From http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/02/different-worlds/, this interesting observation:
Paranoia is a common symptom of various psychiatric disorders – most famously schizophrenia, but also paranoid personality disorder, delusional disorder, sometimes bipolar disorder. You can also get it from abusing certain drugs – marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and even prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin. The fun thing about paranoia is how gradual it is. Sure, if you abuse every single drug at once you'll think the CIA is after you with their mind-lasers. But if you just take a little more Adderall than you were supposed to, you'll be 1% paranoid. You'll have a very mild tendency to interpret ambiguous social signals just a little bit more negatively than usual. If a friend leaves without saying goodbye, and you would normally think "Oh, I guess she had a train to catch", instead you think "Hm, I wonder what she meant by that". There are a bunch of good stimulant abuse cases in the literature that present as "patient's boss said she was unusually standoffish and wanted her to get psychiatric evaluation", show up in the office as "well of course I'm standoffish, everyone in my office excludes me from everything and is rude in a thousand little ways throughout the day", and end up as "cut your Adderall dosage in half, please".
Hmmm. This raises a few questions in my mind:
(1) Would it be possible to deliberately induce paranoia in one's self through pure psychology, by looking extra-hard for ambiguities that can be interpreted as negative social cues?
(2) Would it be possible to do the opposite, and deliberately not notice possible negative cues if they are ambiguous?
(3) What would be the pros and cons of each approach, and what would be the likely long-term outcomes?
Prima facie it seems reasonable to believe that anti-paranoia (i.e. optimism) would lead to other people having more positive experiences with you, because people like being liked, so in a sense it would probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It might also lead to you getting more easily exploited by those who genuinely have bad intentions: con men, narcissists, and the like.
In the short term, interpreting ambiguity in a neutral or positive sense ("I guess she had a train to catch") could lead you to overlook some negative social signals and cause some awkwardness (which you might or might not notice). But if the signal is persistent (e.g. if you have terrible body odor and people avoid you) sooner or later someone will signal you in a way that you will notice. As long as you don't retroactively internalize the prior ambiguities--as long as you respond only to the signal that you actually get--there shouldn't be much harm done, to you or to them. And you'll avoid the psychic stress and relationship harm that comes from imputing negative social cues where none were intended.
I'm reminded that "happiness is a dominant strategy" and it seems likely that a mild degree of anti-paranoia is probably a healthy strategy too, for yourself and other people. I wonder if that's why Down's Syndrome kids have a reputation for making their families happy? Anecdotally I observe that they seem largely immune to negative social cues, nor do they give off any negative social cues.
I wonder if I can induce temporary, mild anti-paranoia in myself as an experiment. Or, if I already have it, if I can induce some more.
-Max
P.S. Would it be beneficial to reify an anti-paranoid attitude as a social contract? "If you have something negative to say to me you'd better say it loud and clear or I won't notice." It's worth considering the likely consequences.
--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
Paranoia is a common symptom of various psychiatric disorders – most famously schizophrenia, but also paranoid personality disorder, delusional disorder, sometimes bipolar disorder. You can also get it from abusing certain drugs – marijuana, LSD, cocaine, and even prescription drugs like Adderall and Ritalin. The fun thing about paranoia is how gradual it is. Sure, if you abuse every single drug at once you'll think the CIA is after you with their mind-lasers. But if you just take a little more Adderall than you were supposed to, you'll be 1% paranoid. You'll have a very mild tendency to interpret ambiguous social signals just a little bit more negatively than usual. If a friend leaves without saying goodbye, and you would normally think "Oh, I guess she had a train to catch", instead you think "Hm, I wonder what she meant by that". There are a bunch of good stimulant abuse cases in the literature that present as "patient's boss said she was unusually standoffish and wanted her to get psychiatric evaluation", show up in the office as "well of course I'm standoffish, everyone in my office excludes me from everything and is rude in a thousand little ways throughout the day", and end up as "cut your Adderall dosage in half, please".
Hmmm. This raises a few questions in my mind:
(1) Would it be possible to deliberately induce paranoia in one's self through pure psychology, by looking extra-hard for ambiguities that can be interpreted as negative social cues?
(2) Would it be possible to do the opposite, and deliberately not notice possible negative cues if they are ambiguous?
(3) What would be the pros and cons of each approach, and what would be the likely long-term outcomes?
Prima facie it seems reasonable to believe that anti-paranoia (i.e. optimism) would lead to other people having more positive experiences with you, because people like being liked, so in a sense it would probably be a self-fulfilling prophecy. It might also lead to you getting more easily exploited by those who genuinely have bad intentions: con men, narcissists, and the like.
In the short term, interpreting ambiguity in a neutral or positive sense ("I guess she had a train to catch") could lead you to overlook some negative social signals and cause some awkwardness (which you might or might not notice). But if the signal is persistent (e.g. if you have terrible body odor and people avoid you) sooner or later someone will signal you in a way that you will notice. As long as you don't retroactively internalize the prior ambiguities--as long as you respond only to the signal that you actually get--there shouldn't be much harm done, to you or to them. And you'll avoid the psychic stress and relationship harm that comes from imputing negative social cues where none were intended.
I'm reminded that "happiness is a dominant strategy" and it seems likely that a mild degree of anti-paranoia is probably a healthy strategy too, for yourself and other people. I wonder if that's why Down's Syndrome kids have a reputation for making their families happy? Anecdotally I observe that they seem largely immune to negative social cues, nor do they give off any negative social cues.
I wonder if I can induce temporary, mild anti-paranoia in myself as an experiment. Or, if I already have it, if I can induce some more.
-Max
P.S. Would it be beneficial to reify an anti-paranoid attitude as a social contract? "If you have something negative to say to me you'd better say it loud and clear or I won't notice." It's worth considering the likely consequences.
--
If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.
"Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else."
