Is There Such a Thing as a Normal Brain?
Kept under lock and key in a Paris basement, lies a block of metal. And no ordinary block of metal at that. Known as Le Grand K, for 130 years this chunk of platinum-iridium alloy was the very standard against which all other kilograms were measured.
But by 2019 it had been deemed unfit for purpose and consigned to history. There was a new, modern methodology in town.
As our understanding around the true complexity of the brain advances, is it time to do the same for the idea of a standard brain?
We chatted with Pedro Afif, Leadership & Development Coach at EZRA, to find out why we could all stand to benefit from reevaluating ‘normal’.
Normal doesn’t mean good
“Do we actually know what normal is? I don’t think that we do,” says Pedro.
Really, normal is just an average. A common occurrence. A convenience. One standard deviation from the mean if you want to get all scientific about it.
And the chances of falling into that ‘normal’ range across all the thousands of variables that make up you? So infinitesimally small, it would itself, ironically, be utterly abnormal.
Yet somehow, somewhere along the line, this idea of normal has become a value statement.
“…[W]e’ve confused normal with good or well,” he thinks. “And that really isn't the case.”
The dark power of ‘normal’
Organizations have taken this ‘normal’ and used it to set productivity and performance standards, instill day-to-day structures, and even design physical work environments.
As a result, “I don’t think we have frameworks in organizations that truly support different types of brains or measure strengths and capabilities in an inclusive way,” Pedro warns.
It leads to stigma
Because that’s the thing about ‘normal’. It’s divisive.
“Anything that has a normal label on it marginalizes people that fall out of that rigid boundary,” he points out.
You’re either normal, or you’re not.
It distorts expectations
And it inevitably becomes a standard of what intelligence, productivity, and behavior ‘should’ look like too.
As creatures of comparison, we can’t help but measure ourselves against them—with predictably damaging results.
It marginalizes talent
Besides, as Pedro says, a lens of normality means we “…miss out on so much talent and so much diversity…”
Without divergent thinking, would we ever have had the computer? Impressionism? Or, heaven forbid, the spork?
We’re all different
And right there is the flipside of the coin. Normal might have been conflated with what’s ‘right’. But it also implies boring. Conventional. Run-of-the mill.
Your brain is a gelatinous blob packed with 86 billion neurons. Trillions of synaptic connections controlled by electrical impulses and forged in a pattern that’s completely and utterly unique to you.
There’s nothing normal about that.
Wired differently, valued equally
When we get recognized for that individuality, it matters.
“…[I]t’s ethically important to be able to look at people for who they are because it creates psychological safety,” Pedro says.
And psychological safety is like fertilizer for personal growth. Spread it generously and watch everyone flourish.
Because as Pedro says, “When we feel safe, we actually present better and do our job much better.”
Spectrums not standards
Normal vs abnormal. Good vs bad. Black and white thinking offers sweet, sweet simplicity. But as author Thomas Dewar once observed, “Minds are like parachutes. They work best when they’re open.”
When they are, we see the full scope of our potential. Cognitive abilities, personality traits, brain functions, these aren’t discrete categories, they’re spectrums. And “It makes strategic sense to have the full spectrum at the table,” Pedro tells us.
Because variation isn’t weakness, it’s a strength. But only if we support each other in it. So, let’s challenge what’s ‘normal’. Embrace the unconventional. And celebrate variation, not pathologize it.