00100	.SEC A SYMBOL-PROCESSING THEORY OF THE PARANOID MODE
00200	
00300	           
00400	.SS Hypotheses and Presuppositions
00500	
00600		A theory consists of a conjunction of  hypotheses  (main  and
00700	subsidiary), auxiliary assumptions and initial conditions. Underlying
00800	the theory are numerous stated and unstated presuppositions.   The
00900	theory  of  the  paranoid  mode to be described posits a structure or
01000	organization of interacting symbolic procedures. These procedures and
01100	their  interactions  are  supplemented  in  the theory by a number of
01200	auxiliary assumptions and tacit presuppositions some of which will be
01300	described as the story unfolds.
01400	
01500	
01600		I shall presuppose a schema of  intentionalistic  action  and
01700	non-action which takes the form of a practical inference:
01800		AN AGENT A WANTS SITUATION S TO OBTAIN
01900		A BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER FOR S TO OBTAIN, A MUST DO X
02000		THEREFORE A PLANS, TRIES OR PROCEEDS TO DO X
02100	.END
02200	An agent is taken here to be human. To do means to  produce,  prevent
02300	or  allow  something to happen. We presuppose the agent's power to do
02400	X.  X can be multiple sequential or concurrent actions  and  includes
02500	mental    action    (e.g.       deciding)   as   well   as   physical
02600	action(e.g.talking).  It is also presupposed  in  this  action-schema
02700	that  ,  in  doing  X,  A receives feedback as to whether S is coming
02800	about, i.e.    whether doing X is successful or not in  obtaining  S.
02900	Thus  an  intention is defined to consist of a wish, a belief, and an
03000	action which may actually be carried out or simply planned.
03100		The major processes here posited to govern the paranoid  mode
03200	involve  an  organization  of  symbol-manipulating  procedures at one
03300	level executed by an interpreter at a higher level.  I  shall  sketch
03400	the operations of this organization informally.
03500		Presupposed are  "consciencing"  procedures  which  judge  an
03600	action,  desire  or  state  of  the  self  to  be  wrong or defective
03700	according to criteria in terms of sanctioning beliefs.   A  censuring
03800	process then attempts to assign blame to an agent for the wrong.
03900		It is further presupposed that  the  interpreter  attempts  a
04000	simulation  of  assigning  blame  to  the  self.  If the self accepts
04100	blame, the trial simulation detects an affect-signal of shame warning
04200	of  an  eventual  undergoing  of  humiliation for personal failure or
04300	imperfection.   The  detection  in  the  simulation  serves   as   an
04400	anticipatory  warning not to actually execute this procedure since it
04500	will result in the painful re-experiencing of a negative affect-state
04600	of  humiliation.    An  alternative  procedure  of assigning blame to
04700	others is next simulated and found not  to  eventuate  in  a  painful
04800	affect-state.   Hence  it is executed.  It operates to repudiate that
04900	the self is to blame for a wrong and to ascribe blame to other  human
05000	agents.  Now it is not the self who is responsible for a wrong but it
05100	is that the self is wronged by others.
05200		These strategies are inefficient and only partially effective
05300	in the prevention of humiliation.   They can misfire since the output
05400	counteractions generated may result in the self repeatedly undergoing
05500	criticisms and  condemnations  from  others,  exposing  the  self  to
05600	incremental   shame  and  humiliation.    Hostile,  antagonistic  and
05700	belittling behavior provokes  and  alienates  others.  The  locus  of
05800	censure is shifted from the self to others but the countering actions
05900	designed to  contend  with  others,  and  redress  the  wrongs,  have
06000	paradoxical  repercussions  tending to amplify rather than reduce the
06100	very states the self is attempting to forestall and ward off.
06200	
06300		The  above-described  presuppositions  are  not  embodied  as
06400	procedures  in  the  model. The model begins with a scan of the input
06500	searching first for malevolence on the part of the interviewer.   The
06600	definitions  of  malevolence  are  given  in  Fig.   1.    Using this
06700	classification scheme, the  model  attempts  identify  the  input  as
06800	malevolent  ,  benevolent or neutral. If the input strategies succeed
06900	in recognizing malevolence, increases in  negative  affect-states  of
07000	fear,  anger and mistrust occur and output strategies are executed in
07100	an attempt to reduce the other's malevolent effects.  If  benevolence
07200	is  detected  in  the  input,  negative affect states decrease and an
07300	attempt is made to tell a " story" seeking self-affirmation and self-
07400	vindication from the other. If the input is deemed neutral, a neutral
07500	nonparanoid response is given. The output  actions  of  the  paranoid
07600	mode  are  grouped  into  reducing  persecution  by retribution or by
07700	withdrawal. Retribution is intended to drive the other  away  whereas
07800	withdrawal removes the self from the sphere of the malevolent other.
07900		The above description  attempts  to  summarize  informally  a
08000	series  of posited operations in an organization of symbol-processing
08100	procedures.    The details of these procedures and their interactions
08200	will  be  made  explicit  when the central processes of the model are
08300	described (see p ).
08400		The  theory  is  circumscribed in that it attempts to explain
08500	only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of  episode,i.e.
08600	an  interview.It  does  not  attempt to explain, for example, why the
08700	censuring process condemns particular actions or states as wrongs nor
08800	how  any  of  these  procedures  develop  over  time  in  a  person's
08900	paranoidogenic socialization experience.    Thus it does not  provide
09000	an  ontogenetic  explanation  of  how  an  organization  of processes
09100	evolved and grew to  be  the  way  it  is.    The  model  is  further
09200	circumscribed  in  that  it  offers  an  explanation  only of how the
09300	organization  operates  in  the  ethogenesis  of  symbolic   behavior
09400	occuring in the present in a psychiatric interview.
09500		Some evidence bearing on the posited processes  will  now  be
09600	discussed.  Evidential support for processes which attempt to contend
09700	with a malevolent other comes from clinical observations  of  normal,
09800	neurotic   and   psychotic  paranoias.   The  agent  may  report  his
09900	self-monitoring directly to an  observer  commenting  that  his,  for
10000	example,  hostile  remarks  are  intended to retaliate for a believed
10100	wrong at the hands of the other. 
10200		The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
10300	experimental  evidence in its behalf.    Clinicians are familiar with
10400	the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
10500	report  their  hypervigilance  as  intended  to   detect   signs   of
10600	malevolence.    Silverman  (1964)  and  Venables (1964) have reported
10700	experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more  extensively
10800	scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
10900	other schizophrenic patients.
11000		In considering the  presuppositions  of  censure  and  blame,
11100	direct  evidence  is  hard  to  come  by  and  hence  such background
11200	assumtions are on shakier ground.  Since  antiquity  it  has  been  a
11300	common  observation  that  paranoids tend to accuse others of actions
11400	and states which  hold  true  for  themselves  according  an  outside
11500	observer.  As Newton, in a classic paranoid clash, said about Leibniz
11600	300 years ago: "he himself is guilty  of  what  he  complains  of  in
11700	others"(Manuel,  1968).     A  process  of  ascription  has also been
11800	offered to account for the particular  selectivity  involved  in  the
11900	hypersensitivity  to  criticism.      That is, why does a man believe
12000	others will ridicule him about  his  appearance  unless  hef  himself
12100	believes  his appearance to be defective. An alternative view is that
12200	the selectivity  stems  from  an  agent,  uncertain  of  himself  and
12300	observing  how  others  in  his community are censured and ridiculed,
12400	expects the same to be applied to him.
12500		The  obscurity  of the relation between what the self expects
12600	as malevolence and the self's own properties is well  illustrated  in
12700	hypotheses  which  have  attempted  to explain the paranoid mode as a
12800	consequence of homosexual conflict. It has long  been  observed  that
12900	some  (not  all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned with the
13000	topic of homosexuality.    Several studies of  hospitalized  paranoid
13100	schizophrenics  show  them  to  be preoccupied with homosexuality far
13200	more than the nonpsychotic controls.(See Klaf and Davis ,1960).  Such
13300	evidence  may  be  interpreted  as having generative implications for
13400	certain cases. As a special case in a more general theory of avoiding
13500	humiliation,  if  homosexual interests are evaluated by the censuring
13600	process as wrong, then the ethogenesis of the paranoid mode on  these
13700	grounds  becomes plausible. There is also a nonnegligible probability
13800	that an agent, doubtful of his own  sexuality,  might  expect  to  be
13900	accused of homosexuality in a community which censures homosexuality.
14000	In such a community homosexuals trying to  "pass"  are  of  necessity
14100	suspicious  and  a  bit  paranoid  since  like  the  spy  in  hostile
14200	territory, they must be on guard against stigmatizing detection.
14400		It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
14500	regulation of human conduct. But are  distortions  of  self-censuring
14600	and  blaming  processes  the  ontogenetic  core of the paranoid mode?
14700	Heilbrun and Norbert (1971) have shown that  paranoid  schizophrenics
14800	are  more sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption
14900	of a cognitive task by a tape-recording of  a  mother  censuring  her
15000	son.
15100		The theory might be extended in two ways.  First,  the  model
15200	could  be  made  more  dynamic  over time. The version described here
15300	changes only over the course of a single interview.  To  explore  how
15400	changes  can  be  brought  about through external symbolic input, the
15500	model should have  capabilities  for  self-modification  over  longer
15600	periods  of time in which it interacts with a number of interviewers.
15700	Such capacities would also allow  the  model  to  make  retrospective
15800	misinterpretations,   namely,  reinterpreting  old  input,  initially
15900	deemed as benevolent or neutral, as malevolent. A further use of more
16000	dynamic  models  could  be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid
16100	mode, that is, how a system  grows  to  be  the  way  it  is  through
16200	socialization.
16300		A second extension of the theory would involve  the  addition
16400	of hypotheses to account for additional properties such as arrogance,
16500	contemptuousness, and grandeur which are often found associated  with
16600	malevolence  convictions.   Implementation  and  integration of these
16700	hypotheses  in  the  model  would  complexify  it  to  increase   its
16800	comphrehensiveness and scope by extending its repertoire of ethogenic
16900	powers.  In widening the scope of a simulation one thus increases its
17000	explanatory  power  in covering a greater range of facts but accuracy
17100	rather than range is the more fundamental desideratum.
17200	.SS Initial Conditions
17300		When  a  theory  is  embodied  in a concrete operating model,
17400	representations of lawlike generalizations  (in  our  case,  tendency
17500	laws)  are  combined  with  representations  of  singular conditions,
17600	usually termed "initial conditions".   In constructing  a  simulation
17700	one can attempt to reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who
17800	is a member of some well-defined class such  as  `paranoid'.  Another
17900	approach, which we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual
18000	whose symbolic behavior will cause him to  be  placed  in  a  certain
18100	class.   "paranoid".  The  singular statements describing the initial
18200	conditions of our hypothetical individual follow.
18400		He is a 28 year old single Protestant male  who  works  as  a
18500	stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
18600	lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He  is  sensitive  about  his
18700	parents,  his  religion  and  about  sex.  His  hobby  is gambling on
18800	horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago  he
18900	became  involved  in  a  severe  quarrel  with a bookie, claiming the
19000	bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel it  occurred  to  him
19100	that  bookies  pay  protection to the underworld and that this bookie
19200	might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the  Mafia.  He
19300	is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
19400	underworld. He is willing to answer questions  about  non-  sensitive
19500	areas  of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
19600	attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
19700		Because  communication  with  the  model  takes  place in the
19800	context of a psychiatric interview using fully unrestricted  English,
19900	the  first  operations  of  the  model  involve  the  recognizing  or
20000	understanding of conversational language.