00100	.SEC A SYMBOL-PROCESSING THEORY OF THE PARANOID MODE
00200	
00300	           
00400	Hypotheses and Assumptions
00500	
00600		A theory consists of a conjunction  of  main  and  subsidiary
00700	hypotheses   (process  specifications),  and  statements  of  initial
00800	conditions (state specifications). Underlying the theory are numerous
00900	other  assumptions and presuppositions.    The theory of the paranoid
01000	mode  to  be  described  posits  a  structure  or   organization   of
01100	interacting   symbolic   procedures.   These   procedures  and  their
01200	interactions are supplemented in the theory by a number of  auxiliary
01300	assumptions and tacit presuppositions some of which will be described
01400	as the story unfolds.
01500	
01600	
01700		In explaining human symbolic conduct I presuppose a schema of
01800	intentionalistic action and non-action which can be described in  the
01900	form of a practical inference:
02000		AN AGENT A WANTS SITUATION S TO OBTAIN
02100		A BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER FOR S TO OBTAIN, A MUST DO X
02200		THEREFORE A PLANS, TRIES OR PROCEEDS TO DO X
02300	.END
02400	An agent is taken here to be human. To do means to  produce,  prevent
02500	or  allow  something  to happen. The agent's power to do X (intrinsic
02600	and extrinsic enabling conditions) is assumed.   X  can  be  multiple
02700	sequential  or  concurrent  actions  and includes mental action (e.g.
02800	deciding)  as  well  as  physical  action(e.g.talking).  It  is  also
02900	presupposed  in  this  action-schema  that  ,  in doing X, A receives
03000	feedback as to whether S is coming about, i.e.    whether doing X  is
03100	successful  or  not  in obtaining S.  Thus an intention is defined to
03200	consist of a wish, a belief, and an action which may be carried  out,
03300	interrupted and diverted or simply planned.
03400		The  major processes here posited to govern the paranoid mode
03500	involve  an  organization  of   symbol-manipulating   procedures   or
03600	strategies at one level executed by an interpreter at a higher level.
03700	A serial execution of these  strategies  is  assumed  to  begin  with
03800	"consciencing"  procedures  which judge an action, desire or state of
03900	the self to be wrong or defective according to criteria  of  positive
04000	and   negative  sanctioning  beliefs.     A  censuring  process  then
04100	attempts to assign blame to an agent for the wrong.
04200		It is assumed that next the interpreter attempts a simulation
04300	of assigning blame to the self.  If the self were  to  accept  blame,
04400	the  trial simulation detects an affect-signal of shame warning of an
04500	eventual  undergoing  of  humiliation   for   personal   failure   or
04600	imperfection.     The  detection  in  the  simulation  serves  as  an
04700	anticipatory warning not to actually execute this procedure since  it
04800	will result in the painful re-experiencing of a negative affect-state
04900	of humiliation.    An alternative  strategy  of  assigning  blame  to
05000	others  is  next  simulated  and  found  not to eventuate warnings of
05100	humiliation. Hence it is executed.  It operates to repudiate that the
05200	self  is  to  blame  for  a wrong and to ascribe blame to other human
05300	agents.  Now it is not the self who is responsible for a wrong but it
05400	is that the self is wronged by others.
05500		These postulated strategies have  the  consequence  of  being
05600	inefficient  and  only  partially  effective  in  the  prevention  of
05700	humiliation.   They  can  misfire  since  the  output  counteractions
05800	generated may result in the self repeatedly undergoing criticisms and
05900	condemnations from others, exposing the self to incremental shame and
06000	humiliation.      Hostile,   antagonistic   and  belittling  behavior
06100	provokes and alienates others.  The locus of censure is shifted  from
06200	the  self  to  others  but the countering actions designed to contend
06300	with others, and redress the wrongs, have  paradoxical  repercussions
06400	tending   to  amplify  rather  than  reduce  the  very  states  these
06500	strategies are attempting to forestall and ward off.
06600	
06700		The   above-sketched  presuppositions  are  not  embodied  as
06800	procedures  in  the  model-version  to  be  described.  The   model's
06900	strategies  begin  with  a  scan  of  the  input  searching first for
07000	malevolence on the part of  the  interviewer.    The  definitions  of
07100	malevolence  are  given  in  Fig.    1.     Using this classification
07200	scheme, the  model  attempts  identify  the  input  as  malevolent  ,
07300	benevolent or neutral. If the input strategies succeed in recognizing
07400	malevolence, increases in negative affect-states of fear,  anger  and
07500	mistrust  occur  and  output strategies are executed in an attempt to
07600	reduce the other's malevolent effects.  If benevolence is detected in
07700	the  input, negative affect states decrease and an attempt is made to
07800	tell a " story" seeking self-affirmation and self-  vindication  from
07900	the  other.  If  the  input  is deemed neutral, a neutral nonparanoid
08000	response is given. The  output  actions  of  the  paranoid  mode  are
08100	grouped  into  reducing  persecution by retribution or by withdrawal.
08200	Retribution is intended to drive the other  away  whereas  withdrawal
08300	removes the self from the sphere of the malevolent other.
08400		The description just offered attempts to summarize informally
08500	a    series   of   posited   operations   in   an   organization   of
08600	symbol-processing procedures.    The details of these procedures  and
08700	their  interactions  will be made explicit when the central processes
08800	of the model are described (see p ).
08900		The  theory  is  circumscribed in that it attempts to explain
09000	only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of  episode,i.e.
09100	an  interview.  It  does not attempt to explain, for example, why the
09200	censuring process condemns particular actions or states as wrongs nor
09300	how  any  of  these  procedures  develop  over  time  in  a  person's
09400	paranoidogenic socialization experience.    Thus it does not  provide
09500	an  ontogenetic  explanation  of  how  an  organization  of processes
09600	evolved and grew to be  the  way  it  is.     The  model  is  further
09700	circumscribed  in  that  it  offers  an  explanation  only of how the
09800	organization  operates  in  the  ethogenesis  of  symbolic   behavior
09900	occuring in the present in a psychiatric interview.
10000		Some evidence bearing on the posited processes  will  now  be
10100	discussed.  Evidential support for processes which attempt to contend
10200	with a malevolent other comes from clinical observations  of  normal,
10300	neurotic   and   psychotic  paranoias.   The  agent  may  report  his
10400	self-monitoring directly to an  observer  commenting  that  his,  for
10500	example,  hostile  remarks  are  intended to retaliate for a believed
10600	wrong at the hands of the other. 
10700		The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
10800	experimental  evidence in its behalf.    Clinicians are familiar with
10900	the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
11000	report  their  hypervigilance  as  intended  to   detect   signs   of
11100	malevolence.    Silverman  (1964)  and  Venables (1964) have reported
11200	experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more  extensively
11300	scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
11400	other schizophrenic patients.
11500		In considering the  presuppositions  of  censure  and  blame,
11600	direct  evidence  is  hard  to  come  by  and  hence  such  auxiliary
11700	assumtions are on shakier ground.  Since  antiquity  it  has  been  a
11800	common  observation  that  paranoids tend to accuse others of actions
11900	and states which  hold  true  for  themselves  according  an  outside
12000	observer.   In  a  classic  paranoid  clash of 300 years ago, Newton,
12100	citing a strategy he was familiar with (only in others,  of  course),
12200	said  about Leibniz: "he himself is guilty of what he complains of in
12300	others"(Manuel, 1968).     A process  of  ascription  has  also  been
12400	offered  to  account  for  the particular selectivity involved in the
12500	hypersensitivity to criticism.      That is, why does a  man  believe
12600	others  will  ridicule  him  about his appearance unless some part of
12700	himself believes his appearance to be defective.
12800		The  obscurity  of the relation between what the self expects
12900	as malevolence and the self's own properties is well  illustrated  in
13000	hypotheses  which  have  attempted  to explain the paranoid mode as a
13100	consequence  of  homosexual  conflict. It has long been observed that
13200	some (not all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned  with  the
13300	topic  of  homosexuality.    Several studies of hospitalized paranoid
13400	schizophrenics show them to be  preoccupied  with  homosexuality  far
13500	more than the nonpsychotic controls.(See Klaf and Davis ,1960).  Such
13600	evidence may be interpreted as  having  generative  implications  for
13700	some   patients.   If  homosexual  interests  are  evaluated  by  the
13800	censuring process as wrong, then the ethogenesis of the paranoid mode
13900	on  these  grounds  becomes  plausible  as  a limiting case in a more
14000	general  theory  of  forestalling  humiliation.  There  is   also   a
14100	nonnegligible   probablity   that  an  agent,  doubtful  of  his  own
14200	sexuality, might expect to be accused of homosexuality in a community
14300	which  censures homosexuality. In such a community homosexuals trying
14400	to "pass" are of necessity suspicious since like the spy  in  hostile
14500	territory, they must be on guard against stigmatizing detection.
14600		It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
14700	regulation of human conduct. But are  distortions  of  self-censuring
14800	and  blaming  processes  the  ontogenetic  core of the paranoid mode?
14900	Heilbrun and Norbert (1971) have shown that  paranoid  schizophrenics
15000	are  more sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption
15100	of a cognitive task by a tape-recording of  a  mother  censuring  her
15200	son. Further experimental evidence is needed along these lines.
15300		To embody the theory more comprehensively, the model might be
15400	extended in two ways. First, it could be made more dynamic over time.
15500	The model-version described here changes only over the  course  of  a
15600	single  interview.   To  explore  how  changes  can  be brought about
15700	through external symbolic input, the model should  have  capabilities
15800	for  self-modification  over  longer  periods  of  time  in  which it
15900	interacts with a number of interviewers. Such capacities  would  also
16000	allow  the  model  to  make retrospective misinterpretations, namely,
16100	reinterpreting old input as  malevolent  although  it  was  initially
16200	deemed as benevolent or neutral. A further use of more dynamic models
16300	could be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid  mode,  that  is,
16400	how   a   nonparanoid   symbolic   system  becomes  paranoid  through
16500	socializing interactions.
16600		An  extension  of  the  theory  would involve the addition of
16700	hypotheses   to   account   for   properties   such   as   arrogance,
16800	contemptuousness,  and grandeur which are often found associated with
16900	malevolence convictions.   Implementation and  integration  of  these
17000	hypotheses   in  the  model  would  complexify  it  to  increase  its
17100	comphrehensiveness and scope by extending its repertoire of ethogenic
17200	powers.   In  widening  the  scope  of  a  simulation one attempts to
17300	increase its explanatory power in covering a greater range of  facts.
17400	Naturally   accuracy  rather  than  range  is  the  more  fundamental
17500	desideratum.
17600	
17700	.SS Initial Conditions
17800		When  a  theory  is  embodied  in a concrete operating model,
17900	representations of lawlike generalizations (in  this  case,  tendency
18000	statements) are combined with representations of singular conditions,
18100	usually termed "initial conditions".   In constructing  a  simulation
18200	one can attempt to reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who
18300	is a member of some well-defined class such as  `paranoid'.   Another
18400	approach, which we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual
18500	whose symbolic behavior will produce characteristic effects on expert
18600	judges  leading  him  to  be  placed  in  the  class `paranoid'.  The
18700	singular  statements  describing  the  initial  conditions   of   our
18800	hypothetical individual follow.
18900		He is a 28 year old single Protestant male  who  works  as  a
19000	stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
19100	lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He  is  sensitive  about  his
19200	parents,  his  religion  and  about  sex.  His  hobby  is gambling on
19300	horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago  he
19400	became  involved  in  a  severe  quarrel  with a bookie, claiming the
19500	bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel, it occurred  to  him
19600	that  bookies  pay  protection to the underworld and that this bookie
19700	might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the  Mafia.  He
19800	is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
19900	underworld. He is willing to answer questions  about  non-  sensitive
20000	areas  of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
20100	attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
20200		Because communication with  the  model  takes  place  in  the
20300	context  of  a  psychiatric interview using unrestricted English, the
20400	first operations of the model involve the recognition of  expressions
20500	characteristic of conversational language.