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.    
01000		While paranoid processes represent a disorder  at  one  level
01100	since they do not conform to norms, the observable regularities imply
01200	an order at another level. To account for this order, the  theory  of
01300	the  paranoid mode to be described posits a structure or organization
01400	of interacting symbolic  procedures.    These  procedures  and  their
01500	interactions  are supplemented in the theory by a number of auxiliary
01600	assumptions and tacit presuppositions some of which will be described
01700	as the story unfolds.
01800	
01900	
02000		In explaining human symbolic conduct I presuppose a schema of
02100	intentionalistic action and non-action which can be described in  the
02200	form of a practical inference:
02300		AN AGENT A WANTS SITUATION S TO OBTAIN
02400		A BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER FOR S TO OBTAIN, A MUST DO X
02500		THEREFORE A PLANS, TRIES OR PROCEEDS TO DO X
02600	.END
02700	An agent is taken here to be human. "To do" means to produce, prevent
02800	or  allow  something  to happen. The agent's power to do X (intrinsic
02900	and extrinsic enabling conditions) is assumed.   X  can  be  multiple
03000	sequential  or  concurrent  actions  and includes mental action (e.g.
03100	deciding) as  well  as  physical  action(e.g.talking).   It  is  also
03200	presupposed  in  this  action-schema  that  ,  in doing X, A receives
03300	feedback as to whether S is coming about, i.e.    whether doing X  is
03400	successful  or  not  in obtaining S.  Thus an intention is defined to
03500	consist of a wish, a belief, and an action which may be carried  out,
03600	interrupted and diverted or simply planned.
03700		The  major processes here posited to govern the paranoid mode
03800	involve  an  organization  of   symbol-manipulating   procedures   or
03900	strategies at one level executed by an interpreter at a higher level.
04000	A serial execution of these  strategies  is  assumed  to  begin  with
04100	"consciencing"  procedures  which judge an action, desire or state of
04200	the self to be wrong or defective according to criteria  of  positive
04300	and   negative  sanctioning  beliefs.     A  censuring  process  then
04400	attempts to assign blame to an agent for the wrong.
04500		It is assumed that next the interpreter attempts a simulation
04600	of assigning blame to the self.  If the self accepts blame, the trial
04700	simulation detects an affect-signal of shame warning of  an  imminent
04800	potential  for  humiliation  for  personal  failure  or imperfection.
04900	The detection in the simulation serves as an anticipatory warning not
05000	to  actually  execute  this  procedure  since  it  will result in the
05100	painful re-experiencing of a negative  affect-state  of  humiliation.
05200	An  alternative  strategy  of  assigning  blame  to  others  is  next
05300	simulated and found not to eventuate warnings of  humiliation.  Hence
05400	it  is  executed.  It operates to repudiate that the self is to blame
05500	for a wrong and to ascribe blame to other human agents.   Now  it  is
05600	not  the  self who is responsible for a wrong but it is that the self
05700	is wronged by others.
05800		These postulated strategies have  the  consequence  of  being
05900	inefficient  and  only  partially  effective  in  the  prevention  of
06000	humiliation.   They  can  misfire  since  the  output  counteractions
06100	generated may result in the self repeatedly undergoing criticisms and
06200	condemnations from others, exposing the self to incremental shame and
06300	humiliation.      Hostile,   antagonistic   and  belittling  behavior
06400	provokes and alienates others.  The locus of censure is shifted  from
06500	the  self  to  others  but the countering actions designed to contend
06600	with others, and redress the wrongs, have  paradoxical  repercussions
06700	which tend to amplify  rather  than  reduce  the  very  states  these
06800	strategies are attempting to forestall and ward off.
06900	
07000		The  presuppositions  sketched  above  are  not  embodied  as
07100	procedures  in  the  model-version  to  be  described.   The  model's
07200	strategies  begin  with  a  scan  of  the  input  searching first for
07300	malevolence on the part of the  interviewer.     The  definitions  of
07400	malevolence  are  given  in  Fig.    1.     Using this classification
07500	scheme, the  model  attempts  identify  the  input  as  malevolent  ,
07600	benevolent or neutral. If the input strategies succeed in recognizing
07700	malevolence, increases in negative affect-states of fear,  anger  and
07800	mistrust  occur  and  output strategies are executed in an attempt to
07900	reduce the other's malevolent effects.  If benevolence is detected in
08000	the  input, negative affect states decrease and an attempt is made to
08100	tell a " story" seeking self-affirmation and self-  vindication  from
08200	the  other.   If  the  input is deemed neutral, a neutral nonparanoid
08300	response is given. The  output  actions  of  the  paranoid  mode  are
08400	grouped  into  reducing  persecution by retribution or by withdrawal.
08500	Retribution is intended to drive the other  away  whereas  withdrawal
08600	removes the self from the sphere of the malevolent other.
08700		The description just offered informally summarizes  a  series
08800	of   posited  operations  in  an  organization  of  symbol-processing
08900	procedures.    The details of these procedures and their interactions
09000	will  be  made  explicit  when the central processes of the model are
09100	described (see p.000 ).
09200		The  theory  is  circumscribed in that it attempts to explain
09300	only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of episode, i.e.
09400	an  interview.  It  does not attempt to explain, for example, why the
09500	censuring process condemns particular actions or states as wrongs nor
09600	how  any  of  these  procedures  develop  over  time  in  a  person's
09700	paranoidogenic socialization experience.    Thus it does not  provide
09800	an  ontogenetic  explanation  of  how  an  organization  of processes
09900	evolved and grew to be  the  way  it  is.     The  model  is  further
10000	circumscribed  in  that  it  offers  an  explanation  only of how the
10100	organization  operates  in  the  ethogenesis  of  symbolic   behavior
10200	occuring in the present in a psychiatric interview.
10300		Some evidence bearing on the posited processes  will  now  be
10400	discussed.  Evidential support for processes which attempt to contend
10500	with a malevolent other comes from clinical observations  of  normal,
10600	neurotic   and   psychotic  paranoias.   The  agent  may  report  his
10700	self-monitoring directly to an  observer  commenting  that  his,  for
10800	example,  hostile  remarks  are  intended to retaliate for a believed
10900	wrong at the hands of the other. 
11000		The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
11100	experimental  evidence to support it.    Clinicians are familiar with
11200	the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
11300	report  their  hypervigilance  as  intended  to   detect   signs   of
11400	malevolence.    Silverman  (1964)  and  Venables (1964) have reported
11500	experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more  extensively
11600	scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
11700	other schizophrenic patients.
11800		In  considering  the  presuppositions  of  censure and blame,
11900	direct  evidence  is  hard  to  come  by  and  hence  such  auxiliary
12000	assumtions  are on shakier ground. For centuries it has been a common
12100	observation that paranoids tend  to  accuse  others  of  actions  and
12200	states  which  hold  true  for  themselves  according  to  an outside
12300	observer.   In a classic paranoid clash 300 years ago, Newton, citing
12400	a  strategy  he  was  familiar with (only in others, of course), said
12500	about Leibniz: "he himself is guilty  of  what  he  complains  of  in
12600	others"(Manuel,  1968).      A  process  of  ascription has also been
12700	offered to account for the particular  selectivity  involved  in  the
12800	hypersensitivity  to  criticism.      That is, why does a man believe
12900	others will ridicule him about his appearance  unless  some  part  of
13000	himself believes his appearance to be defective?
13100		The obscurity of the relation between what the  self  expects
13200	as  malevolence  and the self's own properties is well illustrated in
13300	hypotheses which have attempted to explain the  paranoid  mode  as  a
13400	consequence  of  homosexual  conflict. It has long been observed that
13500	some (not all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned  with  the
13600	topic  of  homosexuality.    Several studies of hospitalized paranoid
13700	schizophrenics show them to be  preoccupied  with  homosexuality  far
13800	more than the nonpsychotic controls.(See Klaf and Davis ,1960).  Such
13900	evidence may be interpreted as  having  generative  implications  for
14000	some  patients.    If  homosexual  interests  are  evaluated  by  the
14100	censuring process as wrong, then the ethogenesis of the paranoid mode
14200	on  these  grounds  becomes  plausible  as  a limiting case in a more
14300	general  process  of  forestalling  humiliation.   There  is  also  a
14400	nonnegligible   probablity   that  an  agent,  doubtful  of  his  own
14500	sexuality, might expect to be accused of homosexuality in a community
14600	which  censures homosexuality. In such a community homosexuals trying
14700	to "pass" are of necessity suspicious since, like the spy in  hostile
14800	territory, they must be on guard against stigmatizing detection.
14900		It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
15000	regulation of human conduct. But are  distortions  of  self-censuring
15100	and  blaming  processes  the  ontogenetic  core of the paranoid mode?
15200	Heilbrun and Norbert (1971) have shown that  paranoid  schizophrenics
15300	are  more sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption
15400	of a cognitive task by a tape-recording of  a  mother  censuring  her
15500	son. Further experimental evidence is needed along these lines.
15600		To embody the theory more comprehensively, the model might be
15700	extended in two ways. First, it could be made more dynamic over time.
15800	The model-version described here changes only over the  course  of  a
15900	single  interview.   To  explore  how  changes  can  be brought about
16000	through external symbolic input, the model should  have  capabilities
16100	for  self-modification  over  longer  periods  of  time  in  which it
16200	interacts with a number of interviewers. Such capacities  would  also
16300	allow  the  model  to  make retrospective misinterpretations, namely,
16400	reinterpreting old input as  malevolent  although  it  was  initially
16500	deemed as benevolent or neutral. A further use of more dynamic models
16600	could be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid  mode,  that  is,
16700	how   a   nonparanoid   symbolic   system  becomes  paranoid  through
16800	socializing interactions.
16900		An extension of the theory  would  involve  the  addition  of
17000	hypotheses   to   account   for   properties   such   as   arrogance,
17100	contemptuousness, and grandeur which are often found associated  with
17200	malevolence  convictions.    Implementation  and integration of these
17300	hypotheses  in  the  model  would  complexify  it  to  increase   its
17400	comprehensiveness  and scope by extending its repertoire of ethogenic
17500	powers.   In widening the scope  of  a  simulation  one  attempts  to
17600	increase  its explanatory power in covering a greater range of facts.
17700	Naturally,  accuracy  rather  than  range  is  the  more  fundamental
17800	desideratum.
17900	
18000	.SS Initial Conditions
18100		When  a  theory  is  embodied  in a concrete operating model,
18200	representations of lawlike generalizations (in  this  case,  tendency
18300	statements) are combined with representations of singular conditions,
18400	usually termed "initial conditions".   In constructing  a  simulation
18500	one can attempt to reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who
18600	is a member of some well-defined class such as  `paranoid'.   Another
18700	approach, which we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual
18800	whose symbolic behavior will produce characteristic effects on expert
18900	judges  leading  him  to  be  placed  in  the  class `paranoid'.  The
19000	singular  statements  describing  the  initial  conditions   of   our
19100	hypothetical individual follow.
19200		He is a 28 year old single Protestant male  who  works  as  a
19300	stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
19400	lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He  is  sensitive  about  his
19500	parents,  his  religion  and  about  sex.  His  hobby  is gambling on
19600	horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago  he
19700	became  involved  in  a  severe  quarrel  with a bookie, claiming the
19800	bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel, it occurred  to  him
19900	that  bookies  pay  protection to the underworld and that this bookie
20000	might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the  Mafia.  He
20100	is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
20200	underworld. He is willing to answer questions  about  non-  sensitive
20300	areas  of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
20400	attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
20500		Because communication with the model  (affectionately  called
20600	PARRY)  takes  place  in the context of a psychiatric interview using
20700	unrestricted English, the first operations of the model  involve  the
20800	recognition of expressions characteristic of conversational language.