Paranoia in terms of Maslow's Heirarchy of needs

[Kriminal99]

The second need in maslow's heirarchy is described as a need for security, most simply put perhaps as the need to know that you are not about to experience some kind of loss.

 

Suppose that random punishment conditions someone to believe that they could experience loss at any time for any action or inaction.

 

Therefore someone who experiences a large degree of random punishment will be constantly stuck trying to satisfy the need for security.

 

Personally I do not believe that experiencing it at an early age produces an irreversible effect. Rather I believe that once a person's is conditioned to be more aware of potential sources of loss they see them everywhere where others would just be oblivious. (Just because your paranoid doesn't mean everyoen isn't against you) You go to a party and meet someone who is amiable towards you. You leave thinking he is a nice guy and the party went well. On the other hand the paranoid person experiences the same scenario but (bob) senses a small degree of reservation in the other person during the conversation. After he overhears the person he met saying something negative in regards to him (bob) over all the other things that are going on in the party.

 

The paranoid person is simply more aware of his surroudings and of potential sources of loss.

[InfiniteNow]

The paranoid person is simply more aware of his surroudings and of potential sources of loss.

Not entirely. The "aware" person is more aware of their surroundings and of potential souces of loss. Paranoia tends to imply an unreasonablenss, and irrationality to the sense.

 

I imagine it's best described by an inverted U curve, this awareness would actually lead to a decrease in benefit if too much energy were paid. I'll throw something together in paint... hold on...

 

 

 

Here ya go: