Author Archives: Majken Hirche

Why Trump Might Win

Video here.

As of August 2016, not many people believe that Trump will win. Since spring, Clinton has been significantly ahead in the polls. Present odds with bookmaker sites and political prediction sites place Clinton’s chances of winning in November around 66% and Trump’s around 33%.

However, basing one’s political forecasts on the polls tends to come with a lot of pitfalls. They don’t really tell you this in the media, but opinion polls tend to be pretty unreliable. And there is evidence to suggest that they’ve been getting more and more unreliable in recent years.

To give but a few examples, in August of 1988, Michael Dukakis was ahead in the polls by 17 percentage points. However, the winner of that race wasn’t Mike Dukakis, it was George Herbert Walker Bush. In August 2012, Romney had a lead over Obama as well.

So let’s look at some other measures. One is simply to count the number of primaries one. Electoral history suggests that the candidate who does best in the primaries will also win the general election. Trump did better in the primaries than Clinton.

Another way to approach the matter is through public choice research. Public choice predicts that after two terms or more, the voters will start craving change and be more inclined to vote for the other party. This phenomenon is referred to as “the cost of ruling,” and empirical studies, by the professor of economics Martin Paldam among others, have shown that the average cost of ruling amounts to a loss of 2,25 percentage points of popularity over the course of a term. Clinton will thus have a five percentage point popularity penalty come November.

Finally, a model that has received a lot of attention recently, and which factors in the cost of ruling as well, is the Primary Model, as proposed by professor Helmut Norpoth. This model has a better track record than most other models in political science, and predicts that there is a 87% chance that Trump will become the next president.

So all in all, there is serious cause for doubting the media’s narrative and to take seriously the possibility that Trump might win in November.

The Contradiction in Modern Feminism

Watch as video here.

On New Year’s Eve of 2015/2016, mass sexual assaults took place against women in several cities across Germany. Most famous is the incident in Cologne, where 2000 men of Middle-eastern and North African descent sexually assaulted 1200 German women.

Coordinated mass sexual assaults by men against women should be a feminist cause if there ever was one. Yet to the surprise of most Europeans, many familiar feminist bloggers, pundits and writers across northern Europe did not come out to denounce the attacks. Instead, many talked about how these mass sexual assaults were no different from what white European men do to women every weekend at clubs, how there is rape in every culture so it would be irresponsible to just single out these Middle Eastern perpetrators, and so on.

How could we have come to a point where leading European feminists cannot bring themselves to speak out against mass coordinated sexual assaults against women? The answer has to do with what we call the contraction in modern feminism.

Feminism was originally a movement rooted in the broader values of the age of enlightenment. The foundation of classical feminism was the belief that all citizens should be treated equally by the state and be able to lay claim to the same rights, privileges and responsibilities, regardless of gender. At the time when feminism was conceived, the application of this principle meant expanding women’s rights to be on par with men’s.

The values of the enlightenment were universalist and went both ways: If men had somehow been the ones to be short-changed by society, then the same principle could have been applied to further men’s causes. Enlightenment feminism wasn’t about being a man or being a woman. It was about being equals as human beings. Enlightenment values were also individualist. If certain traditions, cultures, and religions mandated that men or women be treated differently, then these collectivist social structures had to be combated, since the individual’s free choice was unequivocally more important.

However, in recent years, feminism has also absorbed ideas from movements very different from the enlightenment. Some of the names used to describe this type of feminism 3rd and 4th wave feminism, intersectional feminism, and so on.

Where enlightenment feminism had been universalist and individualistic, many modern feminists regard the whole tradition of the enlightenment as suspicious, exclusively Western, and perhaps even imperialistic. If other cultures have different gender roles, then who are we to say they’re wrong?

In other words, the philosophy inherent in much of modern feminism has more to do with the philosophical responses and counter movements to the enlightenment, than they have to do with the enlightenment. Specifically, much of it is indebted to the philosophy of the romantic era, where it was thought that the individual’s values could not be formularized as a list of abstract rights and ideals, but were deeply rooted in culture, community, and personal identity.

In other words, where the enlightenment was universalist, rational, and impersonal, the philosophy of the romantic era was particularistic, experiential and personal. They are and were two completely different ways of viewing the world.

So where Western feminists used to be unequivocally opposed to traditions, cultures, and religions that stood in the way of their enlightenment values, the picture is now less clear cut. It is not that modern feminists don’t care about the plight of women outside of their own culture and ethnicity, as right-wingers often like to accuse them of being. Rather, it is that modern feminists tend to see the traditions, mores, and religious of individuals belonging to other cultures as vulnerable components of their identity. If these were steamrolled by Western pundits, this might result in an empowered majority culture subjugating a vulnerable minority. In the eyes of many modern feminists, lecturing people of other cultures about what values they should have can very easily border on cultural imperialism and be disempowering to minorities.

This is where the confusion comes in: Prosaically speaking, worrying about steamrolling minority cultures has very little to do with women’s rights and very much to do with an overall agenda of fighting racism, where modern feminists see themselves as the defenders of vulnerable minorities.

This is why leading feminist pundits all over northern Europe were left speechless when 2000 Middle Eastern and North Africa men stage a massed sexual assault on 1200 European women.  Obviously these men were trampling the rights of women underfoot. But they were also part of what many modern feminists perceived as a vulnerable minority culture. They wouldn’t risk being the enablers of cultural imperialism.

In this way we can see how modern feminism is trapped in a contradiction between two philosophical traditions that simply cannot be synthetized. The enlightenment one, that cares about equal rights and is rational, individualistic and universalist. And the romantic one, which places more stress on the personal, the particular, and on protecting minorities from cultural hegemony and imperialism. And this is what we call The Contradiction in Modern Feminism.

The Political Psychology of Donald Trump

Donald Trump is one of the most divisive and controversial candidates in contemporary American politics. Seen as a courageous straight talker by some and a boorish loudmouth by others, Trump has certainly instigated a number of challenges to the traditional political order.

Two characterizations concerning Trump seem to dominate the public discourse: One is that Trump’s speech patterns and judgments seem incoherent and shifting, and that he therefore must really have no political philosophy at all. The other is that Trump is a fascist and dictatorial demagogue; an ugly apparition of the 1930s rearing its head again. I think both of these characterizations are misguided and that they prevent us from getting a clearer picture of what Trump is all about.

There are two prongs here: One is the psychological properties of Trump’s cognition and personality, and the other is a matter of historical analogy.

If we start with the historical analogy, Trump is not a fascist. The precise political analogy is that he is a European style right-wing populist, akin to the United Kingdom Independence Party, the Front Nationale, Alternative für Deutschland, and so on. These parties are sometimes referred to as “far right” parties, but they are really only far-right on immigration: In matters of economic policy, they are frequently left of more traditional right-wing parties. With regards to Trump, apart from protectionism in matters of trade, we don’t yet know much about the economic policies he will favor, but one study concerning the political preferences of Trump supporters found that they supported economic policies that were significantly to the left of all other GOP candidates in the 2016 primaries. Thus with his extreme scepticism of immigration and his centrist economic policies it makes more sense to see Trump as an American version of a European right-wing populist, and not a fascist. Trump’s opponents make the legitimate point that he really doesn’t seem to care too much about rule of law, the division of powers, and the principles of the constitution. But to be fair, many left-wing candidates have also instigated unconstitutional policies, which have been upheld by judges through judicial activism and judicial review, without them getting accused of being fascists. If Trump is a fascist, then so, presumably, are they. It doesn’t hold up.

Then there is the psychological question of Trump’s personality and cognition. Trump is strikingly incoherent in his speech patterns and very often changes his opinions. For this reason, his opponents often claim that Trump doesn’t have a political philosophy at all. But to understand Donald Trump from a psychological perspective, we must distinguish between political stances and a person’s approach to politics in general.

Trump’s approach to politics can best be described as transactional and realistic. By transactional, I mean that Trump applies the logic of business to the domain of politics. While the two overlap, each discipline also has areas where their traditional reasoning styles are distinct. Now, Trump often explains this inclination by reference to the fact that he is a businessman. But that can’t be the whole story. Mitt Romney was also a businessman (and by most accounts, a far more successful one than Trump). But while Romney also applied his business acumen to solve certain political challenges, such as cost-cutting at home, he nevertheless conceded that in matters of global stability and foreign policy, a more traditional style of political reasoning would be more suitable.

Trump doesn’t agree with that – he proposes to apply the transactional logic of business to politics across the board. His own explanation – that he is a businessman – is not sufficient to explain this preference. Part of the explanation must also be found in his personality, which is that of a supreme realist. Extreme realism and the transactional outlook define lion’s share of Trump’s approach to politics. He asks: “What will the bottom-line be, and if I’m going to help you, what have you done for me lately?”

For example, the European countries have been free-riding off the defence spending of the United States for decades. Since they are allied with the US through NATO, they bank on the United States’ military being so strong that they don’t need to uphold a military that can defend their own countries. The European countries know that the United States has not been willing to leave them to their fates, since the US has an interest in keeping their part of the world stable, pro-Western and safe. But why should the United States strive to keep Europe safe? It all has to do with amorphous, long-term interests, such as containing Russia and fostering an international community that believes in liberal democracy and Western values. Thus, no American president has dared to scale back America’s engagement in Europe, even though they all know full well that the Europeans are free riding on America’s defence. But such abstract, long-term interests that have no immediate payoff now, are precisely the types of priorities that get relegated to the back seat of consciousness by Trump’s transactional and immediacy-oriented cognition. If the question is “what have you done for me lately,” the European countries have been lying on the couch, munching Doritos and watching reruns of bad sitcoms, while the United States has been busting itself working two jobs to keep both their continents safe.

In an unprecedented move among US presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump has said that under his leadership, America would not necessarily come to the aid of a NATO ally under attack. Trump says that to determine that question, he would first consider how much the ally in question has contributed to the alliance. His precise words were that he would come to the aid of an ally only “if they fulfil their obligations to us.” The transactional disposition is evident here. “We’ll only scratch your back if you scratch ours.” This is the logic of business, and not of grand scale geopolitics where superpowers may often end up with freeriding client states. Now, we’re not saying that Trump is wrong to employ this logic – that’s for you to decide. But it’s definitely wrong when people say that Trump doesn’t have an approach to politics. He’s transactional and looks to immediate reality which he perceives viscerally and without the filter of traditional morality.

The realism and transactional disposition can’t really be separated. They must be seen in conjunction if we are to understand Trump’s psyche. Nonetheless, the realism can be seen especially clearly when Trump is talking about immigration. Now most people in their morality distinguish between the world as it is and the world as it should be. But to Trump, these two are intertwined. His cognition is so reality-focused that it is reality itself that determines the morality of a given behavior. Thus, concerning the wave of terror attacks in Europe, Trump has said:

“We have problems in Germany, and we have problems in France … They have been compromised by terrorism. … They have totally been. … And you know why? It’s their own fault. Because they allowed people to come into their territory.”

In other words, he is placing the blame, not on the terrorists, but on what the most likely outcome will be from of a given type of behavior. The outcome of an action and the morality of it are inseparably bundled up together in his cognition. It’s like a certain pick up artist who once said:

“If a woman got raped, that is a sad thing. It’s a bad thing. But whose fault is it? Is it the woman’s fault? No, I’m not saying that. … But a woman can do things to reduce the likelihood that she will get hurt. If I get a BMW car right now and I leave the key inside and park it in a bad area and it gets robbed, whose fault is that? Is it the thief’s fault, or is it my fault for being a moron?”

One should not succumb here to the fallacy of thinking that just because the blame may logically belong on the shoulders of the one party or the other, then that is also how things must be psychologically in the minds of actual people. Especially not when dealing with supremely reality-oriented people like Donald Trump. The point is that in his cognition, he is not inclined to look to some imagined pie in the sky for how to relate to the world. The moral status of an action is to a large extent determined by how the world is, free of references to principles and abstractions.

This type of reasoning was also on display when Trump said John McCain was not a war hero because he was captured. Now, this is perhaps not the finest instance of Trump’s reasoning, but I select it because it shows how Trump’s cognitive style prioritizes objective reality over all other competing considerations. If the guy is such a war hero, then why did he allow himself to be captured?

Just like with his position on NATO, where the immediately evident free-riding of European states takes precedent over more long-term and amorphous considerations about maintaining an American world order, the immediate physical fact of McCain being captured trumps more abstract concerns about whether people would even sign up to defend their country in the future if that is the way U.S. presidents are going to be talking about the country’s POWs.

A third example of this supremely reality-oriented cognition can be found in one of Trump’s more recent statements about the Constitution. Faced with the rejoinder that his proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States might be unconstitutional, Trump responded:

“Our Constitution is great. But it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide.”

Om skatter og civilisation

Af Ryan Smith

“I like taxes. With them I buy civilization,” eller den historisk præcise variant “taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” er et svar man ofte hører på denne eller hin skattekritik. Ofte slynges citatet ud som en overraskende kobling, der skulle tage de skattekritiske røster på sengen. Antageligvis mener man, at folk, der synes, at skatten er for høj, aldrig har tænkt over sammenhængen mellem skat og samfund. Men selvfølgelig har skattekritiske tænkere skrevet essays og bøger om netop denne sammenhæng, årtier før Oliver Wendell Holmes fandt på det pågældende bon mot. Bastiats essay om That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen (1850) er nok det mest berømte i denne genre. Til sammenligning er Wendell Holmes’ lille vending fra 1927.

Den lille vending er også problematisk af en anden årsag, som vi her kunne kalde “civilisationens Laffer-kurve”: Ganske vist får man civilisation af skatter, men får man altid mere civilisation af højere skatter? I så fald ville det mest civiliserede samfund jo have et skattetryk på 100%. Det er der næppe mange af de velfærdsstatstilhængere, der påkalder sig Wendell Holmes, der mener.

Hvis vi er enige om, at det optimale skattetryk ikke er 100%, hvad er det så? Wendell Holmes’ ord faldt på et tidspunkt hvor det samlede amerikanske skattetryk var 7,6%. I moderne kontekst nævnes en flad skat på 20% af og til som det mindst forvridende skattelejde. Det kunne man nok godt få de fleste af de skattekritikere, der ellers får slynget Wendell Holmes i hovedet, med på. Sjovt nok er det dog aldrig hverken 7,6% eller 20%, der sigtes til, når velfærdsstatstilhængere i moderne tid påkalder sig Wendell Holmes. Ja, oftest ligger raten mistænkeligt tæt på det nuværende skattetryk i deres eget hjemland.

Endelig er der spørgsmålet om, hvad der kvalificerer som civilisation. Mises skulle angiveligt have sagt, at minimalstaten ud over domstole og militær også havde en forpligtigelse til at opretholde en statsopera. Så lad os bare sige, at Det Kgl. Teater er civilisation. Men er Kvinfo, X-Factor, lysende bænke, cyklende julemænd og støtte til rabiate imam’er? Wendell Holmes’ udsagn er tilstrækkeligt vagt til, at alt og intet kan være civilisation. Det er en truisme uden kvalifikationer, uden empirisk indhold, uden falsifikationskriterier. Det er den bedsteborgerliges refræn, der kan anvendes i enhver kontekst, hvor skattekritikere og minimalstatstilhængeres argumentation ellers synes for overvældende.

Roger Scruton i den danske idedebat

RESUMÉ
Den britiske filosof Roger Scruton (1944 – ) fremhæves ofte som konservatismens mest indflydelsesrige nulevende filosof. Som forfatter til mere end 40 bøger, der behandler alt fra arkitektur og æstetik til seksualitet, græsk-romersk historie og britisk retspraksis kan Scruton lægge navn til  et vidtrækkende og komplekst livsværk, hvis facetter alle danner baggrund for hans politiske konservatisme. Scruton er imidlertid ingen doktrinær konservativ, men slår ofte til lyd for en forbrødring mellem konservative og klassisk liberale (mens han dog forsager de rene liberale, da de efter hans mening ikke har tilstrækkelig respekt for traditionelle værdier og den historiske proces).

Dette notat præsenterer en samling kortere essays fra borgerlige meningsdannere i Danmark, der hver skriver om Scruton på baggrund af deres personlige position i idedebatten herhjemme: Professor Nicolai J. Foss fra Copenhagen Business School vil nærme sig Scruton fra et klassisk liberalt perspektiv, der indeholder både liberale og konservative elementer. Teolog og formand for Trykkefrihedsselskabet Katrine Winkel Holm blev bedt om at vurdere Scrutons tænkning set med dansk-konservative øjne. Endelig tilfalder det antropolog og forfatter Dennis Nørmark at imødegå nogle af de Scruton’ske kritikker af den værdipolitiske liberalisme i sin rene form.

Samtlige skribenter finder tankegods hos Scruton, de er enige i, men også punkter, der mødes med reservationer og ægger til yderligere debat.

Scruton Notat Final

AVOIDANT PERSONALITY

People with the avoidant personality shy away from other people because they are afraid of being criticized or embarrassed, or because they worry that they will appear foolish. Usually avoidants are very concerned that if they are criticized, they will blush or cry in front of other people. They often feel inadequate, which makes them inhibited in social situations. People with the avoidant personality might believe they are so unappealing that no one would want to know them or be friends with them. They will usually refuse to be in a relationship unless they are sure that the other person will like and accept them. To make sure others like them, avoidants are often “eager to please” and hesitant to state their disagreements with others directly. Ironically, people with the avoidant personality often behave in a way that confirms their negative self-image. They are so sensitive to criticism that they often misinterpret innocent comments as negative or critical. When they interact with other people, they may act fearful or tense, and make a mistake, which often prompts others to tease or criticize them. Thus their anxiety becomes self-reinforcing.

Because they are so uncomfortable around other people, avoidants usually have very few or no close friends other than perhaps some in their immediate family. They might be willing to stay in an unhealthy friendship because they believe they aren’t appealing enough to make friends with other people. Furthermore, avoidants are usually distant or restrained in romantic relationships because they are afraid of being made fun of or shamed if they reveal too much about themselves. They fear that if they were to get close to other people then they would see their weaknesses and inadequacies and reject them, so they prefer to not even try. They also avoid jobs where extensive socializing is required. Avoidants rarely seek help from a therapist because they are uncomfortable talking to other people and fear being judged by them.

Because they avoid therapy, it is difficult to estimate the prevalence of avoidants in the population. Research suggests that less than 1 percent of the population are avoidant personalities.

Avoidant personality might sound a lot like schizoid personality, since people with both these personalites are “loners,” but they are different in at least one crucial way. Whereas an “avoidant” is isolated because of hypersensitivity to criticism, shyness, and low self-esteem, someone with the schizoid personality is cold and indifferent to criticism.

Most people use avoidance as a coping strategy at times in their life, especially to relieve anxiety or when faced with difficult life choices or situations. However, a genuine avoidant personality is characterized by pervasive behavioral, emotional, and cognitive avoidance, even when personal goals or wishes are foiled by such avoidance. Cognitive themes that fuel avoidance include self-deprecation, beliefs that unpleasant thoughts or emotions are unmanageable and intolerable, and an assumption that exposure of one’s “real self” to others or assertive self-expression will be met with rejection. People with Avoidant Personality express a desire for affection, acceptance, and friendship, yet frequently have few friends and share little intimacy with others. Their frequent loneliness, sadness, and anxiety in interpersonal relationships are maintained by a fear of rejection, which inhibits the initiation or deepening of relationships.

A typical avoidant believes, “I am socially inept and undesirable.” If someone in their social circle elicits thoughts and uncomfortable feelings stemming from these beliefs, avoidants frequently begin to avoid or “shut down” by changing the topic. Similarly, many avoidants are prone to substance abuse to distract themselves from negative cognitions and emotions.

Antisocial personality

The history of the antisocial personality is long and complex. You may have heard the terms sociopath and psychopath, which are used to refer to individuals who behave violently, aggressively, and selfishly. The media often apply these labels to serial killers. Indeed, the features of the “psychopath” and “sociopath” are similar to the current descriptions of the antisocial style. It is characterized by a persistent and pervasive disregard for the needs and rights of others.

Antisocial personality traits can often be seen already in early childhood, for example, in the form of aggression toward people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness, theft, or the serious violation of rules. In adulthood, antisocial personalities usually continue to engage in behaviors that harm others, and they tend to be indifferent to how their behavior affects other people.

In contrast with other personality styles, most of the features of the antisocial personality are behaviors that can be observed, rather than thoughts or feelings that the therapist must attempt to analyze. Behaviors such as being indifferent to the interests of others, failure to obey the law, harassment, theft, or fraud.

Antisocial individuals are usually deceitful and manipulative and will lie or charm others to obtain money, power, or sex. Lying is a common trait among people with antisocial personality, and antisocial personalities can typically tell lies with ease.

While many antisocials can be devious and charming, and good at manipulating others, the antisocial temperament is at root impulsive. Antisocial personalities can only hold back their true intentions for so long before they have to discharge their pent-up frustration, or chase a new gratification, such as sex, alcohol, gambling, fraud, and so on.

Many antisocials have trouble holding a job, and even antisocials who at first glance appear successful will typically have a resume characterized by lots of different jobs held in quick succession.

The antisocial temperament is irritable and aggressive. Many engage in physical fights and may end up in prison. However, if the antisocial is a high-IQ individual, one will typically see these same tendencies unfold in the domain of interpersonal manipulation instead. The antisocial is still irritable and aggressive, but they use these dark sensations as a catalyst to manipulate and defraud others, rather than fight them with their fists.

Some antisocials also display a marked disregard for their own safety, along with that of others, and may engage in drug abuse, unsafe sex, or reckless driving.

Despite the harm they cause, most antisocials do not feel remorse and guilt. In fact, many are constitutionally incapable of such emotions. They may understand that others regard their actions as deplorable and adjust their demeanor to give the impression that they regret what they have done. But inwardly, they almost never do.

Antisocial individuals are cynical, callous, arrogant, and cocky. Some antisocials are also extremely intelligent and charming. Their combination of charm, recklessness, and indifference to others can create an extremely manipulative and potentially dangerous person and, for reasons that are not fully understood, this charming but dangerous personality can often be extremely attractive to certain women. Whether they be blue-collar brawlers or white-collar fraudsters, many antisocials have scores of female fans and admirers, who often know full well that the antisocial is mad, bad, and dangerous to know.

The antisocial personality is noticeably more common in males than in females, with studies reporting the ratio to be somewhere between one-to-three and one-to-five.

In the history of psychology, most therapists have traditionally regarded antisocial personalities as untreatable. However, not everyone agrees, and some therapists believe they can help antisocial personalities to consider a broader range of actions and consequences before rushing to discharge their frustration. At any rate, almost everyone agrees that the antisocial style is one of the most difficult personalities to treat.

Paranoid Personality

The essential feature of the paranoid personality is a pattern of pervasive distrust and suspicion. People with a paranoid personality style often believe that others are behaving in a way that is dishonest or that others are out to get them. Paranoids are inclined to believe that other people intend to hurt or take advantage of them, even when there is no evidence to support their suspicions. They feel they cannot trust others and often believe that others are plotting against them, or might attack them out of the blue. They constantly question the motives of others and doubt the loyalty and trustworthiness of the people in their lives.

Confiding in others is difficult for them because they worry that the personal information they share will be used against them. Paranoids often interpret everyday conversations or comments as having negative or malicious intent and may view neutral comments as hostile or threatening. Some paranoids also hold grudges and have trouble “forgiving and forgetting.”

Paranoid personalities tend to have significant problems in their social relationships, as their suspiciousness may cause them to be argumentative and/or hostile towards well-meaning friends. Some people with the paranoid style behave in a very distant way where they avoid others because they are constantly questioning their motives and trustworthiness. In so doing, the paranoid may start a cycle of hostility that irritates others, and in this irritation, the paranoid sees the confirmation of their negative expectations of others. The paranoid’s suspicions can, in other words, turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

People with the paranoid personality often feel that they need to be self-sufficient and independent because of their problems interacting with others. They tend to be very controlling of their environment and may be seen as rigid or critical of others. Usually someone with a paranoid personality style will choose a job where they may work alone, decreasing their stress at having to interact with others.

Paranoid personalities are often litigious — that is, they take other people to court because they blame others for their own problems. They might view the world through a filter of stereotypes, assigning motives to groups of people based on physical, ethnic, or political associations. Finally, people with a paranoid style are often most comfortable with others who share their suspicious view of the world. For example, they may prefer friends who also believe that people are not to be trusted. Thus, many people with paranoid features in their personality join cults or neo-religious movements that keep them apart from the rest of society.

To a therapist, it is often difficult to determine whether someone has a paranoid style because their paranoid beliefs may sound real. People with the paranoid personality typically exhibit overblown perceptions. That is, their ideas may or may not be true; they may be overblown, but they are not completely free-roaming delusions. For example, delusions are often complicated and bizarre (for example, being abducted by aliens and taken aboard a spaceship), but overblown perceptions are not obviously false. In many cases they are simply notions that the paranoid continues to subscribe to in spite of evidence that they are incorrect (for example, that their cult leader really wants the best for them, even though they’ve discovered evidence of exploitation and wrongdoing). Finally, people with a paranoid style might occasionally experience brief psychotic episodes. They may lose touch with reality, as individuals with schizophrenia do, but it only occurs for a few minutes or hours. These episodes may occur when the person is under particular stress, such as having to interact with lots of people. As for co-morbidity, people with a paranoid style often experience depression, agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorders, or alcohol and drug abuse.