perm filename CHAP3[4,KMC]9 blob
sn#053950 filedate 1973-07-12 generic text, type T, neo UTF8
00100 .SEC A SYMBOL-PROCESSING THEORY OF THE PARANOID MODE
00200
00300
00400 .SS Hypotheses and Presuppositions
00500
00600 A theory involves a conjunction of hypotheses (main and
00700 subsidiary), auxiliary assumptions and initial conditions. Underlying
00800 the theory are numerous stated and unstated presuppositions. The
00900 theory of the paranoid mode to be described posits a structure or
01000 organization of interacting symbolic procedures. These procedures and
01100 their interactions are supplemented in the theory by a number of
01200 auxiliary assumptions and presuppositions which will become apparent
01300 as the story unfolds.
01400 I shall first contrast two modes of information processing
01500 activity, one termed "ordinary" and one termed "paranoid".
01600 In the ordinary mode a person goes about his business of
01700 everyday living in a matter-of-fact way. He deals with routine
01800 situations in his environment as they arise, in the main taking
01900 things at their face value. Things and people behave in accordance
02000 with his beliefs and expectations and thus can be managed routinely.
02100 Only a small amount of attention need be devoted to monitoring the
02200 environment , simply checking that everthing is as expected. This
02300 placid ongoing sequence can be interrupted by the the detection of
02400 signs of alarm or opportunity at any time but the predominant
02500 condition is one of a steady progression of events so ordinary as to
02600 be uneventful.
02700 In contrast to this routine ordinariness is an arousal state
02800 of emergency . The particular aroused emergency I shall be
02900 considering describes the paranoid mode of information processing as
03000 characterized by a wary suspiciousness. A person in paranoid mode can
03100 be compared to a spy in a hostile country. To him everyone is a
03200 potential enemy, a threat to his existence who must be evaluated for
03300 malevolence or harmlessness. The secret agent is hypervigilant and
03400 fully mobilized to attack, to flee, to stalk. In this situation
03500 appearances are not to be taken at face value as ordinary events or
03600 background but each is attended to and interpreted to detect
03700 malevolence. Events in the environment, which in the ordinary mode
03800 would not be connected to the self, become referred to the self as
03900 potentially menacing. The unintended is misinterpreted as intended
04000 and the undesigned is confused with the designed. Nothing is
04100 unattendible. The predominant intention of the agent is to detect
04200 malevolence from others. In paranoid patients the over-riding belief
04300 in and expectation of malevolence on the part of others keeps the
04400 self in an aroused alarm state , a state which occurs only
04500 occasionally in the ordinary mode of information processing. (MORE
04600 HERE ON EVERDAY PARANOIA ??
04700 (ACCOUNTS OF PARANOID MODE IN LITERARY STYLE--CORVO,
04800 HEMINGWAY,HOFSTADER,FOWLES, JOE LOUIS STORY??)
04900
05000
05100
05200 In the following account I shall presuppose a schema of
05300 intentionalistic action and non-action which takes the form of a
05400 practical inference:
05500 AN AGENT A WANTS SITUATION S TO OBTAIN
05600 A BELIEVES THAT IN ORDER FOR S TO OBTAIN, A MUST DO X
05700 THEREFORE A PLANS, TRIES OR PROCEEDS TO DO X
05800 .END
05900 An agent is taken here to be human. To do means to produce, prevent
06000 or allow something to happen. We presuppose the agent's power to do
06100 X. X can be multiple sequential or concurrent actions and includes
06200 mental action (e.g. deciding) as well as physical
06300 action(e.g.talking). It is also presupposed in this action-schema
06400 that , in doing X, A receives feedback as to whether S is coming
06500 about, i.e. whether doing X is successful or not in obtaining S.
06600 Thus an intention is defined to consist of a wish, a belief, and an
06700 action which may actually be carried out or simply planned.
06900 The major processes here posited to govern the paranoid mode
07000 involve an organization of symbol-manipulating procedures at one
07100 level executed by an interpreter at another level. I shall sketch
07200 the operations of this organization informally.
07300 Presupposed are "consciencing" procedures which judge an
07400 action, desire or state of the self to be wrong or defective
07500 according to criteria in terms of sanctioning beliefs. A censuring
07600 process then attempts to assign blame to an agent for the wrong.
07700 The interpreter attempts a simulation of assigning blame to
07800 the self. If the self accepts blame, the trial simulation detects an
07900 affect-signal of shame warning of an eventual undergoing of
08000 humiliation for personal failure or imperfection. The detection in
08100 the simulation serves as an anticipatory warning not to actually
08200 execute this procedure since it will result in the painful
08300 re-experiencing of a negative affect-state of humiliation. An
08400 alternative procedure of assigning blame to others is next simulated
08500 and found not to eventuate in a painful affect-state. Hence it is
08600 executed. It operates to repudiate that the self is to blame for a
08700 wrong and to ascribe blame to other human agents. Now it is not the
08800 self who is responsible for a wrong but it is that the self is
08900 wronged by others.
09000 These presupposed strategies are inefficient and only
09100 partially effective in the prevention of humiliation. They can
09200 misfire since the counteractions generated may result in the self
09300 repeatedly undergoing criticisms and condemnations from others,
09400 exposing the self to incremental shame and humiliation. Hostile,
09500 antagonistic and belittling behavior provokes and alienates others.
09600 The locus of censure is shifted from the self to others but the
09700 countering actions designed to ontend with others, and redress the
09800 wrongs, have paradoxical repercussions tending to amplify rather than
09900 reduce the very states the self is attempting to forestall and ward
10000 off.
10100
10200 The above-described presuppositions are not embodied as
10300 procedures in the model. The model begins with a scan of the input
10400 searching first for malevolence on the part of the interviewer. The
10500 definitions of malevolence are given in Table 000. Using this
10600 classification scheme, the model attempts identify the input as
10700 malevolent , benevolent or neutral. If the input strategies succeed
10800 in recognizing malevolence, increases in negative affect-states occur
10900 and output strategies are executed in an attempt to reduce the
11000 other's malevolent effects. If benevolence is detected in the input,
11100 an attempt is made to tell a " story" seeking self-affirmation and
11200 self- vindication from the other. If the input is deemed neutral, a
11300 neutral nonparanoid response is given.
11400 The above description attempts to summarize informally a
11500 series of posited operations in an organization of symbol-processing
11600 procedures. The details of these procedures and their interactions
11700 will be made explicit when the algorithm is described (see p ).
11800 The theory is circumscribed in that it attempts to explain
11900 only certain symbolic phenomena of a particular type of episode,i.e.
12000 an interview.It does not attempt to explain, for example, why the
12100 censuring process condemns particular actions or states as wrongs nor
12200 how any of these procedures develop over time in a person's
12300 paranoidogenic socialization experience. Thus it does not provide
12400 an ontogenetic explanation of how an organization of processes
12500 evolved and grew to be the way it is. The model is further
12600 circumscribed in that it offers an explanation only of how the
12700 organization operates in the ethogenesis of conduct and character
12800 occuring in the present in a psychiatric interview.
12900 Some evidence bearing on the posited processes will now be
13000 discussed. Evidential support for processes which attempt to contend
13100 with a malevolent other comes from clinical observations of normal,
13200 neurotic and psychotic paranoias. The agent may report his
13300 self-monitoring directly to an observer commenting that his, for
13400 example, hostile remarks are intended to retaliate for a believed
13500 wrong at the hands of the other. ("I want him to feel bad and to
13600 leave me alone".) The output actions of the paranoid mode can be
13700 grouped into reducing persecution by retribution or by withdrawal.
13800 Retribution is intended to drive the other away while withdrawal
13900 removes the self from the sphere of the other. There does not seem to
14000 be any experimental evidence bearing on this point. Perhaps the
14100 clinical and everyday observations are sufficient enough not to
14200 require any.
14300 The process of scanning for malevolence has both clinical and
14400 experimental evidence in its behalf. Clinicians are familiar with
14500 the darting eye-movements of psychotic paranoids. Patients themselves
14600 report their hypervigilance as intended to detect signs of
14700 malevolence. Silverman ( ) and Venables () have reported
14800 experiments indicating that paranoid schizophrenics more extensively
14900 scan their visual fields and have a greater breadth of attention than
15000 other schizophrenic patients.
15100 In considering the presuppositions of censure and blame,
15200 direct evidence is hard to come by and hence such background
15300 assumtions are on shakier ground. Since antiquity it has been a
15400 common observation that paranoids tend to accuse others of actions
15500 and states which hold true for themselves according an outside
15600 observer. As Newton, in a classic paranoid clash, said about Leibniz
15700 300 years ago: "he himself is guilty of what he complains of in
15800 others"( Manuel). A process of ascription has also been offered to
15900 account for the particular selectivity involved in the
16000 hypersensitivity to criticism. That is, why does a man believe
16100 others will ridicule him about his appearance unless hef himself
16200 believes his appearance to be defective. An alternative view is that
16300 the selectivity stems from an agent, uncertain of himself and
16400 observing how others in his community are censured and ridiculed,
16500 expects the same to be applied to him.
16600 The obscurity of the relation between what the self expects
16700 as malevolence and the self's own properties is well illustrated in
16800 hypotheses which have attempted to explain the paranoid mode as a
16900 consequence of homosexual conflict. It has long been observed that
17000 some (not all) paranoid patients are excessively concerned with the
17100 topic of homosexuality. Several studies of hospitalized paranoid
17200 schizophrenics show them to be preoccupied with homosexuality far
17300 more than the nonpsychotic controls.(See Klaf and Davis [ ],etc) Such
17400 evidence may be interpreted as having generative implications for
17500 certain cases. As a special case in a more general theory of avoiding
17600 humiliation, if homosexual interests are evaluated by the censuring
17700 process as wrong, then the ethogenesis of the paranoid mode on these
17800 grounds becomes plausible. There is also a nonnegligible probability
17900 that an agent, doubtful of his own sexuality, might expect to be
18000 accused of homosexuality in a community which censures homosexuality.
18100 In such a community homosexuals trying to "pass" are of necessity
18200 suspicious and a bit paranoid since like the spy in hostile
18300 territory, they must be on guard against stigmatizing detection.
18400 It is obvious that self-censuring processes contribute to the
18500 regulation of human conduct. But are distortions of self-censuring
18600 and blaming processes the ontogenetic core of the paranoid mode?
18700 Heilbrun and Norbert have shown that paranoid schizophrenics are more
18800 sensitive to maternal censure as measured by the disruption of a
18900 cognitive task by a tape-recording of a mother censuring her son. [
19000 ] (Give anecdotal examples? Spassky-Fischer, Hofstader, Fowles,
19100 Corvo)
19200 The theory might be extended in two ways. First, the model
19300 could be made more dynamic over time. The version described here
19400 changes only over the course of a single interview. To explore how
19500 changes can be brought about through external symbolic input, the
19600 model must have capabilities for self-modification over longer
19700 periods of time in which it interacts with a number of interviewers.
19800 Such capacities would also allow the model to make retrospective
19900 misinterpretations, namely, reinterpreting input formerly deemed as
20000 benevolent or neutral, as malevolent. A further use of more dynamic
20100 models will be to explore the ontogenesis of the paranoid mode, that
20200 is, how a system grows to be the way it is through socialization.
20300 A second extension of the theory would involve the addition
20400 of hypotheses to account for additional properties such as arrogance,
20500 contemptuousness, and grandeur which are often found associated with
20600 malevolence convictions. Implementation and integration of these
20700 hypotheses in the model would complexify it to increase its
20800 comphrehensiveness and scope by extending its repertoire of
20900 symboligenic powers. In widening the scope of a simulation one thus
21000 increases its explanatory power in covering a greater range of facts
21100 but accuracy should remain a more fundamental desideratum than range.
21200 .SS Initial Conditions
21300 When a theory is embodied in a concrete operating model,
21400 representations of lawlike generalizations are combined with
21500 representations of singular conditions, usually termed "initial
21600 conditions". In constructing a simulation one can attempt to
21700 reproduce the behavior of an actual individual who is a member of
21800 some well-defined class. Another approach, which we adopted, is to
21900 construct a hypothetical individual whose symbolic behavior will
22000 cause him to be placed in a certain class, in this case the class
22100 "paranoid". The singular statements describing our hypothetical
22200 individual follow.
22300 He is a 28 year old single Protestant male who works as a
22400 stockclerk at Sears, a large department store. He has no siblings and
22500 lives alone, seldom seeing his parents. He is sensitive about his
22600 parents, his religion and about sex. His hobby is gambling on
22700 horseracing, both at tracks and through bookies. A few months ago he
22800 became involved in a severe quarrel with a bookie, claiming the
22900 bookie did not pay off a bet. After the quarrel it occurred to him
23000 that bookies pay protection to the underworld and that this bookie
23100 might gain revenge by having him injured or killed by the Mafia. He
23200 is eager to tell his story and to get help in protecting him from the
23300 underworld. He is willing to answer questions about non- sensitive
23400 areas of his life and offers hints about his delusional system in an
23500 attempt to feel out the interviewer's attitude towards him.
23600 Because communication with the model takes place in the
23700 context of a psychiatric interview using unrestricted English, some
23800 problems of computer understanding of natural language will next be
23900 discussed.