perm filename CHAP3[4,KMC]19 blob sn#088054 filedate 1974-02-20 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 complex conjunction of  (1)  main  and
00700	subsidiary  hypotheses,  (2)  simplifying  assumptions,  (3) boundary
00800	conditions and (4) statements of initial  conditions  Underlying  the
00900	theory are numerous other assumptions and presuppositions.
01000		Paranoid processes represent a disorder at  one  level  since
01100	they  do  not conform to norms, but 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. Since the theoretical ideas will be expressed
01800	in natural language, this formulation of the theory will of necessity
01900	have indefinite content.
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	An agent is taken here to be human. "To do" means to produce, prevent
02700	or  allow  something  to happen. The agent's power to do X (intrinsic
02800	and extrinsic enabling conditions) is assumed.   X  can  be  multiple
02900	sequential  or  concurrent  actions  and includes mental action (e.g.
03000	deciding) as  well  as  physical action (e.g.talking).   It  is  also
03100	presupposed  in  this  action-schema  that,    in doing X, A receives
03200	feedback as to whether S is coming about, i.e.    whether doing X  is
03300	successful  or  not  in obtaining S.  Thus an intention is defined to
03400	consist of a wish, a belief, and an action which may be carried  out,
03500	interrupted and diverted or simply planned.
03600		Further presupposed processes involve (1) an organization  of
03700	symbol-manipulating procedures or strategies at one level executed by
03800	(2) a  higher-level  interpreter.     A  serial  execution  of  these
03900	strategies  is  assumed  to  begin  with  the  interpreter  executing
04000	"censuring" procedures which judge an action, desire or state of  the
04100	self to reflect an inadequacy or defectiveness of the self.
04200		It   is   assumed   that  the  interpreter  then  attempts  a
04300	simulation, an experimental trial, of assigning blame or  censure  to
04400	the  self.    If the self accepts blame, the trial simulation detects
04500	an  affect-signal  of  shame,  warning  of  an   imminent   potential
04600	humiliation  for  personal  failure  or  imperfection.    Humiliation
04700	signifies an unacceptable self despised by others.  The detection  of
04800	shame  in  the  simulation  serves  as an anticipatory warning not to
04900	actually execute the self-censuring procedure since it will result in
05000	the  painful re-experiencing of the devastating negative affect-state
05100	of humiliation.    To forestall  this  exposure  of  inadequacy,  the
05200	interpreter  tries  an  alternative  simulation of assigning blame to
05300	others and in  this  experiment  detects  no  warnings  of  impending
05400	humiliation.  Hence this strategy is executed by the interpreter.  It
05500	operates (1) to repudiate that the self is to blame for an inadequacy
05600	and  (2)  to ascribe blame to other human agents.   Now it is not the
05700	self who is unacceptable because  of  inadequacy;  instead,  what  is
05800	believed is that the self is wronged by others.
05900		These internal strategies for the prevention  of  humiliation
06000	are  only  partially  effective because of the nature of their output
06100	consequences.  They can misfire since the  output  counteractions  in
06200	which others are blamed may result in the self undergoing censure and
06300	condemnations  from  others  who  retaliate.    In  this  sense   the
06400	forestalling   strategies  are  inefficient  since  the  blaming  and
06500	accusing of others can paradoxically lead to what the self  wants  to
06600	avoid, namely shame and humiliation for personal inadequacy. Hostile,
06700	antagonistic and belittling behavior provokes and  alienates  others.
06800	The  locus  of  censure  is  shifted  from the self to others but the
06900	countering actions designed to  blame  others  and  redress  believed
07000	wrongs,  have  paradoxical  repercussions  which  expose  the self to
07100	censure. They amplify  rather  than  reduce  the  very  states  these
07200	strategies are attempting to forestall.
07300	
07400		The  presuppositions  sketched  above  are not represented as
07500	procedures in the model-version to be described.   The model's actual
07600	strategies,  represented  in  the algorithm, begin with a scan of the
07700	input searching for conceptualizations as defined in Fig. 1.      The
07800	definition-rules  are  embodied  in the behavior of the model but are
07900	not  represented  as  rules in  the  algorithm  itself.  Using   this
08000	classification  scheme,  the  model attempts to identify the input as
08100	malevolent , benevolent or neutral. For example, to follow  one  path
08200	through  the  definition-rules, malevolence is defined as mental harm
08300	or  physical  threat;  mental  harm  is  defined  as  humiliation  or
08400	subjugation;  humiliation  is defined as explicit or implicit insult;
08500	implicit insult consists of conceptualizations such as  those  listed
08600	in   Fig.   1.   If  the  input  strategies  succeed  in  recognizing
08700	malevolence, increases in negative affect-states of fear,  anger  and
08800	mistrust  occur  and  output strategies are executed in an attempt to
08900	reduce the other's malevolent effects.  If benevolence is detected in
09000	the  input, negative affect states decrease and an attempt is made to
09100	tell a "story" seeking self-affirmation and self-vindication from the
09200	other.   If  the  input  is  deemed  neutral,  a neutral non-paranoid
09300	response is given. The  output  actions  of  the  paranoid  mode  are
09400	grouped  into  reducing  persecution by retribution or by withdrawal.
09500	Retribution is intended to drive the other  away  whereas  withdrawal
09600	removes the self from the sphere of the malevolent other.
09700		The above informal formulation summarizes a series of posited
09800	operations in an organization of symbol-processing procedures.    The
09900	details of these procedures  and  their  interactions  will  be  made
10000	explicit  when  the central processes of the model are described (see
10100	p.000 ).
10200		The theory is circumscribed in that it  attempts  to  explain
10300	only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of episode, i.e.
10400	an interview.  It does not attempt to explain, for example,  why  the
10500	censuring  process  condemns particular actions or states of the self
10600	as inadequate nor how any of these procedures develop over time in  a
10700	person's  paranoidogenic socialization.      Thus it does not provide
10800	an ontogenetic  explanation  of  how  an  organization  of  processes
10900	evolved  and  grew  to  be  the  way  it is.     The model is further
11000	circumscribed in that it  offers  an  explanation  only  of  how  the
11100	organization
11200	operates in  the  ethogenesis  of  symbolic behavior occurring in the
11300	present in a psychiatric interview.
11400		Some  scattered  and  insufficiently  interlocking   evidence
11500	bearing  on  the posited processes will now be discussed.  Evidential
11600	support for processes which attempt  to  contend  with  a  malevolent
11700	other  comes  from  clinical  observations  of  normal,  neurotic and
11800	psychotic  paranoias.   The   patient   may   report   directly   his
11900	self-monitoring  to  an  observer,  commenting that his, for example,
12000	hostile remarks, are intended to retaliate for believed wrongs at the
12100	hands of other people.
12200		The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
12300	experimental  evidence to support it.    Clinicians are familiar with
12400	the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
12500	report  their  hypervigilance  as  intended  to   detect   signs   of
12600	malevolence.    Silverman  (1964)  and  Venables (1964) have reported
12700	experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more  extensively
12800	scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
12900	other schizophrenic patients.
13000		In  considering  the  presuppositions  of  censure and blame,
13100	direct  evidence  is  hard  to  come  by  and  hence  such  auxiliary
13200	assumptions are on shakier ground. For centuries it has been a common
13300	observation that paranoids tend  to  accuse  others  of  actions  and
13400	states  which  hold  true  for  themselves  according  to  an outside
13500	observer.   In a classic paranoid clash 300 years ago, Newton, citing
13600	a  strategy  he  was  familiar with (only in others, of course), said
13700	about Leibniz: "he himself is guilty  of  what  he  complains  of  in
13800	others" (Manuel, 1968).      A  process  of  ascription has also been
13900	offered to account for the particular  selectivity  involved  in  the
14000	hypersensitivity  to  criticism.      That is, why does a man believe
14100	others will ridicule him about his appearance  unless  some  part  of
14200	himself believes his appearance to be defective?
14300		The obscurity of the relation between what the  self  expects
14400	as  malevolence  and the self's own properties is well illustrated in
14500	hypotheses which have attempted to explain the  paranoid  mode  as  a
14600	consequence  of  homosexual  conflict. It has long been observed that
14700	some (not all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned  with  the
14800	topic  of  homosexuality.    Several studies of hospitalized paranoid
14900	schizophrenics show them to be  preoccupied  with  homosexuality  far
15000	more  than  the nonpsychotic controls. (See Klaf and Davis ,1960).  A
15100	review  of  clinical,  test,  and  experimental  evidence   for   the
15200	homosexual  hypothesis  in  paranoid  schizophrenia  has been made by
15300	Kline who, while realizing the reliability and validity issues  which
15400	plague  these  studies,  concludes  that  the evidence is supportive.
15500	(Kline, 1972). Such evidence may be interpreted as having  generative
15600	implications  for  some  patients.       If  homosexual interests are
15700	evaluated by the censuring process an inadequate, unacceptable  self,
15800	then  the  ethogenesis  of the paranoid mode on these grounds becomes
15900	plausible  as  a  limiting  case  in  a  more  general   process   of
16000	forestalling   humiliation.       There   is  also  a  non-negligible
16100	probablity that an agent, doubtful of his own sexuality, might expect
16200	to  be  accused  of  homosexuality  in  a  community  which  censures
16300	homosexuality. In such a community homosexuals trying to  "pass"  are
16400	of   necessity  suspicious  since  they  must  be  on  guard  against
16500	stigmatizing detection.
16600		It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
16700	regulation of human conduct. But are  distortions  of  self-censuring
16800	and  blaming  processes  the  ontogenetic  core of the paranoid mode?
16900	Heilbrun and Norbert (1971) have shown that  paranoid  schizophrenics
17000	are  more sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption
17100	of a cognitive task by a tape-recording of  a  mother  censuring  her
17200	son. Further experimental evidence is needed along these lines.
17300		To embody the theory more comprehensively, the model might be
17400	extended in two ways. First, it could be made more dynamic over time.
17500	The model-version described here changes only over the  course  of  a
17600	single  interview.   To  explore  how  changes  can  be brought about
17700	through external symbolic input, the model should  have  capabilities
17800	for  self-modification  over  longer  periods  of  time  in  which it
17900	interacts with a number of interviewers. Such capacities  would  also
18000	allow  the  model  to  make retrospective misinterpretations, namely,
18100	reinterpreting old input as  malevolent  although  it  was  initially
18200	deemed as benevolent or neutral. A further use of more dynamic models
18300	could be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid  mode,  that  is,
18400	how   a  non-paranoid   symbolic   system  becomes  paranoid  through
18500	socializing interactions.
18600		An extension of the theory  would  involve  the  addition  of
18700	hypotheses   to   account   for   properties   such   as   arrogance,
18800	contemptuousness, and grandeur which are often found associated  with
18900	malevolence  convictions.     Implementation and integration of these
19000	hypotheses  in  the  model  would  complexify  it  to  increase   its
19100	comprehensiveness  by  extending  its repertoire of ethogenic powers.
19200	In widening the scope of a simulation one attempts  to  increase  its
19300	explanatory  power by covering a greater range of facts while keeping
19400	the model consistent. Naturally, accuracy rather than  range  is  the
19500	more fundamental desideratum.
19600	
19700	Initial Conditions
19800		When  a  theory  is  embodied  in a concrete operating model,
19900	representations of lawlike generalizations (in  this  case,  tendency
20000	statements   about   rule-governed   strategies)  are  combined  with
20100	representations  of  singular  conditions,  usually  termed  "initial
20200	conditions".    In  constructing  a  simulation  one  can  attempt to
20300	reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who  is  a  member  of
20400	some well-defined class such as "paranoid".   Another approach, which
20500	we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual whose  symbolic
20600	behavior will produce characteristic effects on expert judges leading
20700	him to be placed in the class "paranoid".   The  singular  statements
20800	describing  the  initial  conditions  of  our hypothetical individual
20900	follow.
21000		He is a 28 year old single Protestant male  who  works  as  a
21100	stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
21200	lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He  is  sensitive  about  his
21300	parents,  his  religion  and  about  sex.  His  hobby  is gambling on
21400	horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago  he
21500	became  involved  in  a  severe  quarrel  with a bookie, claiming the
21600	bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel, it occurred  to  him
21700	that  bookies  pay  protection to the underworld and that this bookie
21800	might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the  Mafia.  He
21900	is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
22000	underworld. He is willing to answer questions  about    non-sensitive
22100	areas  of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
22200	attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
22300		Because communication with the model  (affectionately  called
22400	PARRY)  takes  place  in the context of a psychiatric interview using
22500	unrestricted English, the first operations of the model  involve  the
22600	recognition of expressions characteristic of conversational language.