Reasonable suspicion versus delusional paranoia

Shaun, you have five posts here on the same subject. You would get more meaningful replies if we knew exactly what's bothering you.

I prefer Charles Manson's definition. "I'm not paranoid. I have a hightend sense of awareness"

shaun555 wrote:...the definition of paranoia is... fear based on false belief....

....reasonable suspicion is....reasonable facts and circumstances.

You have your answer. The two definitions are not at all similar. A false belief is not comparable to a reasonable fact.

You are drawing a false dichotomy when you try to compare the two.

Paranoia is believing that the next door neighbors cat is poisoning the food. A wife poisoning a husband is a reasonable path to explore.

Police would not question the neighbor’s cat. They would however question the wife.

shaun555 wrote:Hello,

often the definition of paranoia is given as threat of a specific fear based on false belief. In comparison a reasonable suspicion is also not based on concrete evidence, but is considered to be on the basis if reasonable facts and circumstances.
Reasonable suspicion is often on the basis of which police can question a suspect but not arrest.
Hence it appears medically paranoia is very much open to interpretation . I am referring to circumstances wherein there is no hallucination or any bizarre actions involved.

For example if a rich husband suddenly finds out on conducting an job drug test that he is positive for certain drug. Would he be considered paranoid to think that the needle of suspicion goes on his spouse (who also cooks for him), or would that be considered reasonable suspicion. Possibly a motive may be to control the rich husband.

Would be helpful to know others views regarding this

I used to be paranoid. Not bad enough to be referred to a psychiatrist or anything, but I was paranoid - although at the time I never knew it. I think my father was a bit paranoid too. Perhaps I learned it off him.

So, what does it feel like to be paranoid? I never had any hallucinations or anything like that. At my level it meant that I never trusted anyone and was suspicious of everyone. You suspect people of having ulterior motives for whatever they do or say etc, etc. but not consciously. It is, as it were, just a way of life. But I do not think that paranoia is so very uncommon. I can think of people who I have met for the first time who give one a suspicious, sideways look. It is not until they get to know one better that they loose that look of suspicion and become friendly and more open.

I know that I have lost my paranoia because I now recognise it in other people. I used to read Denis Wheatley's occult books when I was an older teenager. I loved them. I read one of those books not that long ago and boy did I recognise the paranoia in them. Presumably Wheatley was paranoid, even if he didn't know it. James Clavell's novel Shogun shows most of his characters behaving as if they are paranoid. They always suspect others motives and ask themselves what is so-and-so's angle, what do they want.


I think the example you give about the rich husband is complex. It is difficult to comment on because it is hypothetical I.e. one does not personally know the people involved. If one knew the history of the marriage relationship then one might be in a better situation to make an assessment. But it is still perfectly likely, I think, that the husband could be paranoid. Even if he was not paranoid, it wouldn't mean that his wife was not still wanting to manipulate him.

As to a "specific fear based on a false belief", well, the following quip is often made about paranoia: just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that people aren't out to get you. I guess the "false belief" might be that "everyone is out to get you", whereas generally some people are trustworthy and some are not.

Hi in relation to the following comment
"I think the example you give about the rich husband is complex. It is difficult to comment on because it is hypothetical I.e. one does not personally know the people involved. If one knew the history of the marriage relationship then one might be in a better situation to make an assessment. But it is still perfectly likely, I think, that the husband could be paranoid. Even if he was not paranoid, it wouldn't mean that his wife was not still wanting to manipulate him."

I am using this example to judge people's perception of paranoia. Even a psychiatrists has to judge based on perception as there is no brain scan to test paranoia. There have been many cases where close family members have tried to manipulate each other . For example using a sedative inorder to sexually exploit someone is also common.
The question is , if there is 100% proof of an unethical act then it is no longer in the category of suspicion, it is a fact.
However when proof is insufficient then the suspicion could be categorised as reasonable suspicion or paranoia (unreasonable suspicion) based on the cause given by the victim and also the perception of the audience.
In this example if a drug test results show existence of a drug intake then in my eyes there is reason for concern, especially if there is no other family member present and the drug test is reliable.
However there may be others who may not be that convinced and hence I think that diagnosing paranoia is not easy.

shaun555 wrote:However there may be others who may not be that convinced and hence I think that diagnosing paranoia is not easy.

This is a world in which there are national agencies which spy on other nations e.g. MI6, CIA. In addition, everyday law-abiding citizens are spied on to an extraordinary degree e.g. your computer gathers data about you, CCTV cameras watch i.e. spy, on people, "smart" technology is used to "gather data" i.e. to spy, on people. There is a myriad of surveillance techniques employed for spying on everyday people. This demonstrates clearly that this is a society of paranoids.

Another cause of paranoia is fear. Fear is used to control people. The police use suspicion to create fear. I am never comfortable around the police. They frighten me. They treat me, an ordinary, law-abiding citizen, with suspicion. Being under constant suspicion of wrongdoing creates a society of paranoids.

Therefore it is not necessary to get the assessment of a psychiatrist to decide if people are paranoid or not. It's as plain as the nose on your face that people, probably most if not all, people are paranoid. in this society. No one trusts anyone.