perm filename CHAP3[4,KMC]16 blob
sn#075832 filedate 1973-12-04 generic text, type T, neo UTF8
00100 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), simplifying assumptions,
00800 boundary conditions and statements of initial conditions (state
00900 specifications). Underlying the theory are numerous other assumptions
01000 and presuppositions.
01100 While paranoid processes represent a disorder at one level
01200 since they do not conform to norms, the observable regularities imply
01300 an order at another level. To account for this order, the theory of
01400 the paranoid mode to be described posits a structure or organization
01500 of interacting symbolic procedures. These procedures and their
01600 interactions are supplemented in the theory by a number of auxiliary
01700 assumptions and tacit presuppositions some of which will be described
01800 as the story unfolds.
01900
02000
02100 In explaining human symbolic conduct I presuppose a schema of
02200 intentionalistic action and non-action which can be described in the
02300 form of a practical inference:
02400 AN AGENT A WANTS SITUATION S TO OBTAIN
02500 A BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER FOR S TO OBTAIN, A MUST DO X
02600 THEREFORE A PLANS, TRIES OR PROCEEDS TO DO X
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, posited in the thory as governing the
03800 paranoid mode, involve an organization of symbol-manipulating
03900 procedures or strategies at one level executed by an interpreter at a
04000 higher level. A serial execution of these strategies is assumed to
04100 begin with "consciencing" procedures which judge an action, desire or
04200 state of the self to be wrong or defective according to criteria of
04300 positive and negative sanctioning beliefs. A censuring process
04400 then 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. The
04900 detection in the simulation serves as an anticipatory warning not to
05000 actually execute the self-blaming procedure since it will result in
05100 the painful re-experiencing of a negative affect-state of
05200 humiliation. An alternative strategy of assigning blame to others is
05300 next simulated and found not to eventuate warnings of humiliation.
05400 Hence it is executed. It operates to repudiate that the self is to
05500 blame for a wrong and to ascribe blame to other human agents. Now
05600 it is not the self who is responsible for a wrong but it is that the
05700 self 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 to 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 non-paranoid
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. Thus it does not provide an
09800 ontogenetic explanation of how an organization of processes evolved
09900 and grew to be the way it is. The model is further circumscribed
10000 in that it offers an explanation only of how the organization
10100 operates in the ethogenesis of symbolic behavior occurring in the
10200 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 non-negligible 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 they must be on guard
14800 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 non-paranoid 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 by extending its repertoire of ethogenic powers.
17500 In widening the scope of a simulation one attempts to increase its
17600 explanatory power by covering a greater range of facts while keeping
17700 the model consistent. Naturally, accuracy rather than range is the
17800 more fundamental desideratum.
17900
18000 Initial Conditions
18100 When a theory is embodied in a concrete operating model,
18200 representations of lawlike generalizations (in this case, tendency
18300 statements about rule-governed strategies) are combined with
18400 representations of singular conditions, usually termed "initial
18500 conditions". In constructing a simulation one can attempt to
18600 reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who is a member of
18700 some well-defined class such as "paranoid". Another approach, which
18800 we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual whose symbolic
18900 behavior will produce characteristic effects on expert judges leading
19000 him to be placed in the class "paranoid". The singular statements
19100 describing the initial conditions of our hypothetical individual
19200 follow.
19300 He is a 28 year old single Protestant male who works as a
19400 stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
19500 lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He is sensitive about his
19600 parents, his religion and about sex. His hobby is gambling on
19700 horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago he
19800 became involved in a severe quarrel with a bookie, claiming the
19900 bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel, it occurred to him
20000 that bookies pay protection to the underworld and that this bookie
20100 might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the Mafia. He
20200 is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
20300 underworld. He is willing to answer questions about non-sensitive
20400 areas of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
20500 attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
20600 Because communication with the model (affectionately called
20700 PARRY) takes place in the context of a psychiatric interview using
20800 unrestricted English, the first operations of the model involve the
20900 recognition of expressions characteristic of conversational language.