Redefining Normal Revisited*

   Mortality and friendship have forced themselves to the front of my consciousness lately.

As the 2020 softball season tries, fitfully, to start, with so many more questions than answers to this point, my mind meanders to memories of my late friend, Tim Cerutti, with whom I was privileged to enjoy the past (too) few seasons, and I wonder what he’d be thinking about how we’re trying to redefine normal in an increasingly abnormal world. I know he’d find a way to “choose happy,” because for Tim that wasn’t just a glib phrase but the maxim he modeled for those of us lucky to have shared the warmth and light of his presence, no matter what adjustments to normal he was forced to face.

This may seem like a non-sequitur, but bear with me. I am a terrible golfer. Once, as I was talking about golf and my multiple golfing deficiencies, another late dear friend of mine, Rick Smith (who, for those who were not lucky enough to know him, was forced to {frequently but successfully} redefine normal for himself in ways that were unfortunate and unfair), shared his wisdom. He said, in essence, “Your par doesn’t have to be what the scorecard says. You get to decide what par (average, normal) means for you [on this hole].”

Why should that apply only to golf (which, with apologies to my golfing friends, isn’t really all that important)? I’m sure that working in a school helped me create a flexible definition of “normal;” even the expression “normal day” was oxymoronic, to say nothing of “normal week,” “normal month” or “normal year.” And that was BEFORE the pandemic!

What is “normal” anyway? If it means average, is that really what anyone aspires to? Is being “run of the mill” much of a goal? Does anyone aim for “nondescript?” Is anyone, in fact, actually normal? Aren’t we all at least a little bit weird (and if we’re not, aren’t we mostly boring)? 

Self-satisfaction, and I’d even argue happiness, comes from accepting who we are (including embracing whatever weirdness helps define us) and where we are in life. That requires a constant redefinition of “normal.” Are any of us the same person we were       years ago? Why would we ever think we’re going to stop changing, just because now we’ve reached the age of      ? 

Studies, however, show that is exactly what we do think! They also show we’re wrong, a great example of “stinkin’ thinkin’,” because when we assume we’ve stopped changing, we get stuck. Even if we did stop changing (and, to reiterate, I don’t believe we do), clearly the world around us is constantly mutating, whether we approve or not. If we’re stuck in an obsolete definition of normal, if we refuse to redefine what is normal for us, for our loved ones, for society even, we have trouble adjusting, and, by extension, finding joy, contentment, happiness, etc. I’d suggest there are multiple, glaring examples of that self-imposed anger, unhappiness, even misery, available to those without blinders.

Normal is relative, and different for each of us. I may be, peripherally at least, in the same profession, but I’m certainly not the same person I was almost 50 years ago when I started my teaching career (the anti-jock who became a coach); I’m not the same person I was 15, 10, 5 years ago, probably not even the same as last year. I certainly know my body is different, that what I’m physically (and even mentally) capable of today has changed. My choice? I can bemoan my encroaching decrepitude, or I can redefine normal.

There is no universal normal; would we even want there to be? What does exist, for all of us, is our ability to define par for ourselves, to forge our own path to achieving the best possible result (instead of fixating on the best result possible {Berndt’s Rule of Life #4}). 

While I believe this to be true, what will be more of a challenge is accepting the changes and limitations that are inexorably making their way in my direction, seemingly emanating from constantly shifting sources. I hope I’m up to the task. But if the challenge is too great, I can always redefine normal.

* A recasting of a previous piece 7+ years ago, updated for 2020, clearly not a normal time.

Random Observations: COVID-19 & Social Media

• Yes, the media “awfulizes” the news. That, in and of itself, is also not news and has been around since even before the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer over a century ago. And if you pretend that Fox, Breitbart, NewsMax and other right-wing outlets don’t do the same thing as the so-called MSM, then we’re both wasting our time here.

• While Dr. Drew Pinsky is a media personality MD, his specialty is opioid treatment, not infectious disease. Which is why, though I’m a professional, certified, accredited (albeit retired) teacher, I’d urge you not to put a whole lot of stock in my opinions about teaching mathematics or science. Neither am I holding my breath waiting for Dr. Oz to weigh in on this.

• There’s a difference between mortality rates and deaths. You have to do the math, though. A 2% mortality rate, which I’ve seen dismissed as no big deal by some, is 40 times the rate of regular flu (.05%). The death numbers are smaller because the number infected is smaller – so far.

• 2% means 2 out of every 100. I’ve seen dismissive posts about that number. “No big deal” unless it’s someone you care about who’s infected. Because early statistics can skew toward the severe, even if it’s 1% (and it Italy it’s apparently climbing toward double digits), if that one (1) is your parent or grandparent or someone else you love….

• Neither the Democrat Party nor President Trump is responsible for this outbreak; however, both ARE responsible for helping our country navigate its way through what must be now recognized as a crisis. I also do think a monotonal litany of anti-science, anti-intellectual tweets and statements is, and has not been, helpful, either specifically in this case or in general.