The two definitions would be:
First definition, Common versus uncommon.
1a. Abnormal as in uncommon: Everything only existing a small percentage of humans is abnormal like this. This usually but not always implies that it would not be workable if the majority were like this.
In this sense, sorry, but blue eyes and blond hair are abnormal unless you’re an Estonian. And of course left-handedness is abnormal. But one could argue that those three things are also harmless. Abnormal things could be either harmless or even positive (blond and blue above).
1b. Normal as in an always-present part of the human tapestry. In this sense, child molesting, rape, wife-beating, murder and all sorts of nasty things are “normal” in the sense that they are simply part and parcel on the human experience. On the other hand, we want to keep this sort of thing at as low a level as possible due to the moral aspect of it (it harms innocents) and the social chaos dimension (high levels of any of this cause a lot of chaos).
Second definition: Workable versus unworkable.
2a. Abnormal as in unworkable for the majority. In this case, the human behavior works on when only a few humans do it, but it might not work well at all if a majority of people were like this. I will give examples like this below.
2b. Normal as in workable for the majority. In this sense, left-handedness and blond hair and blue eyes would be both normal and abnormal at the same time: they are all rare so they are abnormal per se, but if the majority were left-handed or blond and blue, this would not only be workable for society but it might even make the world a better place. A world full of Swedish women sounds like an upgrade, at least to me.
Let us point out that geniuses, retards, murderers and saints are abnormal in the 1a sense for better or for worse.
Abnormal and bad (1a-2b type): On the other hand, neither killers nor retards are normal in the other sense. You can’t really have a human species where most humans are murderers. Granted tribal societies like this exist (the Yanonamo), but it wouldn’t be healthy in larger groups.
In the US 110 million men would have murdered a man by age 40. You really think that’s sustainable. Killers get locked away forever in prison. You’d have millions or tens of millions of men locked away for decades. Not to mention the total societal chaos that would ensue.
Could you have a human species where most people are retards? Not going to work either.
Abnormal but good (1a-2a types). The good but abnormal things are different. Geniuses and saints are both normal and abnormal. They’re a normal part of the human experience, but only a tiny percentage of humans are either, so it’s abnormal de facto – anything practiced by only a tiny percentage of humans is obviously abnormal.
This also shows that there’s not necessarily wrong in the abnormality of tiny behavioral minorities. It takes all kinds to fill the freeways. And geniuses and saints both have contributed immensely to our species and our accomplishments.
But could you have a society of geniuses? I’m not sure. Probably no one would ever get laid for one thing because genius men at least are the worst at getting laid because they’ve left their bodies and swim in their heads all the time. Most Normies notice that and think it’s weird if not nuts.
That’s part of why genius men often find it hard to get laid. As IQ rises, men have less and less sex, girlfriends, wives, etc. and their likelihood of being virgins in their early years rises. So does their poor performance at sports. The awkward, dorky nerd genius who can’t get laid is more than a stereotype: there’s something to it.
And geniuses don’t hook up with each other very well either, but maybe the female geniuses could seduce the male geniuses. A lot of female geniuses really like to fuck and have great success at dating and relationships. Genius doesn’t seem nearly so tied in with painful introversion in women. Female geniuses are often strikingly extroverted.
A society of saints? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it won’t work. We’re not meant to be pure good and especially purely self-sacrificing. We’d all die trying to be heroes and protect other people. A lot of us would probably deny ourselves to death as saints are wont to do so – check out how many saints and saintly types died of sheer starvation. Not to mention they like to starve themselves in other ways, as in sexually.
Saints seem prone to masochism and no-fun ethics – if it’s fun, it’s bad; if it makes you suffer, it’s good. So there would again be a lot of celibates – volcels this time – whereas the genius males would be incels.
I would also argue that it’s not healthy for us to be pure good. A little bit of rough makes the world go round. I don’t like bad people, but I’m not against being a little bit bad. Hell, I’m not against being a little bit evil for that matter. I like to stir just a tiny sprinkle of evil into my coffee every morning. Gives me that nice bad boy edge to go out and conquer in a hostile world.
I’ve had girlfriends remark that I’m a little bit evil. That’s just fine. As far as I can tell, it’s helped me get laid. I have had girlfriends even flat out admit that to me – they have told me that I am dangerous and scary, but that that turns them on like crazy. For that reason one was rejecting a “boring old man” in favor of me, about whom she remarked:
You’re scary. But scary’s hot.
Danger in men revs up the female sex drive. Take note, boyos. Score one for Bad Boy Game.
If they said I was real evil, I might get worried.
Perhaps being a little bit bad or evil is an essential part of the human experience for most of us.
After all, what humans say is evil is simply normal survival type behaviors for most mammals. In other words, if most mammals aren’t at least a bit “evil” they’re probably going to die or go extinct.
Want to feel good about yourself? Fine, be a saint. On the other hand, want to survive? Maybe you’ll need to be just a bit bad.