Once defined what is the size, then the normal size comes to be what conforms to certain norms fixed in advance or what is general or majority or is u always or usually occurs, so it does not produce strangeness.
But defined in that way is not enough, since there is controversy about it. Let's see:
This is when 2 or more people are not fully in agreement about what is the normal size of an object. So, to avoid this conflict, there are 2 alternatives:
Normal would be that individual whose size is very frequent, typical, near the midpoint.
Because it is based on statistics, it must be taken into account that the normal size varies according to the sampling criteria that have been taken. For example:
- If sampling is done in northern European countries (where the white nordid race abounds), the average will be 1.8 meters high.
- On the other hand, if sampling is done in the jungle areas of central Africa (where the pygmy race is abundant), the average will be 1.5 meters high.
It considers that an individual is normal if (s)he approaches an ideal of human perfection, which meets desirable characteristics, according to a system of sizes and measures culturally predominant.
We must take into account that each culture is different from the other, so the ideals of human perfection vary with each.
This occurs when a single individual wants to define what is normal and what is not.
Someone assumes that his/her size is normal, and compare the sizes based on him/her own.
Someone assumes that his/her size is not necessarily normal, and takes a fixed size as the basis of what it would consider normal (regardless if it is based on the social or statistical criterion).