wharr
We have eyes so that we can see
or
We see because we have eyes
One implies purposeful occurrence for future events, and one implies incidental occurrence from past events.
In psychosis, occurrences are decontextualised from past events, and therefore purposeful future explanations are sought.
People with psychosis look at events as being the cause of future events, rather than the sum of past events.
This involves a speculative, predictive appraisal of events, rather than contextual knowledge.
This is similar to one (shrewd) distinctive feature between religious and evolutionary theory:
Religion: We were designed; there is a plan for us; a fate
Evolution: We are here because of a “long and unimaginably complex sequence of events stretching back 4.6 billion years or so” (Bryson, 2003, p307). The earth wasn’t made to be so miraculously accommodating for us; we evolved to suit its conditions.
We have eyes so that we can see – implies a plan (to see)
We see because we have eyes – our seeing is a result of a complex sequence of events starting with very basic sensory receptors that developed into eyes
In psychosis, it is common for people to be looking for one’s existential meaning / purpose / plan. They are therefore looking forwards (with predictive appraisal), rather than backwards. They look for clues in the events that are happening to / around them: ‘What do they mean in terms of my future purpose?’ This creates a biased perception of events. The person will focus primarily on those aspects that can be personally applied. Everything around them (e.g. newspaper headlines, posters, number plates) are appraised in terms of what they mean in realtion to the person, and in particular, to the person’s existential concerns.
This is a personalising appraisal bias.
Finding meaning in occurences soon becomes a preoccupation, even an obsession. The confirmatory bias is operating at it’s full capacity. The other (non-confirmatory) occurrences will either be ignored, or somehow twisted in a roundabout way (similar to breaking a complex code) so that meaning can also be attached. Indeed, it is probably those occurences that have least obvious connections that are the most satisfying / rewarding to extract meaning from, because they require the successful breaking of a complex code. The individual may be reinforced by a sense that they are getting better at cracking the clues. After a few difficult clues, an ‘obvious’ one might come along and – BANG – adament conviction.
The personalising bias creates a perception of elevated self-importance, which is either expressed as grandiosity (saviour / chosen one), or as paranoia (target for persecution, deserved (bad me) or undeserved (poor me)).