Security and paranoia.

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

I’m sure I’m reinventing the wheel here.

What sorts of generic boundaries can I employ in order to put myself in a balance between assuring myself of security and not becoming paranoid?

I suggest at least 2 axes: Wealth, and social

Axes 1: Security is partially dependant on wealth. Wealth may not always lead to survival directly. But being able to afford more security makes a difference. So obviously we should pursue some wealth in order to pursue security. So at what point do I say this wealth is paranoia? Seeking money just to add more security.

Axes 2: Social behaviour is important. Part of what stops us from co-operating is our lack of trust. But there’s trust and there’s foolishness. What do we deny others, and accept in others, to consider things secure?

2

There are many historical records of persons who have known security without wealth or social approval.

3

Formally speaking, paranoia is a delusion. They say you’re not paranoid if they really are after you. This leads me to wonder what you mean by “security”. Do you mean actual security or perceived security?

4

I would imagine that we would accept in others traits of character that we recognise and relate to, and hopefully understand, and that we reject traits that feel alien. I suppose it comes down, to a certain extent, to our rituals, our “norms” so to speak. A person who obeys by the “rules” of our society or class is within our comfort zone. Whether comfort could be a synonim for security is debatable. Comfort is, clearly, the sensation of security.

You mentioned that money breeds security, but on the flipside, paranoia. I agree with this, I relate to it, but I don’t feel capable of explaining the reason for this. Perhaps having money and security makes you more of a target of crime within a society.

5

Hi, Gib. I mean actual security.

I’m wondering if a person gains assertiveness through a complex set of skills, or if there are simple and rigid doctrines which could be followed to get this assertiveness.

I find that people naturally want to maintain control over their lives. But often they lose control simply because they don’t stop trying when their success proves idle. It’s like the slippery bar of soap. If you try to grab it harder, it’ll probably slip more.

There’s an infinite number of things you could do, each of which by themselves being something ideated as a rational step to security. But if you do them in large quantities it makes little sense. If you want to “ensure” that someone doesn’t break into your house, you don’t necessarily benefit by locking your door, and then adding another door in front of it to lock that one again. This is an example that you would be attempting to remain secure, but you’re really showing insanity.

I’m asking if we can find more ways in the future to help people that can’t easily find the happy medium- being secure and not exaggerating what they need.

I’m thinking that there are mainly two groups of concern when people look for security.

The first group is regarding wealth and capital. It’s about people trying to get the best kind of protection money can buy. Yet . . . they might sacrifice much of what would have been their leisure and opportunities to do grander things with their money.

The second group is regarding socialization. Regardless of what they spend, they may behave a certain way which puts all other people off. We all need a certain level of trust in order to co-operate, don’t we? For example: There are many people today that feel they should only walk around in public with a gun. And that life is much safer, with people all respecting one another, knowing that they all have guns.

So really I’m asking two questions here . . .

(1) Is there a line we can help draw, which helps a person rationalize where to trust a bit and where to protect themselves.

(2) Do the 2 axes or groups I suggest have possible validity to drawing this line? I understand if they sound like bunk.

6

Very true. What we need to learn, in that scenario, is exactly when that moment is where we’re supposed to grab the other bar of soap that’s idly sitting there in the soap dish before the one we’re holding finally falls on the ground. I don’t mean to mince words – I mean, if one technique isn’t working, there comes a point where one has to make a decision – try harder using the tried and true method, or start using an alternative.

This reminds me of a story by brother-in-law told me: he was taking a class on infant first aid (he has a 9 month old boy). The lady who taught the course explained to them the proper ways of helping your child avoiding germs. One thing she said was this: To avoiding contracting germs when opening a public door (because of how many different people touch the handles), do this – open the door with your hand, whip out one of your moist towelletes covered in soap suds, clean your hand thoroughly, throw the toilette away because it’s dirty now, and open the door the rest of the way with your elbow… Talk about germ-paranoia!!! Yes, she actually thought we should all be carrying around a sack of moist, soapy, towelettes (not tissue, towelettes – fabric, stitchings, and all). I see what you mean when you call it “insanity”.

“Grander things” – do you mean altruistic things?

That, to me, is bona fide insanity. The more sane thing is to understand what happens in that scenario (we see it in ghettos all around American and in lawless countries like Somalia) – people end up just using their guns more.

They don’t sound like bunk – they exist! You’re asking an enormous question there. If we could find a way to realize this dream of yours (is it a dream?), it opens up a Pandora’s box of possibilities. How far do you think it could be taken – I mean, do you think we could apply this “psychological technology” to the problems in the middle-east? Or to teens caught up in drugs and street crime, not knowing how to trust their parents or the police? Or to the general American public who don’t know who to trust to protect them from the terrorists.

To be honest with you, I don’t know how to answer your questions. Maybe I could come up with something if I thought about it over a long period of time, but it’s too early in the morning for me to think clearly. Maybe you could tell me what you think.

7

Excellent insight. I’d certainly call it a proposal of psychological technology. Perhaps the mechanisms to regulate paranoia.

I think the best way to approach it is ontologically. Biggest possible groups followed by little. It seems to begin with (a) what we do with our collection. (property, stolen goods, leverage, anything goes)- and (b) how we naturally behave. Speach, posture, attitude, etc.

To get specific about how people should live in this way is a paranoia in itself, and so I wouldn’t encourage it as a global guideline. It would be more a system to employ as a precaution when there’s a risk of things becoming more hostile. On a social level: Guidelines a therapist could introduce when someone seems paranoid. On a political level: What an occupying state would dictate during occupation. (That’s assuming the occupying state is inclined to follow any ethic at all).

This technology might be applied in extreme measures. Such as a criminal on probation (temporary rules to follow), or in the crucial times of education when parents worry that their kids are going to get confused between freedom, paranoia, and rashness.

A good example of these kinds of problems (paranoia/rights) could be the culture shock on some reserves. There was a case a few years ago about a woman whom lived on the reserves and wanted to charge a man with unlawful entry. He’d gone in her house and used the shower. It’s probably written law there that you can’t simply enter a person’s house without invitation. But also, it was common in this region for people to enter each other’s homes out of general trust. I agree, that in written law that man was probably in the wrong, but that kind of trust in a culture can also be appreciated.

The question I’m left asking from the example is: Would it be more feasable for some cultures to practice unlocked doors and try to propagate this trust- or are we generally simply better off with nearly all doors locked and that the trust isn’t worth the risk? Are we saving ourselves by keeping potential perpetrators out, or are we murdering people by making them freeze to death (which does happen) when all doors are locked?

A good place to start on the subject can be to ask wheather the action is more a manner of war, or a manner of precaution. To explain: Resisting a person’s intentional invasion is a manner of war. It may be passive, and it may be realistically necessary, but it’s still best categorized as war. On the other hand, simply clarifying boundaries in statements and actions can be a manner of precaution. For example: If I put a “Please do not disturb” sign on my door and I leave it unlocked, that’s a manner of precaution. If I lock the door and put bars on the windows, add motion sensors to the gates- that seems like a manner of war. Not necessarily because I’m being aggressive, but because I’m clearly responding with hostility to a possible state of hostility.

The important difference between these groups is that a manner of war is a strategy against someone’s direct intent. The potential problems are agsainst a clear intent, not incidental. The requirements change as the stakes or the boundaries increase. A manner of precaution is that the potential for problems are mainly incidental, not intentional. Placing a precautions is not so much a way of deterring a possible perpetrator as it is a way of redirecting a hazard.

Hopefully I’ve added some useful groupings to help build this ethic of what staves off paranoia and what’s an ideal thing to do.

Axis 1: Material usage.

Axis 2: Behaviour.

Group 1: Manners of War.

Group 2: Manners of Precaution.

8

Well, you’ve outlined the structure of your thoughts on the subject, but I’m not as clear on where you stand on any particular issue. I mean, to call locking your door and barring the windows a state of war seems to imply a measure that’s been taken too far, and may be deemed “insane”. Also, you make it sound unethical by calling it war. You haven’t said as much, but that’s why I’m a little unclear on this. What do you think should be done?

Before answering that question, I would consider the following. Not all extreme measures are unwarranted. First, as I said before, you’re not paranoid when they’re really after you. My gut response to the idea of leaving all our doors unlocked is there would unquestionably be more incidents of B&E (and maybe worse crimes). What would prevent it? Yes, it might foster a spirit of comradeship with our fellow neighbors, but would it worth the rise is crime? Would it be able to outlive the rise in crime? I mean, don’t you think there would come a point where the community stood up and unanimously said “We want this crime wave stopped, and we’re willing to lock our doors if that’s what it takes.”

Second, I understand the precaution you’ve taken in labeling self-defensive maneuvers as “war” - you’ve said that it would be passive and realistically necessary, but I don’t know if this is enough to call it “war”. In my impression, the notion of war normally comes across as an offensive maneuver. To defend one’s self against potential harm is, at best, a recognition that war has been declared on you, but you are not a perpetrator of war.

Of course, we can play around with words however we like, substituting our own definitions to get our own points across, but we aught to be careful in how we use these words and what unintended connotations come along with them. For example, you’ve equated war with extreme measures of self-defense - that, I assume, is your intended connotation - but it might also make one feel guilty about defending themselves because of the unintended connotations about war being an colossally unethical act.

If it really came down to the scenarios you depict - with people barring their windows and setting up motion detectors, or the suggestion by some that everyone aught to carry around a gun, I would say this is indeed a state that calls for alarm. But the question we should be asking at this point is: what should be fixed - the behavior or the threat? And the answer to that depends on how real the threat is.

9

What I think should be done is certainly not around the extreme examples I include. In fact I make those almost absurd extremes, just to clarify where I’m going with the idea.

Everyone leaving their doors unlocked is absurd.

Everyone locking their doors at all times and putting cameras at their fences is absurd.

Everyone walking around with guns and saying that this is a good measure of security is absurd.

Those people aren’t necessarily insane. They can be quite rational people heavily subjected to a culture that’s been slowly degenerating over time. So those people need hard analysis to prove that they’re not being crazy even if they think the culture around them might be crazy.

I agree that “war” might have been a poor choice of words. Maybe you have a better idea what I’m looking for in this grouping. At this point I’m not interested in defending much of anything in the ideas I propose. It’s not really an argument as to what we should do. It’s more a question of wheather we can find a structure to help us decide.

I suppose it does shed light if I put a picture on my ideal utopia somehow. Learning from philosophy has made me inclined to not be so hasty in assuming what “everybody should do.” But putting a colourful dream helps us know we’re dealing with a real ends more than just generic stuff. Okay, granted. The rest of this post is to illustrate the kind of guy I am, the kind of place I want. The kind of “big picture” I believe. But I’ve learned willingness to change my mind. I warn readers, that I’m going to stray far off the topic of this thread in the rest of the post.

My views of the immediate future are pretty bleak, and my views of the long term are quite enjoyable (and quite strange).

Psychological and socio-political humanity struggles to govern itself in the advent of its incredible technology. On many accounts we fail miserably, and the bulk population of starving and impoverished today is just a precurser to the genocides and inhabitable wastelands of tomorrow. The gluttony and rampant crime in those more prosperous places are a hallmark that even under well-funded control, we are degenerating.

But light is at the end of the tunnel. All the doomsday theorists (particularly those with at least some scientiffic basis- let’s use “The 2030 spike” as an example) are working hard to scare us out of this position that we now seem quite entrenched in. But those theorists don’t usually include the fact that our dangerous technology also suggests that more than cockroaches can survive our failures.

Populating the solar system with intelligent life is well within our grasp. The shape of this life and the sacrifices to achieve it are not as important. It seems likely that if things just seem to get bad enough, we will become more serious about this option and will likely succeed.

My parents die, I die, my children die, generation by generation- or our whole race dies in a short period of time (or at least suffers a massive decline). Really, those scenarios are equally depressing and equally natural, aren’t they? Our ability to seed our surroundings for the future should outweigh our fear of the results from so much war. And really, this scenario I paint is out of a need to assume the worst (I feel much more unsafe trying to assume the best). And that means my bleak picture doesn’t actually lie in the greatest probability. Alternative fuels and a more socialist government -the growing strive for them- are not bunk.

Okay. So what should we do now?

We should generally remain quite frugal and productive. Keeping our homes secure (both in military and in the home itself) should be very fractional to the actual work we get done. I can empathize with the parent that sleeps with a gun under her pillow because she can’t bear the idea that an intruder could one day destroy her entire family. I can also empathize with the person that unlocks his door to prove that it’s liberating to express trust with others. Personally, I’m quite content with a padlock I can bolt on the door of anywhere I rent. I’m happy that the bank leaves me with a PIN. I don’t see much more measures needed for personal security.

My most difficult thing to pinpoint for the time (I admit it: It sort of inspired this thread) is that there’ve been people I knew that were living quite difficult lives. I allowed them a place to stay, and they took enormous advantage. How foolish was I to walk them in and hardly know them? Were I so terrible had I refused? This is a very common problem. And a lot of people in those situations, like me, are willing to take some sort of analysis to it. Is there a need for something that provides such an analysis?

What I’m looking for is a lot more broad than this little scenario. But I might barely ever flesh it out, and there’s probably already a lot of ground covered in it where I’m not looking.

When I put a lock on my door, I think of it as a kind of hostile action because I’m not simply deterring “mistakes.” I know that people will likely realize that they’re making some sort of ethical breach in entering, but out of self interest they enter anyway. I’m using personal goods to protect myself in a somewhat hostile way. I’m still being sensible.

If I sit down with someone to scratch out a “contract” we can agree to- I consider that really it might be more of a reminder note than it is legal binding. This is also a precaution to protect myself. But I don’t necessarily consider it hostile because the contract is helping us both simply clarify what the other wants. In this case, I’m also not really using physical goods to protect myself.

Is there so much purpose in it, and can a literal map be made of ideal actions one goes by to protect themselves?

Is there legitamete work that could be cited and presented to this lady you mentioned whom taught the infant first aid course- which would clearly show her that she’s making paranoid suggestions? Funny, the most obvious paranoia seems to be around germs. Don’t they realize that a simple sneeze can defeat all the sanitation work they did the entire week? I envy animals for finding the impracticality in all this and still seem much more resilient to parasites. While primitive, they seem much saner than us in that regard.

10

I’ll take it this is the question we should be focusing on.

It’s like I said before, we need to figure out whether the threat is real or not. If it’s not, no need to take any self-defensive measures. If it is real, we then need to figure out if we’re over-reacting to it or not. In my opinion, I think the germ-lady was definitely over-reacting. But here’s the catch: it’s just my opinion. I think she’s going overboard, she thinks there’s no such thing as being too cautious. If we’ve already established there is a threat, that’s all we can bring to the table from the “facts” department. All else after that is just quibbling over how much of a risk is worth taking, how much we should value the costs, how much self-induced distress is healthy considering the circumstances, etc. I mean, if I argued with the germ-lady along similar lines as what we’re saying in this thread, I can totally see her coming back at me with something like “So you don’t think you’re child is worth the effort?” to which I’d be overcome with guilt and shame.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m on board with you about the alarming levels of distrust people have for each other, and it is a crisis that I would equate with some kind of psychological dysfunction (paranoia, hyper-hostility, anti-social personalities, etc.). Something does need to be done about it. What I’m point out is some of the obstacles we’re going to face if we are to approach it with this perspective. It’s like taking a loved one to a psychiatrist without his/her consent or even acceptance that they have a problem.

So to answer the question “Are we over-reacting to the threat (assuming there is one)?” we need to decide what’s the healthiest perspective to take on it (what’s the most sane opinion), and then find a way to win people over to this view. This is the structure you were asking for, or at least the beginnings of an outline for one, that will help us decide.

I’m also going to assume that the purpose of calling certain acts “hostile”, such as putting locks on your door, is to indicate how such acts might be going into the “excessive” end of the spectrum. I imagine you’re thinking of the person putting these locks on their doors doing so in haste and apprehension, maybe even panicking. You’re using these words, I’m guessing, to indicate a state of alarm for which something needs to be done - NOT that the person doing these things is maliciously trying to cause harm to others like the homeless or the hungry.

I also imagine that you might have once thought this way - that is, before your bad experiences with letting people into your home, you might have thought there is no need to prevent people from entering one’s home, and anyone who puts dead-bolts on their doors or bars on their windows is really just being uncaring or even mean to those who might need to enter to get away from the cold or grab a bite to eat. After these incidents, you might have changed your mind somewhat and considered that taking these extra precautions might be necessary but now fueled by a sense of haste and apprehension (which is usually the case when instigated by bad experiences).

I’m really not sure if this is indeed how you think of it. I am much more sure, however, that if we poled society at large, we’d find a whole gamut of different perspectives on the issue. Some may be doing it out of aggressive and mean-spirited hostility, others out of hyper-anxiety and paranoia, still others may be doing it out of sheer level-headed, rational, stoic, common sense - that is, they do it just because that’s what you’re suppose to do - no need to get worked up over it.

11

Maybe I’m trying to grasp the distinction of necessary actions which only real experience can tell. Maybe it’s why all the information of the world cannot necessarily always substitute real experience.

I think we’ve taken the topic as far as it can really go in its context. I’ll await any other feedback.

12

Feel free to post your thoughts anytime. I hope what I said didn’t offend you or put you off. Sometimes I can be overly blunt in what I say without realizing it.

13

About this over-reacting business, I had a new insight today.

My wife, who’s a grade 2 teacher, came from work and had this story to tell me. They had some safety inspectors going to each class to make sure the rooms were safe according to their standards. After looking over her room, they told her what kinds of changes she needed to make. She now has to take 50% of her stuff home - stuff she usually keeps in her class room. She had some boxes on some of the higher bookshelves which they said was hazardous because it might fall and hurt the kids. She also had to keep the amount of posters, maps, papers, etc. under 40% of the total area covered because it’s a fire hazard. Plus they have to be separated by at least 3 feet so that if one catches on fire, the other ones have only a minor chance of catching too.

Well, that’s a perfect example of what we’ve been talking about, I thought. And I came up with a good theory about how rules like this get started - rules that somehow become despository by an authority figure (the safety people) who’s justified in tell us what we can and can’t do because the risks involved have been deemed dangerous enough to warrant it. I think rules like these - especially ones that get really specific - stem from an incident that happened a while ago for which the rule was imposed to prevent it from happening again. For example, at the school where my wife teaches, there might have been an incident where a box fell off a bookshelf and hit a child on the head. The parents might have complained about the class being unsafe, and not wanted to risk getting a bad reputation or incur lawsuits or whatever else might happen, the school, in collaboration with whatever safety board they correspond with, establishes a formal rule that’s designed to prevent these incidents from happening again. Once these rules are established, they are eventually followed for an entirely different reason than the original concern that parents, teachers, the principles, etc. may have had to begin with - they are eventually followed because it’s “just the rules”. That is, the community’s concern about the issue may wane or fade from their attention, they may even forget it ever happened, but the rule sticks, and it can stay indefinitely.

So that’s a little insight into how these precautionary measures get started. I don’t want to present this as fact per se, as I haven’t done a formal study, but it seems to make the most sense out of anything I can think of.

14

Nothing overly blunt at all, gib. As before, good insight.

I just now wrote a very large message and because of password complications it didn’t go through. I had no backup.

Sorry. I don’t think I’ll be posting more for a while.