The difference between "typical" and "normal&

Post Reply New Topic

Is the only difference connotation? It seems to me that "normal" implies good (as in "his behavior was normal") and typical is more neutral but can be used negatively... as in, "Typically, tall people bump their heads on objects rather frequently" (neutral); "That's so typical of men!" (probably negative).

A second question: does this make the term "neurotypical" the most neutral way to express what it is that people relate it to? Or does this carry a somewhat negative connotation here?

Normal just means in the norm. I think it's pretty much the same thing. I think normal can be used as a negative as much as typical, if not more. If you did something a little eccentric for example, like wear big Elton John Glasses to work for example. Would you rather be told that is not normal, or not typical? I would probably take more offense at the use of normal because being abnormal to me sounds like there is something wrong with me, wheras atypical would say that this is something that most people do not do. I really try not to use the term normal for NT's because of that interpretation. I don't think that those with AS are abnormal, but they do have traits that are not typical of most of the population. I think NT is more neutral than negative.

To me typical is free of negative connotations and simply means "average". The opposite of typical is atypical, which I also don't believe has a negative connotation. It doesn't make a judgment on it, it just says that it differs from the average.

"Normal", on the other hand, implies that anything not normal is abnormal. To me that's a very negative connotation, since I was often teased with being a freak, a weirdo, etc as a child, all of which have the abnormal connotation.