00100		CHAPTER ONE -THE PARANOID MODE 
00200	%1.1  The concept of paranoia
00300		Like ourselves, ancient Greeks liked to call one another paranoid.
00400	The term `paranoia' (Gr.:para=beside; nous = mind) was a lay rather than
00500	a medical term which referred to states of craziness and mental deterioration.
00600	For two thousand years the term did not appear in the classification schemes
00700	of mental disorders. [Menninger et al.] Historians do not seem curious about
00800	what persons with persecutory delusions were called all this time. (It is
00900	doubtful that there weren't any.) In the 18th century the term reappears
01000	in German classifications to refer to delusional states which were
01100	considered disorders of intellect rather than emotion. [Lewis ].
01200		Little agreement about its  usuage was reached until the present
01300	time when it has achieved adjectival status as in paranoid personality and
01400	paranoid psychosis. Currently the term is used to refer to the presence
01500	of delusions, false beliefs. Some users include any sort of delusion
01600	but mainly the delusions are persecutory. Somatic, erotic, grandeur and
01700	jealousy delusions are identified as such without terming the condition
01800	paranoid.
01900	
02000	% 1.2 The paranoia of everday life
02100	   I shall contrast two modes of information-processing activity,
02200	one termed `ordinary' and one termed `paranoid'.
02300	   In the ordinary mode a person goes about his business of everyday
02400	living in a matter-of-fact way. He deals with routine situations in his
02500	environment as they arise, in the main taking things at their face value.
02600	Things and people behave in accordance with his belief-expectations and
02700	thus can be managed routinely. Only a small amount of attention need be
02800	devoted to monitoring the environment simple checking that everthing is
02900	as expected. This placid ongoing state-sequence can be interrupted by the
03000	the detection of signs of alarm or opportunity at any time but the 
03100	predominant condition is one of a steady progression of events so ordinary
03200	as to be uneventful.
03300	   In contrast to this routine ordinariness is an arousal state of
03400	emergency for various reasons. The particular aroused emergency we shall
03500	be considering here constitutes the paranoid mode of information-processing
03600	characterized by a wary suspiciousness. 
03700	In extreme cases paranoid patients 
03800	conceive and describe themselves as being at war with others and the warfare is
03900	unrelieved lest the self be overwhelmed. A person continously dominated
04000	by the paranoid mode can be compared to a combat soldier
04100	on sentry duty.To him a bird-call, a rustle of leaves, a slight ripple
04200	on the river may signify the presence of a murderous enemy. The sentry
04300	is fully  mobilized to attack, to flee, to stalk. In this
04400	situation appearances are not to be taken at face value as ordinary events
04500	or background but each is attended to and interpreted to detect malevolence.
04600	Events in the environment, which in the ordinary mode would not be connected
04700	to the self, become referred to the self. The unintended is misinterpreted as
04800	intended and the undesigned is confused with the designed. Nothing is
04900	disattendible. The predominant intention of the agent is to detect malevolence from others. 
05000	In paranoid patients the over-riding belief in and expectation of malevolence on the part of others
05100	keeps the self in an aroused alarm state , a state which occurs only as
05200	an interrupt in the ordinary mode of information processing.
05210	     MORE HERE ON EVERDAY PARANOIA
05220	
05300	% 1.3 Characteristics of clinical paranoias
05700		Observations made by clinicians on paranoid thought and action
05800	have been thoroughly described in the psychiatric literature. An extensive 
05900	account can be found in [Swanson].  Only those phenomena
06000	the model attempts to account for will be outlined.  They are limited to 
06100	what occurs in teletyped psychiatric interviews.
06300	In such interviews the interviewer  cannot see or hear the patient.  The  
06400	model does not simulate the `paranoid stare' nor the intonations of 
06500	indignation observable  in vocal communication. Thus the model is circumscribed in what it attempts to explain.
06600	
06700	     
06800		The major phenomena  requiring explanation consist of suspiciousness,
06900	self-reference, hypersensitivity, fearfulness ,
07000	hostility and rigidity.
07600	
07700	
07800	Suspiciousness
07900	
08000	
08100	     The primary property of the clinical paranoid mode consists of 
08200	suspiciousness of others based on malevolence beliefs.  The patient believes 
08300	others have evil intentions towards him. He is convinced others try to bring about 
08400	undesirable states in himself such as humiliation, harassment, injury
08500	and even death.  In a two-person communication he may report such beliefs
08600	directly or ,if he is guarded , they will only be hinted at.  Disclosure may
08700	depend upon how the interviewer responds in the dialogue to reports of 
08800	fluctuating suspicions or absolute convictions of malevolence.
08900	     The patient may vary in his own estimate of his malevolence beliefs.
09000	If they consist of suspicions, he may have moments of rational doubt in
09100	which he tries to reject them as ill-founded.  But if the beliefs represent
09200	absolute convictions, he does not struggle to dismiss them.  They become
09300	pre-conditions for countering actions against tormentors who wish and
09400	try to do him evil.  He seeks affirmation of his beliefs, sympathy , and 
09500	allies in positions of power such as clinicians or lawyers to help him
09600	take action.
09700	     The conceptual content of the malevolence beliefs may involve a 
09800	specifc Other person or a conspiracy of others such as the Mafia, the 
09900	FBI, Communists. The patient sees himself literally as patient (one who suffers or undergoes) 
10000	rather than agent. Other agents  subject him to, make him an object of, their evil
10100	intentions.  At times the conceptual content of the beliefs are not 
10200	directly expressed in a dialogue.  The patient may be so mistructful of 
10300	how their disclusure might be used against him that he cautiously feels 
10400	his way through an interview offering only hints which the clinician
10500	uses to infer the presence of delusions.
10600	
10700	     A clinician faces the task of distinguishing whether the malevolence
10800	beliefs are true, false or pretense.  Some malevolence beliefs are 
10900	justified but they are secondary constructions arising from the paranoids
11000	tendency to provoke others to the point where they in fact display 
11100	hostility towards him.
11200	
11300	
11400	Self-Reference and Hypersensitivity
11500	
11600	
11700	     The patient believes many more events in the world pertain to 
11800	himself than seems justified to other observers.  For example, he is convinced that 
11900	newspaper headlines are directly personally at him or that the statements
12000	of radio announcers contian special messages for him.  Thus he
12100	hypersensitively reads himself into situations which are not intended to
12200	pertain to him and his particular concerns.
12300	     The references to the Self are usually interpreted as malevolent
12400	conceptually.  He may believe he is being observed and influenced by 
12500	others with evil intentions.
12600	
12700	     References to the Self are interpreted as slurs, slights or unfair 
12800	judgements.  He may feel he is being observed, stared at and even 
12900	mysteriously influenced.  In crowds he believes he is intentionally
13000	bumped and on the highway he feels repeatedly tail-gaited.  Bombarded
13100	without relief by all these wrongs , he becomes hyperirritable and guarrelsome.
13200	     He is touchy about certain topics, flaring up when linguistic 
13300	representations of particular concepts appear in the conversation.  For
13400	example, remarks about his age, religion, or family, or sexlife may set
13500	him off.  Even when these areas are touched upon without reference to him,
13600	e.g. religion in general, he takes it personally.  When a delusional 
13700	complex is present, linguistic terms far removed but still connectible to
13800	the complex act as flares.  Thus a man holding beliefs that the Mafia 
13900	intend to harm him, a remark about Italy might cause him to react in a 
14000	suspicious or hostile manner.
14100	
14200	Affect-Expression
14300	
14400	     The major affects expressed, both verbally and nonverbally, are 
14500	those of fear and anger.  The patient may be fearful of physical attack
14600	and injury even to the point of death.  He fears others wish to subjugate
14700	and control him.  His fear is justified in his mind by the many physical
14800	threats he detects in the conduct of others towards him.  His chronic
14900	irritability becomes punctuated with outbursts of raging tirades and 
15000	diatribes.  When he feels he is being overwhelmed he may in desperation
15100	physically attack others.
15200	     The experienced and expressed affects of fear and anger blend with
15300	one another in varying proportions to yield an unpleasant negative affect
15400	state made continuous by fantasy rehearsals and retellings of past wrongs.
15500	Depending on his interpretation of malevolent input, the patient may 
15600	move away from others in being guarded, secretive and evasive and then
15700	may suddenly jump at others with sarcastic accusatoriness and 
15800	argumentativeness.  His affect-states become chained into loops with 
15900	those others in his life space who take censoring action towards him because
16000	of his uncommunicativeness or outbursts.
16100	
16200	     While seldom if ever expressed, and thus not observed clinically,
16300	we believe the affect of humiliation plays a crucial role in the paranoid mode, 
16400	as will be discussed (p. ). One of the assumptions of the model to 
16500	be presented consists of an overall principle of minimizing humiliation, 
16600	preventing a further reduction in self-esteem through experienced humiliation.
16700	
16800	Rigidity
16900	
17000	     Among the chief properties of clinically observed paranoia are those 
17100	phenomena which may be characterized as indicators of rigidity.  The
17200	patients beliefs in his sensitive areas remain fixed, difficult to 
17300	influence by evidence or persuasion.  The patient himself makes few 
17400	verification attempts to which might disconfirm his convictions.  To
17500	change a belief is to admit being wrong.  To forgive others also opens
17600	a crack in the wall of righteousness.  He does not apologize nor accept
17700	apology.  He stubbornly follows rules to the letter and his literal
17800	interpretations of regulations can drive others wild.  It is this quality 
17900	of rigidity and fixity which makes the treatment of paranoia by 
18000	psychological methods so difficult.
18100	
18200	            Other Explanations of Paranoia
18300	
18400	     While paranoid processes represent a disorder at one level, the 
18500	observable regularities of the disorder imply an underlying order at 
18600	another level.  Attempts to explain, to make intelligible, the order 
18700	behind the disorder , have been offered since antiquity.  Scientific 
18800	explanations do not stand alone in isolation.  They are evaluated relative
18900	to rival contenders for the position of `best available'.
19000	
19100	     Theories stem from two sources, from hypotheses suggested by the 
19200	structure of the phenomena themselves and from modifications of previous
19300	theory.  Each generation develops new explanatory theories by discovering
19400	new phenomena or by modifying predecessor theories.  The old theories are
19500	unsatisfactory or only partially satisfactory because they are found to 
19600	contain anomalies  or contradictions which must be removed.  Sometimes
19700	previous theories are viewed as lacking support by current standards.
19800	Theories are mainly superseded rather than disproved.  The new versions
19900	try to remove the contradictions,increase  comprehensiveness or gain evidential
20000	support.
20100	     Theories offered as scientific explanations should be (a) systematic
20200	(i.e. coherent and consistent) and (b) empirically testable.  Many
20300	psychological formulations about the paranoid mode do not meet these 
20400	criteria.  For example, to account for paranoid thought process by 
20500	citing a constitutional inadequacy or an imbalance of intellect and affect
20600	offers no mechanisms and is so untestable as not to warrant discussion.
20700	What is needed as an explanation of the right type is a structure of 
20800	mechanisms or symbol-processing procedures which is capable of producing
20900	the observable regularities of the paranoid mode.
21000	     Let us consider some explanations alternate to that of 
21100	our model, starting in the late 19th century.  (Historians can certainly find notions of 
21200	intentions, affects and beliefs as far back as  Aristotle, who seldom quoted
21300	his sources.  
21400	`Everything has been said before but it has to be said again because
21500	nobody listens'(Gide)). In 1896 Freud [ ] proposed a theory at least of the right 
21600	type, a sort-of symbol-processing explanation which postulated a defense mechanism
21700	to explain persecutory paranoia [ ].  He assumed the believed persecution of the 
21800	Self by Others to represent projected Self-reproaches for childhood 
21900	masturbation.  Today hardly anyone finds this explanation plausible but 
22000	the concepts of defense mechanism and projection have survived. 
22100	     Around the turn of the century, Fliess (according to Jones[ ]) proposed in letters to Freud
22200	that paranoid thought stemmed from an unconscious homosexual conflict. 
22300	Freud endorsed this idea whole-heartedly and in 1910 [ ] developed it in terms of 
22400	transformations being applied to the basic propostion `I (a man) love him.'
22500	He postulated this proposition to be so intolerable as not to be admitted
22600	to consciousness and therefore subjected to being transformed unconsciously,
22700	first into `I do not love him, I hate him' which in turn was transformed
22800	into the conscious belief `He hates me' with the accompanying conclusion
22900	`Therefore I am justified in hating him'.
23000	     In modern terms this explanation offers a set of mechanisms or 
23100	procedures which progressively distort symbolic-structures.  It is thus 
23200	the right type of explanation we are searching for.  Great difficulty has 
23300	been encountered in testing the theory since there is no agreed-on method
23400	for detecting the presence of unconscious homosexual conflict.  The 
23500	explanation is also inconsistent with another of Freud's ideas that 
23600	everyone harbors unconscious homosexual conflicts.  To reconcile the 
23700	inconsistency one would have to postulate some additional, possibly 
23800	quantitative factors, to explain the intensity and extent of the paranoid
23900	mode in certain people.
24000	     The current state of the homosexual-conflict explanation is a doubtful
24100	one.  But as will be discussed, it contains a grain of truthlikelihood as a 
24200	limiting case for a more general theory of the paranoid mode.                               
24300	Freud's [ego and id] later attempts at the
24400	explanation of paranoia assumed simply that love was transformed into hate
24500	This notion is too vague, general, and incomplete an articulation to 
24600	qualify for a contemporary dialectics of explanation which reqires a more
24700	detailrd and explicit structure of mechanisms to account for such a transformation.
24800	     Tomkins [ ] in 196?  proposed an information-processing theory of the 
24900	paranoid posture articulated in terms of defense mechanisms, strategies,
25000	transformations ,and maximizing-minimizing principles.  He viewed the
25100	paranoid mode as an attempt to cope with humiliation. He proposed that a person whose 
25200	information processing is monopolized by the paranoid mode is in a 
25300	permanent state of vigilance, trying to mmaximize the detection of insult
25400	and to minimize humiliation.
25500		"The major source of distortion in his interpretation is
25600		 in his insistence on processing all information as though 
25700		 it were relevant only to the possibility of humiliation."
25800	     The hypotheses of Tomkin's  theory, stated in essay form, are difficult to 
25900	test for their consistency and for their empirical correspondence.  But 
26000	as will be shown,, we have incorporated  and modified several of them in our model
26100	By conjoining them as collaborative elements in a working model we can 
26200	enhance their testability both logically and empirically.
26300	     In 1970 Swanson et al.[ ] in a book on paranoia portrayed
26400	how a `homeostatic' individual attempts to deal with `bewildering 
26500	perceptions'.  They postulated that a person in homeostatic
26600	equilibrium perceives a pronounced inner or outer change which is 
26700	inexplicable or unacceptable.  The resultant disequilibrium is so 
26800	bewildering that in order to restore equilibrium, the person constructs
26900	a paranoid explanation which attributes the cause of the change, not to 
27000	the Self, but to an external source.  With the cause of the change 
27100	identified , bewilderment is abolished an uncertainty reduced.
27200	     Elements of this formulation represent highly plausible symbol-processing
27300	mechanisms particularly in cases of paranoid thinkng associated with the 
27400	`pronounced changes' of organic braain damage or amphetamine psychosis.
27500	In paranoid states, reactions or personalities where no pronounced
27600	physical change can be identified ,the formulation is insufficient and must
27700	be filled out with further mechanisms. However the                                      	
27800	theory does emphasize intentionalistic mechanisms which we also believe must play a part
27900	in a model of human thought processes.
28000	     In sum, the rival theories of paranoia here reviewed have not gained
28100	widespread acceptance because of various weaknesses and limitations.
28200	No reigning and unified theory of paranoia is widely accepted today.
28300	The field is wide open for contenders. We shall be proposing a 
28400	simulation model as an explanation intended to be more explicit, 
28500	systematic, consistent  and testable than the theories   described above.
28600	The model combines hypotheses of these previous contributions with hypotheses
28700	and assumptions of our own into a coherent unified explanatory system.