Kenneth Colby’s computer program PARRY can simulate a paranoid person’s dialogical interaction with others. The program’s logic and syntax (and that of the paranoid) have the same structures (Wilks and Catizone 1999). So it seems—and so I will show—does Donald Trump, and so too the avid Trump follower (‘Trumper.’) Once again, structural similarities function metaphorically. They serve to make analogies that cross over from the program to each compared persons’ thought, repre- sentations, and relationships. To identify the similarities, the comparisons 4 View (SV) presents these comparisons as similarities that shed light on contingencies for presenting, representing, and judging truth. These contingencies can tie the Trumper to the logic of Trump and its adher- ence to logical and schematic formats. The formats show standard predictable rules, such as those governing predictable and discernible negation patterns. Even so, unlike categorical logic, the SV presents rules as neither solely dedicated to supporting a concept of truth, nor coher- 5 can also cross over different levels of these phenomena. A Structural With the absence of these functions, the SV is unlike most views classified as ‘structuralism.’ SV analysis refers to persons—but also to a computer program simu- lating persons. The SV perspective and its method avoid traps of ordered classification templates, viz., those yielding dubious psychiatric diagnoses and hard to decouple mixes of personality and political factors. Instead, SV analysis is based in logical and schematic formulations. These are not merely after-the-fact factors. They can govern, yet also be projected within a ‘knowledge complex.’ On one hand, it is specific as it is reflec- tive of a logical and linguistic pattern, like PARRY and its dominion over different individuals with the same pattern. On the other hand, a knowledge complex also exists within a wider manifold of psychological ently yielding to analysis by categorical truth tables. dynamics and development. The SV takes on the non-traditional role of interpretant (see note 7 below). The SV is unlike traditional structuralist models. They propound discrete levels with characterizing patterns. Within a target domain, SV- generated relevant analogies can relate disparate levels of explanation for their displayable similarities. Distances in classification levels are bridged, and similarities made available in distant—even opposing—domains or contexts of meaning.

since you know by 2020 that modeling categorical logic and categorical truth tables tell you less about the “trumper” than the non-trumper do you [really] want to risk it, framing the trumper, at least, as a “moron” who can’t muster the “IQ” points (btw, was everybody jumping on that that new EQ+AQ+SQ wagon to own the Young-Girl’s war on war)?

that paradoxical circumstance where trump acts the fool, because he knows you’ll take the bait, in front of his base, amplified by algorithmic blunders: washingtonpost.com/…/clintons-data-driven-campaig…