00100	CHAPTER ONE -THE PARANOID MODE OF THOUGHT
00200	
00201	% 1   Two Information Processing Modes
00202	   I shall contrast two modes of information-processing activity,
00203	one termed `ordinary' and one termed `paranoid'.
00204	   In the ordinary mode a person goes about his business of everyday
00205	living in a matter-of-fact way. He deals with routine situations in his
00206	environment as they arise, in the main taking things at their face value.
00207	Things and people behave in accordance with his belief-expectations and
00208	thus can be managed routinely. Only a small amount of attention need be
00209	devoted to monitoring the environment simple checking that everthing is
00210	as expected. This placid ongoing state-sequence can be interrupted by the
00211	the detection of signs of alarm or opportunity at any time but the 
00212	predominant condition is one of a steady progression of events so ordinary
00213	as to be uneventful.
00214	   In contrast to this rourine ordinariness is an arousal state of
00215	emergency for various reasons. The particular aroused emergency we shall
00216	be considering here constitutes the paranoid mode of information-processing
00217	which is characterized by alertness, hypervigilance and wariness in 
00218	intensively scanning the input for ominous signs. Paranoid patients 
00219	describe themselves as being at war with others and the warfare is
00220	unrelieved lest the self be overwhelmed. A person whose thought processes
00221	are dominated by the paranoid mode can be compared to a combat soldier
00222	on sentry duty to whom a bird-call, a rustle of leaves, a slight ripple
00223	on the river may signify the presence of a murderous enemy. The sentry
00224	is fully and continously mobilized to attack, to flee, to stalk. In this
00225	situation appearances are not to be taken at face value as ordinary events
00226	or background but each is attended to and interpreted to detect malevolence.
00227	Events in the environment, which in the ordinary mode would not be connected
00228	to the self, become reffered to the self. The unintended is misinterpreted as
00229	intended and the undesigned is confused with the designed. Nothing is
00230	disattendible. The predominant intention is to detect malevolence. The
00231	over-riding belief in and expectation of malevolence on the part of others
00232	keeps the self in an aroused alarm state , a state which occurs only as
00233	an interrupt in the ordinary mode of information processing.
00299	% 2   Clinical Paranoia
00300	     When the intensity and extent of the paranoid mode of thought and 
00500	action becomes extreme, its possessor often comes to the attention of
00700	clinicians, sometimes voluntarily to complain and sometimes against his
00900	will.  The phenomena he reports and the observations of clinicians about
01100	his behavior have been thoroughly described in the psychiatric literature.
01300	[  ]  There is no need to give all the detaills here.  Only those phenomena
01500	the model attempts to account for will be outlined.  They are limited to 
01700	what occurs in two-person linguistic interactions typical of a psychiatric
01900	interview.  They are further limited to purely linguistic communication
02100	over teletypes.  The clinician cannot see or hear the patient.  Thus the 
02300	model does not simulate the `paranoid stare' nor the intonations of 
02500	indignation sometimes observed in vocal communication.
02600	
02700	     
02800	     The major properties requiring explanation consist of mistrust, 
03000	self-reference, hypersensitivity, fearfulness (guardedness) and 
03200	hostility (combativeness), rigidity and arrogance.  Other properties
03400	sometimes found in clinical descriptions of paranoia, (delusions of 
03600	jealousy, hypochondriasis, depression) will not be considered here 
03800	since we believe mechanisms in addition to those postulated in our model, 
04000	are responsible for such phenomena.  Thus the model is circumscribed in 
04200	what it intends to explain.
04300	
04400	
04500	Mistrust
04600	
04700	
04800	     The primary property of the clinical paranoid mode consists of 
05000	mistrust of others based on malevolence beliefs.  The patient believes 
05200	others have evil intentions towards him. He is convinced others try to bring about 
05400	undesirable states in himself such as humiliation, harassment, injury
05600	and even death.  In a two-person communication he may report such beliefs
05800	directly or ,if he is guarded , they will only be hinted at.  Disclosure may
06000	depend upon how the interviewer responds in the dialogue to reports of 
06200	fluctuating suspicions or absolute convictions of malevolence.
06400	     The patient may vary in his own estimate of his malevolence beliefs.
06600	If they consist of suspicions, he may have moments of rational doubt in
06800	which he tries to reject them as ill-founded.  But if the beliefs represent
07000	absolute convictions, he does not struggle to dismiss them.  They become
07200	pre-conditions for countering actions against tormentors who wish and
07400	try to do him evil.  He seeks affirmation of his beliefs, sympathy , and 
07600	allies in positions of power such as clinicians or lawyers to help him
07800	take action.
08000	     The conceptual content of the malevolence beliefs may involve a 
08200	specifc Other person or a conspiracy of others such as the Mafia, the 
08400	FBI, Communists. The patient sees himself literally as patient (one who suffers or undergoes) 
08600	rather than agent. Other agents  subject him to, make him an object of, their evil
08800	intentions.  At times the conceptual content of the beliefs are not 
09000	directly expressed in a dialogue.  The patient may be so mistructful of 
09200	how their disclusure might be used against him that he cautiously feels 
09400	his way through an interview offering only hints which the clinician
09600	uses to infer the presence of delusions.
09700	
09800	     A clinician faces the task of distinguishing whether the malevolence
10000	beliefs are true, false or pretense.  Some malevolence beliefs are 
10200	justified but they are secondary constructions arising from the paranoids
10400	tendency to provoke others to the point where they in fact display 
10600	hostility towards him.
10700	
10800	
10900	Self-Reference and Hypersensitivity
11000	
11100	
11200	     The patient believes many more events in the world pertain to 
11400	himself than seems justified to other observers.  For example, he is convinced that 
11600	newspaper headlines are directly personally at him or that the statements
11800	of radio announcers contian special messages for him.  Thus he
12000	hypersensitively reads himself into situations which are not intended to
12200	pertain to him and his particular concerns.
12400	     The references to the Self are usually interpreted as malevolent
12600	conceptually.  He may believe he is being observed and influenced by 
12800	others with evil intentions.
12900	
13000	     References to the Self are interpreted as slurs, slights or unfair 
13200	judgements.  He may feel he is being observed, stared at and even 
13300	mysteriously influenced.  In crowds he believes he is intentionally
13400	bumped and on the highway he feels repeatedly tail-gaited.  Bombarded
13500	without relief by all these wrongs , he becomes hyperirritable and guarrelsome.
13600	     He is touchy about certain topics, flaring up when linguistic 
13700	representations of particular concepts appear in the conversation.  For
13800	example, remarks about his age, religion, or family, or sexlife may set
13900	him off.  Even when these areas are touched upon without reference to him,
14000	e.g. religion in general, he takes it personally.  When a delusional 
14100	complex is present, linguistic terms far removed but still connectible to
14200	the complex act as flares.  Thus a man holding beliefs that the Mafia 
14300	intend to harm him, a remark about Italy might cause him to react in a 
14400	suspicious or hostile manner.
14500	
14600	Affect-Expression
14700	
14800	     The major affects expressed, both verbally and nonverbally, are 
14900	those of fear and anger.  The patient may be fearful of physical attack
15000	and injury even to the point of death.  He fears others wish to subjugate
15100	and control him.  His fear is justified in his mind by the many physical
15200	threats he detects in the conduct of others towards him.  His chronic
15300	irritability becomes punctuated with outbursts of raging tirades and 
15400	diatribes.  When he feels he is being overwhelmed he may in desperation
15500	physically attack others.
15600	     The experienced and expressed affects of fear and anger blend with
15700	one another in varying proportions to yield an unpleasant negative affect
15800	state made continuous by fantasy rehearsals and retellings of past wrongs.
15900	Depending on his interpretation of malevolent input, the patient may 
16000	move away from others in being guarded, secretive and evasive and then
16100	may suddenly jump at others with sarcastic accusatoriness and 
16200	argumentativeness.  His affect-states become chained into loops with 
16300	those others in his life space who take censoring action towards him because
16400	of his uncommunicativeness or outbursts.
16500	
16600	     While seldom if ever expressed, and thus not observed clinically,
16700	we believe the affect of humiliation plays a crucial role in the paranoid mode, 
16800	as will be discussed (p. ). One of the assumptions of the model to 
16900	be presented consists of an overall principle of minimizing humiliation, 
17000	preventing a further reduction in self-esteem through experienced humiliation.
17100	
17200	Rigidity
17300	
17400	     Among the chief properties of clinically observed paranoia are those 
17500	phenomena which may be characterized as indicators of rigidity.  The
17600	patients beliefs in his sensitive areas remain fixed, difficult to 
17700	influence by evidence or persuasion.  The patient himself makes few 
17800	verification attempts to which might disconfirm his convictions.  To
17900	change a belief is to admit being wrong.  To forgive others also opens
18000	a crack in the wall of righteousness.  He does not apologize nor accept
18100	apology.  He stubbornly follows rules to the letter and his literal
18200	interpretations of regulations can drive others wild.  It is this quality 
18300	of rigidity and fixity which makes the treatment of paranoia by 
18400	psychological methods so difficult.
18500	
18600	            Other Explanations of Paranoia
18700	
18800	     While paranoid processes represent a disorder at one level, the 
18900	observable regularities of the disorder imply an underlying order at 
19000	another level.  Attempts to explain, to make intelligible, the order 
19100	behind the disorder , have been offered since antiquity.  Scientific 
19200	explanations do not stand alone in isolation.  They are evaluated relative
19300	to rival contenders for the position of `best available'.
19400	
19500	     Theories stem from two sources, from hypotheses suggested by the 
19600	structure of the phenomena themselves and from modifications of previous
19700	theory.  Each generation develops new explanatory theories by discovering
19800	new phenomena or by modifying predecessor theories.  The old theories are
19900	unsatisfactory or only partially satisfactory because they are found to 
20000	contain anomalies  or contradictions which must be removed.  Sometimes
20100	previous theories are viewed as lacking support by current standards.
20200	Theories are mainly superseded rather than disproved.  The new versions
20300	try to remove the contradictions,increase  comprehensiveness or gain evidential
20400	support.
20500	     Theories offered as scientific explanations should be (a) systematic
20600	(i.e. coherent and consistent) and (b) empirically testable.  Many
20700	psychological formulations about the paranoid mode do not meet these 
20800	criteria.  For example, to account for paranoid thought process by 
20900	citing a constitutional inadequacy or an imbalance of intellect and affect
21000	offers no mechanisms and is so untestable as not to warrant discussion.
21100	What is needed as an explanation of the right type is a structure of 
21200	mechanisms or symbol-processing procedures which is capable of producing
21300	the observable regularities of the paranoid mode.
21400	     Let us consider some explanations alternate to that of 
21500	our model, starting in the late 19th century.  (Historians can certainly find notions of 
21600	intentions, affects and beliefs as far back as  Aristotle, who seldom quoted
21700	his sources.  
21800	`Everything has been said before but it has to be said again because
21900	nobody listens'(Gide)). In 1896 Freud [ ] proposed a theory at least of the right 
22000	type, a sort-of symbol-processing explanation which postulated a defense mechanism
22100	to explain persecutory paranoia [ ].  He assumed the believed persecution of the 
22200	Self by Others to represent projected Self-reproaches for childhood 
22300	masturbation.  Today hardly anyone finds this explanation plausible but 
22400	the concepts of defense mechanism and projection have survived. 
22600	     Around the turn of the century, Fliess (according to Jones[ ]) proposed in letters to Freud
22700	that paranoid thought stemmed from an unconscious homosexual conflict. 
22800	Freud endorsed this idea whole-heartedly and in 1910 [ ] developed it in terms of 
22900	transformations being applied to the basic propostion `I (a man) love him.'
23000	He postulated this proposition to be so intolerable as not to be admitted
23100	to consciousness and therefore subjected to being transformed unconsciously,
23200	first into `I do not love him, I hate him' which in turn was transformed
23300	into the conscious belief `He hates me' with the accompanying conclusion
23400	`Therefore I am justified in hating him'.
23500	     In modern terms this explanation offers a set of mechanisms or 
23600	procedures which progressively distort symbolic-structures.  It is thus 
23700	the right type of explanation we are searching for.  Great difficulty has 
23800	been encountered in testing the theory since there is no agreed-on method
23900	for detecting the presence of unconscious homosexual conflict.  The 
24000	explanation is also inconsistent with another of Freud's ideas that 
24100	everyone harbors unconscious homosexual conflicts.  To reconcile the 
24200	inconsistency one would have to postulate some additional, possibly 
24300	quantitative factors, to explain the intensity and extent of the paranoid
24400	mode in certain people.
24500	     The current state of the homosexual-conflict explanation is a doubtful
24600	one.  But as will be discussed, it contains a grain of truthlikelihood as a 
24700	limiting case for a more general theory of the paranoid mode.                               
24800	Freud's [ego and id] later attempts at the
24900	explanation of paranoia assumed simply that love was transformed into hate
25000	This notion is too vague, general, and incomplete an articulation to 
25100	qualify for a contemporary dialectics of explanation which reqires a more
25200	detailrd and explicit structure of mechanisms to account for such a transformation.
25300	     Tomkins [ ] in 196?  proposed an information-processing theory of the 
25400	paranoid posture articulated in terms of defense mechanisms, strategies,
25500	transformations ,and maximizing-minimizing principles.  He viewed the
25600	paranoid mode as an attempt to cope with humiliation. He proposed that a person whose 
25700	information processing is monopolized by the paranoid mode is in a 
25800	permanent state of vigilance, trying to mmaximize the detection of insult
25900	and to minimize humiliation.
26000		"The major source of distortion in his interpretation is
26100		 in his insistence on processing all information as though 
26200		 it were relevant only to the possibility of humiliation."
26300	     The hypotheses of Tomkin's  theory, stated in essay form, are difficult to 
26400	test for their consistency and for their empirical correspondence.  But 
26500	as will be shown,, we have incorporated  and modified several of them in our model
26600	By conjoining them as collaborative elements in a working model we can 
26700	enhance their testability both logically and empirically.
26800	     In 1970 Swanson et al.[ ] in a book on paranoia portrayed
26900	how a `homeostatic' individual attempts to deal with `bewildering 
27000	perceptions'.  They postulated that a person in homeostatic
27100	equilibrium perceives a pronounced inner or outer change which is 
27200	inexplicable or unacceptable.  The resultant disequilibrium is so 
27300	bewildering that in order to restore equilibrium, the person constructs
27400	a paranoid explanation which attributes the cause of the change, not to 
27500	the Self, but to an external source.  With the cause of the change 
27600	identified , bewilderment is abolished an uncertainty reduced.
27700	     Elements of this formulation represent highly plausible symbol-processing
27800	mechanisms particularly in cases of paranoid thinkng associated with the 
27900	`pronounced changes' of organic braain damage or amphetamine psychosis.
28000	In paranoid states, reactions or personalities where no pronounced
28100	physical change can be identified ,the formulation is insufficient and must
28200	be filled out with further mechanisms. However the                                      	
28400	theory does emphasize intentionalistic mechanisms which we also believe must play a part
28500	in a model of human thought processes.
28600	     In sum, the rival theories of paranoia here reviewed have not gained
28700	widespread acceptance because of various weaknesses and limitations.
28710	No reigning and unified theory of paranoia is widely accepted today.
28800	The field is wide open for contenders. We shall be proposing a 
28900	simulation model as an explanation intended to be more explicit, 
29000	systematic, consistent  and testable than the theories   described above.
29100	The model combines hypotheses of these previous contributions with hypotheses
29200	and assumptions of our own into a coherent unified explanatory system.