00100	EVALUATION 
00200	
00300		The primary aim in constructing this model  was  to  explore,
00400	clarify, develop, test and improve -all with a model- a theory having
00500	explanatory value. To satisfy this aim, the model must meet norms  of
00600	internal    consistency   (systemicity)   and   norms   of   external
00700	correspondence with observation (testability). A secondary aim  would
00800	involve pragmatic norms of application.  These aims are not unrelated
00900	but the primary one is more  fundamental  since  useful  applications
01000	require some degree of consistency and correspondence to observation.
01100		As emphasized in Chapter  2,  a  model  in  the  form  of  an
01200	algorithm  consists  of  a structure of functions or procedures whose
01300	inner workings are  sufficient  to  reproduce  the  outward  symbolic
01400	behavior  under  consideration.   The theory embodied in the model is
01500	revealed  in  the  set of statements which illuminate the connections
01600	betweeen input and output, i.e.  which  describe  how  the  structure
01700	reacts under various circumstances.
01800		What constitutes a satisfactory explanation has been  treated
01900	in  2.1.     The "fit" or correspondence with facts of observation as
02000	indicated by measurements and empirical tests indicating  the  degree
02100	of  faithfulness  of  the  reproduction  were described in Chapter 6.
02200	Given that the model has met the above criteria, what does it  as  an
02300	artifact tell us about naturally-occurring paranoid processes?
02400		First, the model attempts to revisualize  or  reconceptualize
02500	the  phenomena  of  paranoid disorders. It draws attention to factors
02600	(such as the scan for malevolence and humiliation)  which  might  not
02700	otherwise  be  attended  to.   Paranoid  disorders  are not viewed as
02800	first-order "diseases" but as a mode of processing symbols  secondary
02900	to  a  primary  disturbance.    The  patterns  of linguistic paranoid
03000	behavior observed in an  interview  are  produced  by  an  underlying
03100	organized  structure  of  rules  and  not  by a variety of random and
03200	unconnected mechanical failures.  Second,  the  underlying  structure
03300	consists  of  an  algorithm,  an  organization  of  symbol-processing
03400	strategies or procedures. Third, the model as  an  analogy  indicates
03500	that  to  change this structure, its procedures must be accessible to
03600	reprogramming in the higher-level language of the algorithm. Finally,
03700	as  a  conceptual  reform,  the  model  suggests  that other types of
03800	psychopathologies  might   be   viewed   from   a   symbol-processing
03900	standpoint.
04000		Decision  procedures  for  consensus acceptability of a model
04100	sometimes depend not so much  on  truth,  an  elusive  state,  as  on
04200	whether  a  majority  of  the  relevant expert community believes the
04300	theory or model to approximate truth to some unknown  and  unknowable
04400	degree  and  to be better than promising available alternatives, that
04500	is, to be the best we can do for the time being.  A model is  tenable
04600	as  long  as  it is worth working with by improving it, extending it,
04700	devising experiments and tests  to  probe  it,  and  applying  it  in
04800	contexts  of  practical  action.  Validation  is ultimately a private
04900	experience of the individual. Empirical truth or  falsity  cannot  be
05000	proven with certainty, but their presence can be assayed by some sort
05100	of critical assessment and deliberation.  We can forgive  models  for
05200	being  only  nearly  true.   A theory or model may bring cognitive or
05300	pragmatic comfort, not because it is TRUE but because it represents a
05400	workable  possibility  which  is  an  improvement over its contending
05500	rivals.
05600		Cognitive comfort is a  type  of  intellectual  satisfaction.
05700	Pragmatic  comfort  accrues from applications to problems in order to
05800	make things work the way humans want  them  to  work  efficiently  in
05900	practical  contexts  of  technological  action. For the pragmatist, a
06000	model is a means to an end;  for  the  theoretician,  an  explanatory
06100	model  is  an end in itself. It is hoped that this paranoid model can
06200	contribute to understanding one of the mysteries  of  human  conduct,
06300	the  paranoid mode. There remains the enigma of the paranoid "streak"
06400	which renders whole nations  susceptible  to  ideological convictions
06500	in which Elsewhereans are believed to be malevolent oppressors.
06600		It  is  a  truism  of  methodology textbooks that an infinite
06700	number of theories or  models  can  account  for  the  same  data  of
06800	observation.        Without   questioning  whether  "infinite"  means
06900	indefinitely large or just more than one, we  must  allow  for  rival
07000	explanations.  For a rival to be a live and tenable option, it should
07100	be truly alternative (i.e., not just a family version saying the same
07200	thing  in  a  different way), and be confirmable or disconfirmable by
07300	tests.
07400		Although I  hold  that  faithful  reproduction,  fidelity  as
07500	measured  by  indistinguishability  along  specific  dimensions, is a
07600	proper and major test for the adequacy of simulation models, it would
07700	be a bonus if our model could satisfy the function of making possible
07800	new knowledge through prediction.     The  term  "prediction"  has  a
07900	spectrum   of   meanings  ranging  from  forecasts  to  prognoses  to
08000	prophecies to precise point-predictions in time.  To predict (and  to
08100	postdict)  from  a  theory  or model is to derive and announce a fact
08200	prior to knowledge of  its  actual  occurrence.   However  one  needs
08300	knowledge  of the kind of fact expected, the conditions which produce
08400	it and the circumstances under which it will occur. The  interest  in
08500	prediction  may  stem  from  a  desire (1) to confirm or disconfirm a
08600	theory or model or (2) to obtain useful information about the future,
08700	as in weather forecasting.  Celestial mechanics provides the ideal of
08800	accurate long-range predictions.   But  even  astronomers,  with  the
08900	advantage  of  studying  isolated  and repetitive systems, have their
09000	troubles.   In 1759 Halley's  comet  arrived  four  days  later  than
09100	predicted.    In  spite  of  our  advanced  20th century knowledge, a
09200	prediction made in 1962 was off by eight days, that is, twice as bad.
09300	(In  fairness we must make allowances for the fact that great masses,
09400	distances and velocities are involved).
09500		Predictions of individual human behavior are severely limited
09600	by  our  restrictions  of  knowledge.    For  example, (1) sufficient
09700	knowledge of initial conditions may require that we  know  the  whole
09800	past  history of an individual (something not yet achieved for even a
09900	single person), (2) individuals do not remain isolated over the  time
10000	stretch of the prediction; they interact with other individuals of an
10100	unknown nature, (3)  since  life  is  a  fortuitous  flux  of  chance
10200	intersections of independent causal chains, one would also have to be
10300	able to foresee events of the physical environment and  its  changes,
10400	(4)  the  process  of  observation  needed  to obtain information for
10500	predictions may have non-negligible and unforeseeable effects on  the
10600	observed.
10700		In  one  sense  our  paranoid  model  makes  moment-to-moment
10800	predictions and asserts  new  counterfactuals  about  behavior  in  a
10900	psychiatric  interview.  That  is,  if  an  interviewer  says X under
11000	conditions Y, then the model's  response  will  be  characterized  by
11100	z1...zn,   and   the   same   holds   true   for  paranoid  patients.
11200	Counterfactual  prediction  means  that  on  the  basis  of  observed
11300	behavior  we  are willing, with  an  inductive  risk,  to  assume the
11400	presence of unobserved behavior potentials in a model's or  patient's
11500	repertoire of capabilities.
11600		Predicting  new  kinds  of  events  or properties, instead of
11700	kinds we are already familiar with, would represent a genuine  bonus,
11800	indicating  the  model is more than ad hoc and has excess content. It
11900	would give both clinicians and investigators something to  look  for.
12000	This  novelty  could  arise  in  two  ways.    First, the model might
12100	demonstrate a property  of  the  paranoid  mode  hitherto  unobserved
12200	clinically.      In  principle  this could come about because the I-O
12300	behavior of  the  model  is  a  consequence  of  a  large  number  of
12400	interacting  hypotheses  and  assumptions chosen initially to explain
12500	frequently observed phenomena.    When the elements of such a complex
12600	conjunction  interact  with  highly  variable  inputs  they  generate
12700	consequences in addition to those  they  were  designed  to  explain.
12800	Whether  any  of these consequences are significant or characteristic
12900	of the paranoid mode remains a subject for future study.
13000		It  is  also  possible that a new property of paranoia may be
13100	discovered in the clinical  interview,  although  perhaps  everything
13200	that  can  be  said about paranoid dialogues has been said.  If a new
13300	property were found, a search  for  it  might  be  conducted  in  the
13400	model's  behavior. If successful, this again would add to the model's
13500	acceptability.
13600		A second novelty might arise in the behavior of the model  in
13700	some  new situation.   Since it is designed to simulate communicative
13800	behavior in an interview situation, the "new" circumstance would have
13900	to involve some new type of linguistic interaction to which the model
14000	is capable of responding. From its behavior one  might  then  predict
14100	how paranoid patients would behave under similar circumstances.   The
14200	requisite empirical tests and  measures  would  show  the  degree  of
14300	correspondence between patient and model behaviors.
14400		This possibility is of importance in considering emancipatory
14500	therapies for patients  entangled  in  the quandaries of the paranoid
14600	mode.    Since the model operates at a symbol processing level  using
14700	natural  language,  it  is      this  level  at  which linguistic and
14800	conceptual skills of clinicians can be  applied.   Language-based  or
14900	semantic  techniques  do not seem very effective in the psychoses but
15000	they are useful in states of lesser severity. A  wide  range  of  new
15100	semantic  techniques, including extremes, could be tried first on the
15200	model without subjecting patients to blind experimentation.
15300		While we have used the model principally to explore a  theory
15400	and  to study psychiatric judgements, its potential use as a training
15500	device has  not  escaped  our  reflections.    Medical  students  and
15600	psychiatric  residents  need  "disposable  patients"  to  practice on
15700	without jeopardy (to either). A version of  the  paranoid  model  can
15800	display  the  changes  in  its  inner  states  during  an  interview.
15900	Whether  the  optimal  goal  of  interviewing   (gathering   relevant
16000	information  without  upsetting  the patient)  has been achieved, can
16100	thus be estimated.     A  beginning  interviewer  could  practice  in
16200	private or with a supervisor present. Many interviewers have reported
16300	that the model has a definite effect on them.    The student can  get
16400	the  feel  of  the  paranoid mode long before he interviews an actual
16500	patient.     The effect  of  various  interviewing  styles  might  be
16600	studied and compared.
16700	
16800		Although this simulation of  paranoia  covers  a  variety  of
16900	facts,  it  is  circumscribed  in  what  it  attempts to explain. The
17000	proffered explanation is local and restricted in that it accounts for
17100	only  one  type  of  symbol-processing mode.  Past attempts at grand-
17200	scale explanations of all  mental  processes  in  all  contexts  have
17300	failed.  A  preferable  strategy, successful in other sciences, is to
17400	build one circumscribed and tested theory or model at a time so  that
17500	the  field  can  gradually  move  forward a step at a time, each step
17600	gaining consensus before attempting the next.