are seen as “not normal anymore” it could be a big problem. If

you are different, you will stand out and this can be positive. But if you are called “no

longer normal” you should think about your actions and what is the problem.

The point with normal and different, in the context of humans, refers to a phenomenon

that isn’t free of contradiction. As I described before in this text the normalcy with us

humans are manifold and there are many normalcies which are scientifically

explainable, and which are also recognized as such. But what is normal if to be

different is normal? And how can you be different from the others if everybody is

different? Is this a wish or only an illusion? Is the battle to be normal only a result of

our imagination?

No, if you look more carefully you can see that there is a basic structure for the

behavior of everybody and I mean really everybody – if you don’t look that carefully.

For example: if you are polite and kind to another person, you will have a better and

longer relationship to this person. That’s true for everybody on this planet. But there

are regional differences in what is polite and kind. Oops, how so?

Do you need to change the sentence order everywhere you go to? No, to be polite and

kind has different meanings. In one country, it’s very nice to say or do it, and in

another country, you will get many problems when you do the same thing. However,

the people of a community behave according to a fixed structure, without defining this

basic structure – which includes even more points – in their own way.

So far, we are talking about normal people, people who are part of a great mass who

all behave more or less in the same way and who want to be different to each other. At

this point, I want to change the words “normal people” to “broad masses”. There are

some reasons for that. One of these reasons is that, I think it is matches better because

of the arguments I raised before. Another point is that everybody thinks he or she is

normal and those people who didn’t think like that are very often ill. The last reason is

that this stretchy and differently interpretable normal is gone.

On this basis, it is possible to explain how the otherness, with the abnormal, works

and why it exists.

This basic structure that the broad masses have and where the people who belong to

the broad masses behave accordingly and conform to it, is for some reason unknown,

incomprehensible or something like that for people who are different. In short, people

who are different cannot, for some reason, live according to these basic structures as

the people of the masses do.

There are many reasons for not being able to adhere to these basic structures. In the

case of autism, for example: it is because of the other perception of autistic. Others are

prevented from doing so by their physical or mental capacity. Still others have

psychological problems and still others cannot learn these basic structures because of

a lack of role models or appropriate support.

But for everyone different, there is an explanation for why they are different and do

not belong to the masses.

To answer the question „How can you be different if there is no such thing as

normal?” To do this, one would have to contradict the insinuation that there is no

normal. This presupposes that you define normal, which I hope I have done

sufficiently above. This almost automatically results in what means to be different. In

other words, those who behave according to the basic structures are normal and thus

belong to the broad masses, those who do not adhere to the basic structures because

they cannot or do not want to are not normal, that is different, and therefore do not

belong to the broad masses.

In the whole discussion about the normal or the abnormal, however, one should not

forget that the most normal normality is not necessarily desirable in some places, it is

actually worthwhile not to be normal. This is especially true when this normal

normality is based on thoughtlessness and does more harm than good.

However, normality cannot be prevented because it helps us to better cope in everyday

life. Without normality, madness would be an integral part of everyday life, even if

madness finds its way into our lives despite normality.

What does it mean to be normal? In this case I can’t speak about my experience. As an

autistic person I’m not part of the broad mass. But there are many pros and cons to

being part of the broad mass. When thinking about it, I understood that it isn’t clear

which facts are pros and which are cons because it depends on your point of view, and

you can’t choose your point of view in this case.

Nevertheless, one point is that you don't stand out from the broad mass, even if you

actually screw up. For example, if you say something that you shouldn't be taken

literally, because literally it's the biggest crap you can say as a human being, you don't

stand out because everyone else in the masses would say it the same way. The

situation becomes exciting when one is told that one should not take the statement

literally, because most of them in the masses no longer know what their statement

literally means.

For example: these days, you are talking about „bowel movement” and „upright chair”

both are normal expressions and for both expressions, you are asked to go to the toilet.

But when you take both expressions literally, their meaning is completely different

from when you use them normally. The bowel moves more or less the whole day

depending on what you eat and if you move your body, or not. On the other hand, the

upright chair is more a description for a chair and nothing you can do. if you

understand this expression literally you will get problems in every day life or other

people wouldn’t understand you.

Similarly, if you do things that can be quite embarrassing, this is not be noticed by the

masses as long as it is normal behaviour and is done in the same way by many people.

„I also know it“, „that is normal” or “every has this problem” are statements I don’t

like but these statements tell me that I act in particular situation like the broad mass.

Stop I don’t like these statements not because I’m like the broad mass, I don’t like

them because I don’t feel taken seriously when I hear them and I know in this case

there isn’t one person who can help me with this problem. That I’m part of the broad

mass with this problem doesn’t help me but it can be nice.

In good English: if you are part of the broad mass and you have the problems of the

broad mass you will get nearly no help with these problems. Why should it be? It's

normal! And if something is normal, it doesn't have to be taken seriously, or you can't

do anything about it. -That's just what they say.

On the other hand you are better understood and you don’t need to explain everything.

The people of the broad mass can talk past each other and can understand each other

very well. How does that work? I don’t know. But I have observed that two people of

the broad mass can talk to each other and everyone has his own topic he is talking

about, and jet the communication works, and both are feeling taken seriously. For

outsiders you stand near them and think about what they are doing.

I mean I have one thesis: basically, the words you actually say don't seem to matter to

the masses, communication happens here not with words but with visible telepathy,

that is, facial expressions. In short: the words do not matter as long as one can

communicate via telepathy. In expert circles, this telepathy is probably also called

facial expressions and gestures. But why does telephoning work just as well? Ok,

there the telepathy is called "reading between the lines".

Well, we hang on to: Communication works well even if you don’t think it does when

you listen to two people who are talking to each other. 

Sometimes I start smiling when I observe people who want to have the same shirt, the

same trousers or the same sip of coffee. And for getting this object of desire they

would go over spawning, and it isn’t interesting if there are a lot of other shirts, other

trousers or a lot of other sips of coffee. In this context you talk about fashion or peer

pressure. Normally you talk about group dynamics when everybody is happy and

there is no spawning, or you can see that there wouldn’t be spawning. 

People in groups are a phenomenon anyway with their constraints and dynamics,

which is also why you can talk about a broad mass of people when you talk about the

people you would call normal. If one finds something totally great and can also pass

on this enthusiasm, within a few days all the people you meet are enthusiastic about it.

Thus statements that turn out to be complete nonsense when investigated scientifically

also spread. Although I myself claim from science that the only true statement of and

about science is as follows: Science is error brought up to date.

It is fascinating that this sentence comes from people who are part of the board mass

and often science can’t influence their behavior. That means that in this case the

science isn’t interesting, but the normalities are very important, and they are far away

from thinking logically and they are often not reflected. 

People who are called normal are life in a normality which developed for many years

out of dynamics, constraints, thoughtlessness, ignorance, understanding and a big

portion of telepathy. Break out? Often pointless because other ways of thinking and

perceiving are missing. And stand out? Sometimes possible but often in a negative

way if you disregard the group dynamics and go about spawning. 

When you are different it matters how you are different and if it is visible or not, if the

people can see that you are different in the first place and what it is that makes you

different. If you look different you mainly look like an animal in the zoo, you rarely

get help and you rarely receive attention. 

But what happens when nobody can see that you are different, even if it`s not

immediately obvious? The people who get to know you, are think you are part of the

masses, and one requires certain skills and knowledge to blend into the crowd. This is

exactly where things get exciting. 

Here it gets exciting because here comes a horizon of expectations that these different

people cannot fulfill without others seeing it or being able to explain themselves. As

long as being different is still considered normal or you don’t stand out, everything is

ok, but once being different is somehow noticeable and the other person doesn’t know

anything about this difference, and this different behavior will be perceived as strange.

Now it depends on the other person how he deals with it – it’s the same with visible

differences. But when you are difference is invisible, there is also a surprise effect.

This effect makes it harder for most of those in the masses to deal with people having

a difference. Defensive reactions occur which, depending on the temperament, vary

greatly and can also be damaging. 

But what happened in this situation? Perhaps what happens if one person of the mass

meet one person that isn’t part of the mass, needs to be explained. The different person

is aware of his or her special nature or not; depending on this, he or she is more

unbiased or somewhat insecure when dealing with his or her normal counterpart.

However, the normal counterpart can see this a little more narrowly. This is often

because most people in the public have a very clear picture of how things should

work. If something doesn’t go as usual or as expected, it is then difficult to move on

from a usual pattern and adapt to something new. Many also have little experience and

don’t necessarily have the courage to react spontaneously in unusual ways. If the

peculiarities are visible, the affected person is at best ignored and/ or stared at.

But what does it mean to be different? Ultimately, it means exactly what can be

interpreted from what has just been explained. One is dependent on other people being

able to deal with one's own otherness. Rejection, strange looks, stupid comments,

ignorance, and incomprehension are everyday occurrences. Explaining to other people

how they can or should deal with their difference or what it is that makes them

different is something very few people manage to do, and if they do, then only

inadequately. Often these explanations are classified as abnormal and are tolerated by

force. In other words, even people who actually have no prejudices against those who

are different can become a problem if they do not understand their counterpart's

difference. In this case, rejection, stupid comments and ignorance are seldom the

result, but rather wrapping in cotton wool, paternalism or simply incomprehension

that can hardly be admitted. Both intolerance and lack of understanding are almost

reasons to avoid people. The fact that intolerance can also lead to psychological

damage, which incomprehension can also do in extreme cases, is only a side effect.

But one thing is clear: people change and that means it is often a question of time that

later on you may or may not be able to deal with this person.

In addition to the overriding question of which people can be trusted and with which

people you can have long-term contact and with whom you would rather not, there are

also completely different questions.

One of them is how do I find my way in this world? What do I have to do in this or

that case? In general, there are logical answers to such questions, especially when they

are asked more specifically. You can even give yourself this logical answer if you have

a clear mind despite being different – although not everyone has to see it that way

because we are all different –very few people achieve this goal. But the logical

answers don’t always fit, because it depends on the details about how you should react

in a given situation. These little things, which often have a big impact, are often not

really noticeable to someone who is not part of the mass. How ever the little things

that are effective often decide whether you get something done or not.

What I always find exciting at this point is the fact that a lot of things happen without

there being an explanation and without anyone knowing what is actually happening.

For some reason, people at large behave as if this indefinable event was the most

normal thing in the world. I don’t have the feeling that these people understand the

event, but rather that they have better options to ignore the whole thing or just live

with it because they are used to it and see it as normal. Because if you ask without

thinking what just happened, you rarely get a further answer. The most common

answers include: “I have no idea,” “I don’t know,” “it’s like that all the time,” or the

most popular answer, “That’s normal.” But there are also other answers that allow

conclusions to be drawn about the observed behavior which, if these conclusions are

correct, can have unpleasant consequences. Namely the answer: “What are you even

talking about?” ok, that’s a counter question, but that doesn’t change much about the

fact that such reactions can be fatal. With such questions you have to assume that the

other person has not noticed what has just happened, although my observation is that

there is often little or no awareness of what you are saying or doing. 

If you take everyday phrases literally, such as “now I’ve lost the thread” and react

accordingly, you will usually be looked at with irritation. There are two possible

reactions to being looked at. The first and more harmless one is that the other person

starts laughing as a sign that they have understood the reaction. For you, the strongly

delayed but violent reaction is what you find strange. The second version is a sure sign

that the other person is not really aware of what they are saying but is far too far into

the mainstream and is straining their mind. I’m talking about the questioning reaction:

“What’s going on now?” or “Why are you doing/saying that?” after which you first

have to explain what this questioning person has just said, only to then realize that the

explanation doesn’t lead to anywhere. 

As someone who is different, you are forced to speak not only your native language,

foreign language, both of which appear in you school report and of which you can

brag about any time. But you also have to learn the language of the masses including

the dialects within different groups. The lack of basic understanding of the behavior of

the mass and the resulting lack of intuition to automatically behave “correctly” – even

if not always desirable – doesn’t really make things any easier. 

To put it all in a nutshell: being different always means making sure you are lucky

enough to meet the right people, seeing illogical, often frightening situations as

normal and being able to speak and understand several foreign languages as fluently

as possible, of which only very few officialy apply. 

This makes you always be vigilant and gives you a feeling of insecurity but also

despair when, despite careful observation and good acting talent, you are unable to

buy a piece of cheese at the supermarket counter. 

Ok, that was a bit exaggerated about the cheese, but buying cheese can also lead to

frictions that people of the mass can’t imagine. 

Why do normal people want to be different? Even if I don’t fully understand it

sometimes, there are a few good reasons to stand out from the mass. The reasons

become particularly clear when you look at what it means to belong to the mass. 

I’ll just start where I started earlier. If you have an issus that is described as either

abnormal or no longer normal, you can hope that your issue will be taken seriously. 

Another problem that occurs particularly among the mass is that you quickly find

yourself in a situation where you are one of many. It doesn’t seem to matter what it’s

about, there are always at least ten others who want the same thing and if you’re

unlucky, they want the exact same thing. When it comes to choosing a partner, the

person you love usually decides who to take or not. But one thing you can be sure of

is that it is always the wrong decision from the perspective of those not selected. With

clothes, there is another difficulty: the pieces of fabric do not decide for their owner

but rather hug the body of every person who wears them. Completely different factors

decide here, such as your wallet, time or elbows. In the latter case, you have to make

sure that the bruises are covered by clothing, because bruises are generally recognized

as not being particularly pretty. 

Of course, most people want to get out of this madness and this fight for little product,

against an overwhelmingly powerful pack with the same goal. But how? There’s only

one guy who’s cute and he only likes girls who dress fashionably (there are similar

difficulties in the opposite case) and the fashion is the same for everyone. In other

words, if I want to please the guy, I have to deal with the other admirers. The trick is

to surpass the guy’s taste so that you surpass the others. And even if everything else

fits, if you have the wrong hair color or the wrong bust size, that doesn’t help you. 

Most people have the problem of staying within the limits of what the mass accepts as

normal and therefore the chances of exceeding those limits are relatively close and

foreseeable. In most of these cases, a no longer normal partner or an abnormal partner

would be completely over the mark, because who wants to have an abnormal or no

longer normal partner? 

However, if it’s not about a specific person but about being seen at all, the abnormal

shouldn’t be a problem, at least as far as styling is concerned, you should be careful

about your behavior. But many people also want to attract attention when it comes to

their behavior, preferably in a positive way. It’s just stupid that the negative is so much

easier and that the negative is more liked by those you want to please. 

In short, it is quite difficult for a person to break out of the mass because thinking and

perception are simply designed for the mass. This means that the goals are set in such

a way that you have to belong to the broad mass in order to achieve these goals. But if

you exaggerate normality, you will be labeled as no-longer-normal, and not just by

your competitors. On the other hand, many others are at the upper limit of normality

and you have to rely on factors that you cannot influence

Another nice example and one of my favorite topics is language and the

communication associated with it. For most people from the mass, language is nothing

more than a communication tool that people like to use to encode the actual message.

We remember the example of talking past each other, the actual message is not

conveyed through what is spoken and so it doesn’t really matter what is said, the main

thing is that it is said because you are so used to it and it distracts the other person

when you are observing, or something like that. 

But the example of language shows very well how difficult it is to get out of this

broad mass. Simply teaching a person from the mass that saying things like: “I’ll

shoot myself” can be taken literally and that inevitably means that others have to clean

is not that easy. When someone says he has lost the thread, I imagine how he

previously stretched a thread criss-crossing the room and has now lost this thread. If I

then say that it's a good thing that the thread got lost, because otherwise at some point

you wouldn't be able to walk anymore, explaining often doesn't help - it's not

understood.

To sum it all up: people from the mass want to be different in order to stand out, not to

be overlooked. But it is difficult because the freedoms here are limited by education,

perception, environment, etc. On the other hand, you have to stand out of the mass to

establish oneself here and achieve your goals, or rather not be interchangeable.

I feel like I have to define what it is to be different here. The people of the broad mass

want to stand out, be recognized as individuals, and not always be the same as the

others. In other words, they remain within the framework of the basic system; the

basic behavior pattern remains largely intact

The whole thing has two consequences: one is very simple: their perception and

thinking do not make them stand out from the broad mass; they remain part of the

broad mass because they still behave in a way that the broad mass accepts. 

The second one isn’t much harder, they can’t go beyond certain limits and are

basically forced to follow the slow movement of the entire mass. However, whether

the mass moves in the right direction or in a desirable direction is secondary. In order

to influence the direction of the mass, you have to reflect on it and, if necessary know

how to intervene. This form of to-determination is too strenuous or too complicated

for many people. 

It’s hard for me to imagine that everyone thinks it’s great to take part in the group

dynamics and pressures that are part of life in the mass. Here too there could be a

reason for wanting to be different. But I don’t know to what extent people in the mass

think about such things; here too, reflection is necessary, which is probably too much

for many. Even as a teenager, I found it strange that many of my fellow human beings

followed the latest fashions without paying attention to whether they fit them. You

could hear phrases like “I don’t like this fashion,” but no one drew any conclusions

from that. Instead, everyone continued diligently and hoped that another fashion

would come along soon that they liked better. Was the pressure here greater than the

displeasure? Or was it unclear which lever you had to pull to get out of there? Or was

the displeasure a harmless side effect and just part of the journey to an actual goal? 

I have no idea, it’s clear that most people in the mass aren’t happy, the reasons are

varied, but the fact that hardly anything has changed here shows that there are either

hardly any solutions or that complaining is just fun. 

Now the all-important question: Why do people who are different want to be normal?

Quite simply, the idea of being able to live a life without being increasingly rejected,

without constantly learning languages that you should actually know and without

constantly standing out or being seen as an exception is for people outside the broad

mass of heaven on earth. To achieve this goal you can see two options; here 

The first option is used by people who sooner or later become permanent guests in a

psychiatric hospital or in prison. They try to get the mass to behave like themselves,

and if necessary with violence. 

The second option, which is often just as unsuccessful, is to adapt to the masses as

best as possible. No matter how well you adapt, you remain the same. Even if the

brain is capable of learning throughout life, a complete rebuild is simply not possible

and, upon closer inspection, not particularly desirable. But even with the second

option, you are not exactly far away from a stay in a psychiatric hospital, but stays in

prison are less common. 

The broad mass; names for the respective variants of the attempt to be part of the

broad masses are exciting. When it comes to the first option, words like: egoist,

criminal or even a serius criminal, psychopath or, if you are in politics, dictator are

often used. In the second option, the words seem to be missing somehow. However,

there are also a few words that try to describe this variant. Here people are often seen

as over adjusted, anxious, outsiders, strange and insecure, but that wasn't enough to

describe their job here. However, the second variant has an advantage: not all people

notice the difference. Nether the less, this advantage also has a disadvantage: it is

good to remember who accepts and notices that you are different and who does not.

Otherwise, the conversation with one or two people mainly consists of explaining

what is different about you and why and why something doesn't simply change that. 

Both variants have one thing in common: you have self-confident. In the first variant,

this is actually almost automatically the case, although these people also struggle a lot

with insecurity. In the second variant you often have to fight for your securtiy, which

is not exactly easy due to the fact that you often realize that you are different. But the

confusion caused by the fact that there are people who describe you as completely

normal and yet somehow you feel different and get this feeling from other people

makes the matter of self-confidence not easy. 

However, it can also be the case that you don't necessarily want to get rid of your

differentness completely. Because as I said, normal does not mean desirable. People

who think differently often recognize what is not desirable about the behavior of the

masses, that also leads to problems; perhaps they also recognize how things should

desirable be. So there is a willingness to adapt and be considered normal, but there is

also a certain resistance, namely at the moment when the different person realizes that

normal is actually counterproductive or seems completely unnecessary. 

But the desire to belong is pleasant despite the knowledge that everything normal is

not desirable. Because the negative experiences of living as an outsider often seem

more serious than the problems that await you if you are considered normal. 

So what does all of this tell us? Quite simply, in the end, very few people are satisfied

with what and where they are in society. But very few people are willing or able to

change that. The people who are different realize they want to be normal and the

normal people realize they want to be different and that's exactly what they all have in

common, they want to be different from the way who they are right now. Changes are

possible, but a completely new beginning doesn't work, not only for technical reasons

but also simply because that wouldn't help. After all,who is satisfied with what they

imagine? And if it's not your status, your appearance, your behavior then it's just the

others who aren't the way you would like them to be. Sometimes I think that would be

pretty boring. 

But it's also fascinating that, you can't become normal because you want to be normal

and you're only normal if you don't want to be normal. In other words, to become

normal you have to avoid being normal and thereby become normal. But there's a

catch: if, for example, I want to run away from a monster, I'm far from running away

from a monster when I start running, in other words, I first have to look for a monster

to be able to run away from it, only then do I not run away from the monster but rather

towards it and do so very consciously. In short, I first have to do exactly the opposite

of what I want to do to be able to do what I actually want to do. In the example of the

monster, it is as simple as defining what a monster is and then looking for it in order to

run away from it. It's more difficult; to be normal, because normal can be anything

that's out of it's mind. In other words, everyone is normal as they are in their own way

and only the people of the broad masses belong to the general public: I don't know

whether you can really see it from the outside. Perhaps you will only be accepted into

the masses if you accept from the start that normality is not necessarily desirable and,

despite this knowledge, stick to normality if you have the skills to do so. 

If you asked me, I would say that there is a very simple solution to this problem: if

you do exactly what has always been allowed by the masses, call everything that you

always do normal and so do that too, a braod mass of people would say: „That's-no-

longer-normal!“ then at least there would be no abnormality and then perhaps we

could start to think about what is desirable and what is less desirable.

But this theory also has a caution: if there is no longer any abnormality, we would no

longer need medicine that tries to turn abnormality into normality. And that would

sometimes be life-threatening.

Maybe it's just that you have to express yourself differently, because ultimately

everyone has the same goal: not to be who they are right now. And that is probably

normal, even if not desirable. And in which direction you want to change, I think it

doesn't matter because the socalled normal ones should actually meet with the

socalled abnormal ones in the middle or something like that. 

So much for theory.

Most of the time it is the case that where the abnormal ones want to get into normality,

the normal ones don't want to get out. So hitting in the middle will hardly be possible.