1.Kenneth Mark Colby, Arnold P. Goldstein and Leonard Krasner (Auth.)-Artificial Paranoia. a...

8/12/2019 1.Kenneth Mark Colby, Arnold P. Goldstein and Leonard Krasner (Auth.)-Artificial Paranoia. a Computer Simulation

1/10

The Central Processes of the Model 57

remember

del stmt, to

which interviewer

is about to

respond

hoosedel

D

fchange

* | I subject J

Fig. 5.5.

the algorithm), the program will refuse to d iscuss Mafia topics at all since

it is too upset to talk about this most sensitive area.

To make some of these operations more intelligible, let us consider

interview examples. Suppose at some point in the interview the doctor

asks a standard

first interview

question as follows:

(5) Dr.DO YOU EVER HAVE THE FEELING YOU ARE

BEING WATCHED?


2/10

58 Artificial Paranoia

Flg. 5.6 Directed graph of flare concepts.

If this is the first reference to the delusional net, FEAR will increase

greatly and the linguistic response will be:

(6) Pt.YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW ME.

In making this response, the model must expect from the interviewer a

number of typical questions of the wh-type as well as rejoinder state

ments. The use of

they

by the interviewerinhis response to the m odel's

output is assumed to be an anaphoric reference to the they PARRY is

talking about. Although it is likely the interviewer will react to the m odel's

output of (6), the algorithm must be prepared for the possibility that he

will change the topic. Hence if the interviewer at this point asks some

non-sequitur question such as:

(7) Dr.HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN HOSPITAL?

the program recognizes that no reference to the delusional topic has been

made and answers the question just as though it had been asked in any

other context. This ability to deal with input in a flexible manner is

important because of the many contingencies that can occur in psychiat

ric dialogues.

If the topic is changed abruptly in this way by an interviewer, the

algorithm remembers that it has output its

first

delusional statement of

(6).

When the interviewer makes another neutral delusional reference, the


3/10


next line of the delusional story will be output, e.g.,

8

Pt.THE MAFIA REALLY K N O W ABOUT ME.

The ability to answer typical wh- and how questions depends on how

much conceptual information is contained in the delusional belief being

addressed. For example, suppose PARRY replied as in (6):

(6) Pt.YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW ME.

and the interviewer then asked:

(9) Dr.WHERE DO THEY KNOW ABOUT YOU?

If the expectancy-anaphoras contain no where, then a question about

location cannot be answered. In this default situation, the algorithm

recognizes the anaphoric they, know and you. Hence it knows at

least that the topic has not been changed so it outputs the next statement

in the delusional story:

(9) pt.THEY KNOW WHO I AM.

and again anticipates questions and rejoinders pertaining to this state

ment.

In constructing the data-base of beliefs, we tried to pack as much

information in each belief as any reasonable (like ourselves) inter

viewer might request. However, one cannot anticipate everything and

when some unanticipated information is requested , another relevant reply

must be substituted. This heuristic may seem less than perfect but there is

little else to do when the model simply lacks the pertinent information. B y

the way, humans do this also.

When the interviewer shows interest in the delusional story, PARRY

continues to output assertions appropriate to the dialogue. However,

when the interviewer expresses doubt or disbelief about the delusions,

ANGER and FEAR increase and the interviewer becomes questioned as

in:

10)

Pt.YOU DON T BELIEVE

ME,

DO YOU?

Such an output expression attempts to prompt the dialogue toward the

relation between the interviewer and the model, which will be described

later (see p. 65).

If no delusional reference at all is detected by this procedure, the

algorithm attempts the next function that searches for certain types of

references to the

self

(See Fig. 5.7.)


4/10

60 Artificial Paran oia

Self References

Since

the

main concern

of a

psychiatric interview consists

of the

beliefs, feelings, state s,andactionsofthe patient,themodel mustbeable

to answer

a

large number

of

questions about

its Self.

If

the

input

is

recognized

as a

question

and no

topic

is

currently under

discussion

and the

question refers

to the Self,

then

it is

assumed

temporarily that it will refer only to a main self-topic. These mainor

intro duc tory self-topics (age, sex, marriage, health, family, occupation,

hospital stay, etc.)inturn hav e subtopicstovarying depths .Forexam ple,

suppose

the

interviewer asks:

(11) Dr.HOW

DO YOU

LIKE

THE

HOSPITAL?

Since hospital

is a

main intro du ctor y topic with several levels

of

subtopics,the algorithm answers the question with:

1 2 Pt.ISHOULDN T HAVE COME HERE.

and then anticipates

a

variety

of

likely questions such

as

W hat brought

you

to the

hospital? ,

How

long have

you

been

in the

hospital? ,

How

do

you get

along with

the

other patients? ,

etc.

Each

of

these questions

brings

up

further topics, some

of

which represent

a

continuation

of the

main topic hospital, butothers of which represent a shift to another

main introductory topic,

e.g.,

other patien ts. Since many

of the

inputs

of

the

interviewer consist

of

ellipses

or

fragments,

the

algorithm assum es

them

to

refer

to the

topic

or

subtopic under discussion.

If

some topic

is

being discussed,thealgorithm checks firstfor anew m ain topic, thenfor a

follow-upto the last subtopic, then (unlessthesubtopicisitself a main

topic,as forexample other patie nts in theabove)for afollow-upto the

last main topic. Thus continuity and coherence in the dialogue are

maintained.

If some meaning cannot

be

extracted from

the

question

but it is

recognized

at

least that

a

question

is

being asked,

a

procedure

is

called

that attempts

to

handle certain common miscellaneous questions that

are

difficult

to

categorize. These include

the

space-time orientation questions

( What

day is

this? )

and

everyday information

( Who is

president? )

asked

by

psychiatrists

in a

mental-status examination

to

test

a

pa tient's

awareness

and

orientation. Some quantitative

how

questions

( how

many,

how

often,

how

long )

are

recognized here. Since

any

adjective

or

adverb

can

follow

a

how,

one of the

limitations

of the

model

is its

inability

to

handle

all of

them satisfactorily because

the


5/10

The Central Processes of the Model

61

IreturrNy

f a l s e / ^

^^wit l i^S .

direct r e f ^ i yS

s ^ o s e l f ? ^ ^

N

TR E P LY

[\

.suspicious y

W i e s t i o n /

^ X w i t h S . v

^ direct ref >

S J o s e l f ? ^

N*

yreturrK

false X

. a u e s t i o n ? ^ a

N |

NORMAL 1

REPLY

return false}

J defensive ]

reply J

^^

'ANSWERA

answer |

suspiciously

Fig. 5.7.


6/10

62 Artificial Parano ia

relevant information is lacking in the data-base. If absolutely no clues are

recognized in the question, the algorithm is forced to output

noncommit

tal reply such as:

(13) Pt.WELL, I DON'T KNOW.

This function also checks for statements about the self that are taken to

be insulting or complimentary. Naturally the presence of a negator in the

input reverses the meaning. Thus:

(14) Dr.YOU DONT SEEM VERY ALERT.

is classified as an insult whereas:

(15) Dr.YOU ARE RIGHT.

is considered complimentary and benevolent.

Among the introductory self-topics are those that constitute sensitive

areas, e.g., sex, religion, and family. If the interviewer refers to one of

these areas, the value of ANGER increases sharply and a response is

selected from one of the lists categorized as hostile, defensive,

personal, or guarded, depending on the level of MISTRUST at the

moment. For example, if the interviewer asks a question about PARRY'S

sex life, it first replies with:

(16) Pt.MY SEX LIFE IS MY OWN BUSINESS.

If the interviewer persists or even later tries to ask about sex, the model

will respond with a hostile reply, such as:

17 Pt.DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING?

The particular sensitive areas in the model are part of the initial

conditions specific for this hypothetical patient. Of course, these topics

are commonly found to be sensitive areas in human patients.

The model operates sequentially trying one major process after

another. If it has come this far (i.e., having tested for special reactions,

delusional references, and self-references without recognizing anything in

the input pertinent to these procedures), it proceeds to the next process,

which handles flare references. (See Figs. 5.8 and 5.9.)

Flare References

The data-base contains a directed graph of concepts involved in the

model's stories. PARRY has small stories to tell about horseracing,

gambling, bookies, etc. The major concepts of these stories are termed


7/10


flare conce pts since they activate stories that are differently weighted

in the graph. (See Fig. 5.6.)

In the strong version of the mod el, the concept M afia is given the

highest weight, while in the weak version the concept R ac ke ts is most

heavily weighted. In both versions H or se s has the lowest weight. The

weights are assigned to the concepts and not individual words or

word-groups denoting the concepts.

The graph is directed in the sense that reference to horseracing elicits

the first line of a story about horseracing . When a story is ended, a prom pt

is given to the interviewer to discuss the next story in the graph, which

involves bo ok ies . The model strives to tell its stories under approp riate

conditions and leads the interviewer along paths of increasing delusional

relevance. Much depends on whether the interviewer follows these leads

benev olently and reacts to the prom pts.

The first step in this procedure is to scan the input for a flare concept

having the highest weight. Thus if a flare concept is already under

discussion, a weaker new flare will be disrega rded. If th e flare concept is

one in a story that has already been partially told, then a prom pt is offered

regarding the next story-node in the graph.

If a question is asked about the events of a story, the model tries to

answer it. Also the model is sensitive to whether the interviewer is

showing interest in the story or whether he tries to change the subject or

expresses a negative attitude, such as

disbelief.

If the interviewer indicates a positive attitude toward the story, then

benevolence is recognized and the variables of ANGER, FEAR, and

MISTRUST decrease slightly after each I O pair. ANG ER decreases

more rapidly than FEAR while MISTRUST, being a more stable variable

once it has risen, decreases least.

If n o flare conc epts a re recognized in the inpu t, the model next tries to

detect if a reference is being made to the relation betw een th e interviewer

and the model. In an interview interaction there exist two situations, the

one being talked about and the one the participants are in at the moment.

Sometimes the latter situation becomes the former, i.e. the one talked

about.

Interviewer-Interviewee Relations

As described in Chapter 4, the algorithm must be ready to handle input

referring to the relation between interviewer and model. The simplest

cases are exemplified by expressions such as:

(18) Dr.I UNDERSTAND YOU.


8/10

e

flareref

I

D

FLAREMECH

respond to

flare and

delete as flare

FLAREMECH

respond to

flare and

delete as

flare

FLARE REPLY

suspicious

question

- * silence j

LEAD ON

ANSFLARE

answer

RESPFLARE

respond

I CHECK TOPICI

| check

to see whether

interviewer is

changing topic

ask leading

question about

next higher

flare

Fig. 5.8.

64


9/10

checkflare

D

_/TY.

set new flare =

this wo rd

set result = true

set global

flare to new

flare

Fig. 5.9.

65


10/10

66 Artificial Paran oia

(19) Dr.YOU DO NOT TRUST ME.

Those phrases in an expression that can appear between I and yo u or

betw een yo u and m e we classified as representing a positive or

negative attitude on the part of the interviewer. Thus expression (18) is

taken to be positive whe reas

19)

is negative becau se, although it contains a

positive verb, the verb is negated.

If a positive attitude is expressed by the interviewer, FEAR and

ANGER decrease. FEAR and ANGER increase depending on the con

ceptualizations of the input. These attitudes of the interviewer, as

interpreted by the model, are reflected in the values of the affect-

variables.

Associated in the data base with each type of attitude expression

expected are lists of appropriate output expressions. Thus in reply to:

(20) Dr.I UNDERSTAND YOU.

the model would reply:

(21) Pt. GLAD YOU DO.

or

(22) Pt.I APPRECIATE YOUR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

or some equivalent expression depending on values of the affect-

variables. When ANGER and FEAR are high, positive attitude expres

sions are interpreted as insincerity and hence evoke hostile replies.

The remainder of input expression types thus far not discussed are

handled by a procedure for miscellaneous expressions.

Miscellaneous Expressions

This procedure deals with all those interviewer ex pressions from which

no clear conceptualization can be formed. The only thing that can be

determined is perhaps the sentence-type of the input. Presented with one

of these ex pression s, if FE AR is extremely high PARR Y signs off without

a farewell expression and cannot be contacted through further natural

language input. If FEAR is high but not extreme, and the input is

recognized as a question, the model chooses a reply from a list that brings

up the attitude of the interviewer as in:

(23) Pt.WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW?

1.Kenneth Mark Colby, Arnold P. Goldstein and Leonard Krasner (Auth.)-Artificial Paranoia. a...

Documents

Transcript of 1.Kenneth Mark Colby, Arnold P. Goldstein and Leonard Krasner (Auth.)-Artificial Paranoia. a...