{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03511705685618729, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033444816053511705, 'mean_word_length': 5.234375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Models, metaphors and psychopathology: commentary on Javanbakht's "bugs and bowls".

The theory of bugs and bowls," as outlined by Javanbakht (2005), is, in essence a psychobiological metaphor for understanding psychotic processes. It attempts to bridge psychological and biological explanations for psychotic phenomena by using the metaphor of "bugs and bowls." In this metaphor, the bowl represents the organism's capacity to contain its own inner experience. The bowl is described psychologically, in analytic terms, vis-à-vis traditional ego function and its action of repression. Interestingly, the superego is left out in this discussion. Inner experience, in this regard, corresponds to the wishes and fears of the unconscious. Repressed pathological memories are included in this explanation as well. On the biological side, neuroanatomic, neurochemical, and cortical-subcortical circuits and neural networks are reviewed and folded into the metaphor. The author cites a variety of different literatures to beef up his proposal that "bugs and bowls" is a utilitarian model for the modern clinician. Although we are quite fond of the analogy, there are a few things about it that "bug" us.