I believe your analogy is flawed. Can you restate your first statement in any other way?
OCD, clinical addiction, etc are all more involved than just feeling the desire to do something. The lack of control is the issue not just the momentary impulse.
Intrusive thoughts are fine, acting on them isn’t.
Addendum: I believe I’m close to figuring out what you are communicating but for me it’s not working.
I’m reasonably sure we’d agree that neurological conditions are complex and that labels only tell part of the story.
Seasonal affective disorder and bereavement-related depression may have similar symptoms on the surface, but there’s different treatments due to differences in underlying causes.
Some conditions may be a continuum with the same underlying cause taken to different extremes, but that continuum need not be continuous down to normal human behavior.
With how widespread it is, labeling, self-diagnosing, inquiring about yourself, is kind of normal human behavior. It is everywhere, and has been historically. Putting it like it's just 'labels for significant things' and then 'normal', and that these things would stand far enough apart to actually make a clear distinction without dismissing people in between is pretty much just wishful thinking. There's way too many things and even more combinations of then. It's gotten so complicated and convoluted only because it is that way. Wishing for a binary clarity in a complex world.
Deciding not to get a drivers license is fine, being unable to get one because you can’t leave your home is an issue.
The “full range” is anything that doesn’t cause you or another significant distress, major impairment, or prevent functioning in society. Eating hot sauce is uncomfortable, amputating a limb is several steps beyond uncomfortable.
> Can normal not be defined?
It’s defined by what it isn’t. There’s ~8 billion people in the world and the majority of them are functioning as should be obvious by our societies continuing to function.