08/19/2026
A while back, I took my daughter to an ophthalmologist.
One of her eyes has perfect vision. The other is quite the opposite. Naturally, I wanted to know what was wrong.
They ran every test. And the conclusion surprised me. Nothing was wrong. No illness, no condition, no disease. One eye simply sees one way, and the other sees another.
That's her normal.
Four words stuck with me long after we left: This is just her. Not a problem to fix. Not a deviation to correct. Just the way she's built.
It sent me down a longer road of thinking, because "normal" turns out to be a slippery thing.
As human beings, we are remarkably similar. And at the same time, every one of us is profoundly unique, right down to our physiology. I spent most of my life being told I have low blood pressure, until one day it clicked: what everyone else calls low is simply my normal. Nothing is wrong with it. It just isn't the average.
That's the trap hiding inside the word. We use "normal" as if it describes a standard everyone should meet. But most of the time it only describes an average. And an average is not a target.
Those definitions aren't even fixed. Cholesterol ranges have been revised over the years. Blood pressure thresholds have shifted. What counted as healthy in one decade sat outside the line in the next.
Sometimes it's better science. Sometimes experts disagree about where to draw a threshold on a spectrum with no natural edges. But it's worth asking: when the definition of normal shifts, who benefits from where the new line lands? I don't have the answer. I just think the question deserves to be asked.
Now take that same instinct, measuring a body against an average and calling the difference a problem, and notice how constantly we apply it to people.
We decide there's a normal amount of ambition, a normal way to grieve, a normal pace, a normal way to show emotion. And when someone falls outside our range, we quietly conclude something is wrong with them.
But what if nothing is? What if, like my daughter's eyes, that's just how they're built?
Even if someone's normal is different from yours, how is that a problem? We collapse "different" into "wrong" so fast we never notice we did it. Different is not a problem. It's just different.
If you lead people, this isn't abstract. The team member you've labeled "difficult" or "too much" is often just someone whose normal doesn't match the average you've quietly set as the standard.
The best leaders I know don't have the strictest definition of normal. They're curious enough to ask what someone's normal actually is, and secure enough not to need everyone to match.
Because people are not deviations from an average. They're individuals.
Full post: https://motivaction.academy/post/what-is-normal