"A girl content with mediocrity, refusing a raise, and not wanting to coordinate with her superiors. An artist earns only $30 a week, and if he were to work more, he could earn more money; but he would rather enjoy life with this meager income, spending a lot of time with women or indulging in his own hobbies."
In the above situation, we naturally suspect that they are not "normal". The reason why these people are considered "abnormal" is because most people are familiar with and only familiar with one type of behavior pattern. This behavior pattern means that we hope to stand out in this world, surpass others, and earn far more money than is necessary for survival. Only those who conform to this behavior pattern are considered normal by people.
However, the concept of "normal" is worth exploring. Let's take a broader perspective. Today, it is normal for college students to fall in love or get married during graduate school. However, just twenty years ago, hugging on the playground was considered absolutely "uncivilized", and there was even news in 2007 about "7 male and female college students in Qingdao being expelled for hugging, causing controversy".
In different cultural environments, "normal" also has a wide range of differences. "If this girl without ambition (or at least no obvious ambition) lives in the Pueblo Indian culture, she would be considered completely normal; similarly, if that artist lives in a village in southern Italy or Mexico, he would also be considered a normal person. Because in these environments, it would be incredible for anyone to want to earn more money or make more effort beyond meeting absolute needs. Let's go back further, in ancient Greece, if someone worked hard beyond personal needs, this attitude would undoubtedly be considered uncivilized."
Therefore, "normal" has always been a changing existence, and the current "normal" is likely to become "abnormal", and the current "abnormal" may become "normal". In a person's lifetime, they often experience multiple changes between "normal" and "abnormal", and the seemingly "normal" choices in youth are often repeatedly proven wrong.
So why do people like "normal" so much? The value of normality is never good, as it claims to be. Taking the civil service exam is good, stability is good, being a normal person is good. No, what it claims to be good is never its true value.
The value of normality lies in providing an immediate sense of security. I must emphasize, it is an "immediate" sense of security. When you choose normal, you immediately gain a sense of being enveloped by the crowd. Even if you are physically alone, psychologically you are surrounded by a crowd. In the illusion of the crowd's shouts, it seems that the problem has really been solved, and there is no longer a need to face the unknown and uncertainty. Just follow the crowd. But this is just a feeling, not a fact. The fact is that the unknown treats everyone equally. No one can accurately say what the world will be like in ten years.
Choosing "abnormal" gives a feeling of fighting alone. It means that when faced with the unknown and uncertainty, you cannot simply rely on the crowd to feel stable.
Choosing normal is often a form of laziness. Facing the fact of the unknown future requires courage.