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,  as  an
04300	anticipatory   function   or  experimental  trial,  a  simulation  of
04400	assigning blame or censure to the self.    If the self accepts blame,
04500	the  trial  simulation  detects  a fall in self-esteem, warning of an
04600	imminent potential humiliation for personal failure or  imperfection.
04700	Humiliation  represents a negatively valued affect-state signifying a
04800	self unacceptable in the eyes of the  self  as  well  as  of  others.
04900	The detection of potential humiliation in the simulation serves as an
05000	anticipatory warning  not  to  actually  execute  the  self-censuring
05100	procedure  since  it  will  result  in the painful re-experiencing of
05200	self-condemnation and loss of self-esteem.   To forestall this avowal
05300	of   the  self  as  faulty,  the  interpreter  tries  an  alternative
05400	simulation of assigning the fault to others.  Since  this  simulation
05500	produces  no  warnings of impending humiliation, the intentionalistic
05600	strategy of blaming others  is  executed  by  the  interpreter.    It
05700	operates (1) to repudiate that the self is to blame for an inadequacy
05800	and (2) to ascribe blame to other human agents.   Now it is  not  the
05900	self who is unacceptable because of inadequacy; instead, it is avowed
06000	that the self is wronged by others.
06100		These  intentionalistic  internal  strategies  for minimizing
06200	humiliation are only partially effective because  of  the  nature  of
06300	their  output  consequences.  They can self-defeatingly misfire since
06400	the output counteractions in which others are blamed, may  result  in
06500	the  self  undergoing  censure  and  condemnations  from  others  who
06600	retaliate.     In  this  sense  the   forestalling   strategies   are
06700	inefficient   since   the   blaming   and   accusing  of  others  can
06800	paradoxically lead to what the self wants to avoid, namely shame  and
06900	humiliation   for  personal  inadequacy.  Hostile,  antagonistic  and
07000	belittling behavior provokes  and  alienates  others.  The  locus  of
07100	censure is shifted from the self to others but the countering actions
07200	designed  to  blame  others  and  redress   believed   wrongs,   have
07300	self-defeating  repercussions  which expose the self to censure. They
07400	amplify rather than reduce  the  very  states  these  strategies  are
07500	attempting to forestall.
07600	
07700		The presuppositions sketched above  are  not  represented  as
07800	procedures  in  the  model-version  to  be  described.  (They will be
07900	explicitly  represented  in  future  versions  of  the  model).   The
08000	herin-described  version's  strategies,  actually  represented in the
08100	algorithm,  begin  with  a  scan   of   the   input   searching   for
08200	conceptualizations  as  defined  in Fig. 1.      The definition-rules
08300	are embodied in the behavior of the model but are not represented  as
08400	rules in the algorithm itself.  Using this classification scheme, the
08500	model attempts to identify the input as malevolent  ,  benevolent  or
08600	neutral.     For  example,   to   follow   one   path   through   the
08700	definition-rules, malevolence is defined as threats or harms; threats
08800	consist of expressions s of intent to harm and harms are  categorized
08900	as  mental  or  physical;  mental  harm  is defined as humiliation or
09000	subjugation; humiliation is defined as explicit or  implicit  insult;
09100	implicit  insult  consists of conceptualizations such as those listed
09200	in Fig.    1.    If  the  input  strategies  succeed  in  recognizing
09300	malevolence,  increases  in negative affect-states of fear, anger and
09400	mistrust occur and output strategies are executed in  an  attempt  to
09500	reduce the other's malevolent effects.  If benevolence is detected in
09600	the input, negative affect states decrease and an attempt is made  to
09700	tell  a  "story" seeking affirmation and vindication of the self from
09800	the  interviewer.  If  the  input  is  deemed  neutral,   a   neutral
09900	non-paranoid response is given.
10000		The  output  actions  of  the  paranoid mode are grouped into
10100	reducing persecution by retribution or by withdrawal. Retribution  is
10200	intended  to drive the other away whereas withdrawal removes the self
10300	from the sphere of the malevolent other.
10400		The above informal formulation summarizes a series of posited
10500	operations in an organization of symbol-processing procedures.    The
10600	details of these procedures  and  their  interactions  will  be  made
10700	explicit  when  the central processes of the model are described (see
10800	Chapter 5).
10900		The theory is circumscribed in that it  attempts  to  explain
11000	only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of episode, i.e.
11100	an interview.  It does not attempt to explain, for example,  why  the
11200	censuring  process  condemns particular actions or states of the self
11300	as inadequate nor how any of these procedures develop over time in  a
11400	person's  paranoidogenic socialization.      Thus it does not provide
11500	an ontogenetic  explanation  of  how  an  organization  of  processes
11600	evolved  and  grew  to  be  the  way  it is.     The model is further
11700	circumscribed in that it  offers  an  explanation  only  of  how  the
11800	organization   operates  in  the  ethogenesis  of  symbolic  behavior
11900	occurring in the present in a psychiatric interview.
12000		Some  scattered  and  insufficiently  interlocking   evidence
12100	bearing  on  the posited processes will now be discussed.  Evidential
12200	support for processes which attempt  to  contend  with  a  malevolent
12300	other  comes  from  clinical  observations  of  normal,  neurotic and
12400	psychotic  paranoias.   The   patient   may   report   directly   his
12500	self-monitoring  to  an  observer,  commenting that his, for example,
12600	hostile remarks, are intended to retaliate for believed wrongs at the
12700	hands of other people.
12800		The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
12900	experimental  evidence to support it.    Clinicians are familiar with
13000	the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
13100	report  their  hypervigilance  as  intended  to   detect   signs   of
13200	malevolence.    Silverman  (1964)  and  Venables (1964) have reported
13300	experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more  extensively
13400	scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
13500	other schizophrenic patients.
13600		In  considering  the  presuppositions  of  censure and blame,
13700	direct  evidence  is  hard  to  come  by  and  hence  such  auxiliary
13800	assumptions are on shakier ground. For centuries it has been a common
13900	observation that paranoids tend  to  accuse  others  of  actions  and
14000	states  which  hold  true  for  themselves  according  to  an outside
14100	observer.   In a classic paranoid clash 300 years ago, Newton, citing
14200	a  strategy  he  was  familiar with (only in others, of course), said
14300	about Leibniz: "he himself is guilty  of  what  he  complains  of  in
14400	others" (Manuel, 1968).      A  process  of  ascription has also been
14500	offered to account for the particular  selectivity  involved  in  the
14600	hypersensitivity  to  criticism.      That is, why does a man believe
14700	others will ridicule him about his appearance  unless  some  part  of
14800	himself believes his appearance to be defective?
14900		The obscurity of the relation between what the  self  expects
15000	as  malevolence  and the self's own properties is well illustrated in
15100	hypotheses which have attempted to explain the  paranoid  mode  as  a
15200	consequence  of  homosexual  conflict. It has long been observed that
15300	some (not all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned  with  the
15400	topic  of  homosexuality.    Several studies of hospitalized paranoid
15500	schizophrenics show them to be  preoccupied  with  homosexuality  far
15600	more  than  the nonpsychotic controls. (See Klaf and Davis ,1960).  A
15700	review  of  clinical,  test,  and  experimental  evidence   for   the
15800	homosexual  hypothesis  in  paranoid  schizophrenia  has been made by
15900	Kline who, while realizing the reliability and validity issues  which
16000	plague  these  studies,  concludes  that  the evidence is supportive.
16100	(Kline, 1972). Such evidence may be interpreted as having  generative
16200	implications  for  some  patients.       If  homosexual interests are
16300	evaluated by the censuring process an inadequate, unacceptable  self,
16400	then  the  ethogenesis  of the paranoid mode on these grounds becomes
16500	plausible  as  a  limiting  case  in  a  more  general   process   of
16600	forestalling   humiliation.       There   is  also  a  non-negligible
16700	probablity that an agent, doubtful of his own sexuality, might expect
16800	to  be  accused  of  homosexuality  in  a  community  which  censures
16900	homosexuality. In such a community homosexuals trying to  "pass"  are
17000	of   necessity  suspicious  since  they  must  be  on  guard  against
17100	stigmatizing detection.
17200		It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
17300	regulation of human conduct. But are  distortions  of  self-censuring
17400	and  blaming  processes  the  ontogenetic  core of the paranoid mode?
17500	Heilbrun and Norbert (1971) have shown that  paranoid  schizophrenics
17600	are  more sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption
17700	of a cognitive task by a tape-recording of  a  mother  censuring  her
17800	son. Further experimental evidence is needed along these lines.
17900		To embody the theory more comprehensively, the model might be
18000	extended in two ways. First, it could be made more dynamic over time.
18100	The model-version described here changes only over the  course  of  a
18200	single  interview.   To  explore  how  changes  can  be brought about
18300	through external symbolic input, the model should  have  capabilities
18400	for  self-modification  over  longer  periods  of  time  in  which it
18500	interacts with a number of interviewers. Such capacities  would  also
18600	allow  the  model  to  make retrospective misinterpretations, namely,
18700	reinterpreting old input as  malevolent  although  it  was  initially
18800	deemed as benevolent or neutral. A further use of more dynamic models
18900	could be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid  mode,  that  is,
19000	how   a  non-paranoid   symbolic   system  becomes  paranoid  through
19100	socializing interactions.
19200		An extension of the theory  would  involve  the  addition  of
19300	hypotheses   to   account   for   properties   such   as   arrogance,
19400	contemptuousness, and grandeur which are often found associated  with
19500	malevolence  convictions.     Implementation and integration of these
19600	hypotheses  in  the  model  would  complexify  it  to  increase   its
19700	comprehensiveness  by  extending  its repertoire of ethogenic powers.
19800	In widening the scope of a simulation one attempts  to  increase  its
19900	explanatory  power by covering a greater range of facts while keeping
20000	the model consistent. Naturally, accuracy rather than  range  is  the
20100	more fundamental desideratum.
20200	
20300	Initial Conditions
20400		When  a  theory  is  embodied  in a concrete operating model,
20500	representations of lawlike generalizations (in  this  case,  tendency
20600	statements   about   rule-governed   strategies)  are  combined  with
20700	representations  of  singular  conditions,  usually  termed  "initial
20800	conditions".    In  constructing  a  simulation  one  can  attempt to
20900	reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who  is  a  member  of
21000	some well-defined class such as "paranoid".   Another approach, which
21100	we adopted, is to construct a hypothetical individual whose  symbolic
21200	behavior will produce characteristic effects on expert judges leading
21300	him to be placed in the class "paranoid".   The  singular  statements
21400	describing  the  initial  conditions  of  our hypothetical individual
21500	follow.
21600		He is a 28 year old single Protestant male  who  works  as  a
21700	stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
21800	lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He  is  sensitive  about  his
21900	parents,  his  religion  and  about  sex.  His  hobby  is gambling on
22000	horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago  he
22100	became  involved  in  a  severe  quarrel  with a bookie, claiming the
22200	bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel, it occurred  to  him
22300	that  bookies  pay  protection to the underworld and that this bookie
22400	might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the  Mafia.  He
22500	is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
22600	underworld. He is willing to answer questions  about    non-sensitive
22700	areas  of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
22800	attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
22900		Because communication with the model  (affectionately  called
23000	PARRY)  takes  place  in the context of a psychiatric interview using
23100	unrestricted English, the first operations of the model  involve  the
23200	recognition of expressions characteristic of conversational language.