Average Equals Belonging

Discussing statistics and sampling a population to identify an average distribution to identify what unacceptable behavior in "An Average Distribution;" there is a flip-side relating to someone who is socially acceptable. Scientists attempted to identify traits of successful or popular people who do great things like amassing money, sell masses of records or helping masses of individuals. These people represent the lower percentage of extraordinary. In general, people are less concerned with altering, stopping or learning about this behavior. This might be because it is already a functioning part of society with few notable problems.

An unwritten part of social interaction is validating individual traits and lifestyles. In the competitive world these traits of success are observed. After someone makes their fortune we compare each other in measurable quantities of monetary gain and popularity. Often feel less than overachievers when observing their occupation, attractiveness and achievement; we worry about selecting occupation, getting married and owning a beautiful home.

People are competitive and dismiss achievements of another group. When looking at the facts every group is composed of few top performers, many average performers and few below-average performers. When wanting motivation it is important to identify with successful people who have similar personal traits.

A notably repressed group is homosexuals. People say over-and-over again how anyone openly gay will never be able to achieve higher levels of success or attempt to make another group "the gay group;" however, people are testing this theory. Around two percent of the entire population is, technically, gay. Even though the population is rare, stars announce their preference after becoming successful. They are still respected and winning awards; disproving the stigma will destroy a person's livelihood. There are also people who are openly gay in the beginning of their career who are constantly improving.

There is also no way to identify gay people with fashion. Some groups are more supportive, yet clothing preferences are learned from the larger group. Looking around it is clear gay representation is present in all lifestyles. It is awkward when people rely on old assumptions despite proof disproving validity even without a huge statistical study.

Another issue, closer to me is how competitors limit the potential of someone based on their clothing and music preferences. As a Goth, I have become aware of other subcultures, such as: Punk, EMO, Skaters, Environmentalists and Political Activists. Many people want to subvert their opinion with negative associations toward the lifestyle. Yet, looking around, there is a successful example to denounce any assumption.

Mentors affect a person's ability to go forward in life. Why does anyone need validation to go to work everyday or raise a family? Why should there be an icon to identify negotiable terms of attractiveness or correct behavior? I don't know, but it helps. It is great listening to a CD with offbeat, comical lyrics addressing greater, frequently taboo topics. Not only is it validation, it is something I am frequently criticized about, people criticizing me and about a million other people who bought the CD.

It feels good knowing personal aspects of my individuality are a part of something bigger. It is rewarding being able to imagine yourself as a valuable person with valuable traits. While, I could counter attack with nasty propaganda, nasty doesn't make me feel better about what I'm doing. Therefore, it is better to find similarities in successful people to overcome self doubts. In addition to reinforcing my approach as effective, it presents information in the correct form to find acceptable methods and share similar values.

Related Article
An Average Distribution
Born Entrepreneur

An Average Distribution

How are people stating they believe in science, yet be so far from scientific methods when it comes to commonly accepted thoughts and media?

Explaining statistics, before presenting an example of the problem, statistics are based on a z score. A sample population greater than 30 is sampled in order to gain a better picture of the entire population. Instead of measuring a piece of lawn; counting every leaf of grass and then multiplying the number according the area of the lawn, as they would in algebra, statisticians run around the lawn evaluating the growth or lack of growth in an area to create a graph. Average growth is normal. Tufts of long, lush grass along the corners with dry spots scattered here and there are abnormal.

Z scores are also called normal distribution. Sometimes the results are skewed, yet most of the time; samples of a population produce similar results, by design. Most of the population is in-between, while some are above average and some are below average. This mathematical system is based on compiling relevant numbers from the tested population to find averages, medians and modes. The data is compared in a hypothesis to determine relevancy of a theory.

In a small population of less than thirty, caught and questioned serial killers, the necessary population to gain insight is lower than what is required for accurate hypothesis testing. It was observed several of them grew up with religion in their home, along with over eighty percent of the entire United States. Yet, people made a connection between religion (magical thinking) and criminals. However, millions of religious people are not even criminals.

The average religious person might have committed a minor crime, whether petty theft, forgetting to pay parking tickets or speeding. Therefore, the data is skewed in favor of the religious not being criminals. How do one or two people alter the perception of an entire group? Yet, people are suspicious of anyone with similarities to an extremely unusual person.

This phenomenon occurs in several groups. One bank places higher restrictions on service, almost saying, "If you don't have a lot of money, go somewhere else." People comment on this one bank saying, "Banks pick on people who are already poor by charging absurd nonsufficient funds fees." This becomes the entire image of banking, even though everyone has a bank account; therefore, daily life disproves the statement.

At first, I thought people were interested in hearing negative gossip over taking the time to correctly evaluate their environment. After thinking about it for a long time, if that was all it is everyone would be selfish criminals ruining everyone's daily life. Since most people are able to live entire lifetimes with hardly any issue, it is something else.

Walking around I've encountered many regular people (normal people are frequently the larger representation of a population) and they appear to be indignant about awful behavior perpetrated by "other" people. In away, getting through the day without being an inhuman demon makes them a wonderful individual, not tempted into harming others, though the temptation is rarely offered.

What exactly does this means? Is it a form of control, boosting self-esteem or a habitual tradition passed down through the generations? The answer is unknown. Few accept the villain role, so discussing awful behavior inspires constructive behavior? While this is an acceptable method of promoting morals, I worry about people who confuse the roles of hero and villain.

Related Article
Average Equals Belonging
Diffusing Violent Behavior
The Fit in Society
Original Life Force
Plethora of Criminology Shows

Quirky Books
The Ego and the Id by Sigmund Freud
McCarthy by Roy Cohn