When do you become Paranoid?

[Forsher]

Some of you might remember that small Australian privacy law change thread from a few days ago. It got most of the usual talking points such as "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and "just because you live in a liberal democracy that doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about tyranny". To that second talking point someone argued "Sure, it could happen, but it's unlikely" after having earlier called the concern "paranoid". This has been rattling around in my brain in a bit due to unrelated headlines this morning: how likely must something bad be before worrying about it becomes paranoid? That's our subject today. In the spoiler I lay out a way of thinking about this which you may or may not find interesting and/or useful.

Firstly, an illustrative example. Imagine you're a Clinton fan in 2016 America: your bad event is "Donald Trump" wins. Some modellers tell you that this probability is 30%. You can think of that probability in two ways. Firstly, it's basically a frequency. Imagine, for instance, that there are an infinite number of universes with the same election playing out. In 30% of these universes, Donald Trump wins. Secondly, it's a degree of belief. In other words you're about 30% sure Donald Trump will win.

I use this example because it's pretty notorious. In fact, the people who came up with the 70/30 probability decided that for a lot of people representing the chances as a percentage were part of the issue... I'd give you a link proving this but I can't find one (it may have been in a podcast). The point is that it was for this reason they had 7 in 8 vs 1 in 8 headlining their US "midterm" elections relative to their 2016 US election forecast's 71.4% vs 28.6%. On a similar note, consider this advice:

While 96 percent might not sound that different than 99.9 percent, consider the numbers in terms of odds: It’s the difference between a 1-in-25 chance of a Patriots’ [an American Football franchise] comeback [in an end of season final] and a 1-in-1,000 chance. (I’d recommend this “trick” as a sanity check whenever you encounter a probabilistic forecast — restate the probability in terms of odds. That usually makes it much clearer how far out you’ve ventured onto the edge of the probability distribution.)

So, odds... I hate odds and in practice they get even more confusing because it's always log odds but I digress... odds are:

(Probability of A) / (Probability of Not A)
.96 / (1 - .96) = 0.96 / 0.04 = 24:1 or 1 in 25 or 24 times as likely as not
.999 / .001 = 999:1

Odds aren't probabilities but an alternative representation of the same concept that you may find easier to understand or may not (as is my case but even I find that sports example above quite illustrative).

The penultimate complication is what we're talking about. When we're talking frequencies, in the case of bad events being election outcomes or major earthquakes I guess that informal multiverse thing makes sense because they're broadly infrequent. But what about car accidents? Wouldn't it be more useful to believe that 50% of the times you get in the car you're risking your own life and the other 50% someone else's? (The number's actually 100% both ways.) And wouldn't a more useful measure be the chance/probability of a injury crash per drive? A quick search gave me some odds for fatal crashes in the States... 8103 for a year (i.e. about a 99.99% chance you won't be involved in one) and 102 for your lifetime (i.e. about a 99.03% chance). So take what you will from that.

The final complication, of course, is the expected value of the bad event. So, for instance, imagine there's a 1% chance your house will burn down in the current insurance year and that this will wipe $100,000 off your wealth because house price bubbles not because you're rich. The expected value of this year's house burning down lottery is .01 * 100,000 + .99 * 0 (i.e. no wealth loss from a burnt down house) = $10,000. Now if we make some assumptions about how you view risk (do you like it, hate it or don't care?) we can therefore determine whether or not it'd be rational ("non paranoid" in this thread's terms) for you to buy a given insurance policy since the insurance policy's costs also affect your wealth states. Some of these numbers may be a bit squiffy/the wrong way round since I didn't bother checking this (since I put it in a spoiler) but the concepts are all correct.

When you put all that together (hence why it's in a spoiler since it boils down to a sentence) what you get is this: it's rational to be afraid of some bad event depending on how likely it is and the size of its badness.

The problem with this as a general statement is that various bad things all have different values for one person and there are a whole bunch of different people out there (does that make this an example of discrete choice modelling??? anyone know?). Similarly, people all have different views of risk and, frankly, I'm not sure people have the same risk profiles in all cases.

So if you stuck a gun to my head and forced me to choose a number... if it's a risk of less than 0.5% (aka 1 in 200 or 199 more likely to not happen) that bad thing is likely paranoia if you're worried about it. What say you? For instance, I am completely unconcerned about anyone sticking a gun to my head (whether to make me state a single number or for some other reason). If popular demand wishes I can try a vague poll.

[The Civitas Islands]

When I used to smoke weed, I used to get paranoid sometimes.

Weed does that.

Disclaimer: Weed is great, just because I quit doesn't mean you should. There are many benefits to smoking marijuana, both medical and otherwise.

Second Disclaimer: I live in Colorado, its legal here, so don't give me any grief.

[Nova Colombian Confederation]

I will add that experience is an influence. For example, during my life i got mugged two times and crime is nasty on my country (knowledge is also a reason), and now at the chance i take a decent stick when at walking around my city, it's probably not enough against whatever some parasite has, but i know that i should take a opportunity to at least look less easy to mug.

[Risottia]

You're mistaking anxiety for paranoia.
Anxiety is the fear of a possible yet still unknown threat.
Paranoia is being sure (without having need for factual proof) that someone (possibly, many people) is actually out to get you.

And remember, just because you're being paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't actually out to get you.

[Costa Fierro]

When you put all that together (hence why it's in a spoiler since it boils down to a sentence) what you get is this: it's rational to be afraid of some bad event depending on how likely it is and the size of its badness.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Olthar]

Whenever I have an appointment at a specific time (even if it's just going to work), I get paranoid about arriving late and overcompensate by leaving early.

[Forsher]

You're mistaking anxiety for paranoia.
Anxiety is the fear of a possible yet still unknown threat.
Paranoia is being sure (without having need for factual proof) that someone (possibly, many people) is actually out to get you.

And remember, just because you're being paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't actually out to get you.

If anxiety is worrying about unknown threats you are wrong. By definition being concerned about a bad thing means you know it exists and what it is.

For example:

Whenever I have an appointment at a specific time (even if it's just going to work), I get paranoid about arriving late and overcompensate by leaving early.

Which isn't exactly the kind of answer I wanted but since I wanted people to post numbers and then wrote an OP explaining why posting numbers is stupid, I will claim it as a victory. Also, I try to do the same thing as Olthar. Doesn't always work out since since I don't always succeed... but the idea is sound.

[Prolific Sherpaposting]

It’s hard to worry about bad things, like murder, injury or prison when much worse things like slavery through income tax, the welfare state and collectivism exists before you are born and are part of the world already.

You can learn to defend yourself, be healthy and situationally aware and avoid false claims of crime. But you can’t convince people who benefit from violating your rights to stop peacefully.

So basically the shit got neck deep before you started why would you worry about someone pissing on your shoes.

[Hanataya]

To be honest, I never face true paranoia, only fear. But I do that a governement shouldn't be soying on its citizens.

[Phoenicaea]

you may become 'paranoid' after you survive a toghether hostile and decisive event, or after perceived to be submitted to such events.

this leads to the following. the summoned (being paranoid) as a typical feature of both biological and political species that have carried over, in a menaceful environment.

if i think at this, this could be the cause of a political relation about republics, much diluted and indeed collapsing after some decades of opulent and daily working living.

in events of this case, at peaceful and daily working political age, the 'paranoid' and other features not being a bonus, so people carrying them are ousted. this flaws public health.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Worrying about the government spying on you isn't paranoia. It's a well thought out and logical possibility which deserves a moment of concern.

Masking your IP, removing all microphones, covering all cameras, only going on websites whose server hosts are in Switzerland, using a prepaid cellphone for tethered internet with your throw away computer which you switch out monthly, and insisting family members are "compromised" is paranoia.

In my opinions paranoia is defined by an over reaction to percieved threats. Not merely a reaction. Yes this is a vague definition.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

>.>
<.<

[The Huskar Social Union]

Im not paranoid, who told you to say that?

[Forsher]

It's a well thought out and logical possibility which deserves a moment of concern.

The question before us is not the possibility but the probability. Stick a number or a range of numbers on it, e.g. "on any arbitrary day I'm probably about 70% sure there's a realistic chance of being spied on by the government, sometimes less and sometimes more but more often more than less, e.g. something looks sorta like this."

If the credibility of the statement (or one like it) is sufficiently low, claims the OP, that there is "a well thought out and logical possibility" is evidence of paranoia. The question is what does "sufficiently low" mean?

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Why do you ask?

What are you planning?

WHO SENT YOU?!

[Dumb Ideologies]

I'm not paranoid, I just come with the enhanced early-warning threat-detection pack as standard.

[New Totzka]

You trying to collect information on me or something?

[Phoenicaea]

It's a well thought out and logical possibility which deserves a moment of concern.

The question before us is not the possibility but the probability. Stick a number or a range of numbers on it, e.g. "on any arbitrary day I'm probably about 70%..

"a well thought out and logical possibility" is evidence of paranoia. The question is what does "sufficiently low" mean?

i would say by feet, 36%. it is 40%, few lower to include 'black swan' cases, and this value is about the part, in a simplest Gauss, function which is outside the 1 'sigma' median interval.

so, the good value it is this, that nowadays media society sees it as 'clearly paranoid'. it is fair, since the outdoor society should teach at not caring at their menace, so a evidence.

this 36% is the shoreline value, above which you should be always quietly fearing (paranoid) the thing that hypothethically happens.

a sample. Lauda and Senna (if you see Formula 1) stated this as their line in their cases, which is the accident hypothesis based on car, weather, for running, against holding the car.

[The Transhuman Union]

When I get the Paranoid trait.

[Ifreann]

When your stress hits 100.

[Thermodolia]

I'm not paranoid, I just come with the enhanced early-warning threat-detection pack as standard.

*taps shoulder*

Some early warning system

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm suspicious of everything and everyone by default.

Fucking spooks everywhere.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

When I used to smoke weed, I used to get paranoid sometimes.

Weed does that.

Disclaimer: Weed is great, just because I quit doesn't mean you should. There are many benefits to smoking marijuana, both medical and otherwise.

Second Disclaimer: I live in Colorado, its legal here, so don't give me any grief.

Recreational drugs are quite clearly bad for you and there are no non medical benefits.

[Washington Resistance Army]

When I used to smoke weed, I used to get paranoid sometimes.

Weed does that.

Disclaimer: Weed is great, just because I quit doesn't mean you should. There are many benefits to smoking marijuana, both medical and otherwise.

Second Disclaimer: I live in Colorado, its legal here, so don't give me any grief.

Recreational drugs are quite clearly bad for you and there are no non medical benefits.

For marijuana there are a number of very clearly documented medical benefits. While yeah I'm not really a fan of just recreational usage it's absurd to claim there's no medical use.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

Recreational drugs are quite clearly bad for you and there are no non medical benefits.

For marijuana there are a number of very clearly documented medical benefits. While yeah I'm not really a fan of just recreational usage it's absurd to claim there's no medical use.

I never said there’s no medical use, but other than that it’s only bad for you. The medical and recreational stuff is different.