Skip to main content

Our Cognitive Junk and a short cut through it

Over our lives we learn what to do and how to behave in certain known situations. These ‘ways’ are mental frameworks that we have developed. In psychology these mental frameworks are called schemas. [The advantage of a schema is that it helps us predict a result - but this result can be achieved even without this schema]. At times our schemas also make it difficult to get to a ‘desired’ result. This post suggests a method to get to this desired result by by-passing an incorrect schema and calls such incorrect schemas 'Cognitive Junk'.

A Schema is a mental framework that deals with a situation. For example our schema for eating at a restaurant is the following: we ask for a table, go through the menu, order, enjoy the food, pay the bill and then leave.

We can rely on this schema because we expect the same routine every time.

Schemas make things predictable. They could be used by someone to predict our behavior.

Now the behavior a schema triggers always leads to the same [or nearby] effect. But this effect could have been reached without the schema - the following experiment demonstrates this:

Experiment: A specialist came to class and took an IQ test. He did not grade the test but said that certain students had very high IQ. 6 months later those students showed a marked improvement.

Schema: Teacher wanted students in her class to do well. She also thought that high IQ meant potentially better grades. So when told 'certain' students in her class had high IQ she gave them better attention.

Cause-Effect: Teacher gave more attention to a student so he/she did better.

The schema has an effect but the schema itself is not needed to improve student performance. The teacher could have given more attention despite this experiment and had the same effect.

It’s important to focus on the cause and effect and not the schema.

One example of how this applies to our daily lives is shown below.

If two people are in a relationship that is going bad chances are the relationship will become worse. Their behavior becomes one of malevolence towards each other and this naturally halts progress. At times this behavior is a result of some incorrect schema[s] the two individuals have [i.e. they have un necessarily complicated the problem in their mind] probably because they don’t want to deal with each other. If they cut right through their schemas and are good to each other [without want of recompense] the other person will be good to them and this would solve the problem. Thus the schemas [for this situation] they hang onto are completely useless and harmful.

Hence schemas sometimes make up for cognitive junk that keeps us from zeroing in on an underlying cause-effect relationship. If we work on a benefiting cause-effect relationship we can produce the desired effect.


NOTES
1. Some of the debates I have witnessed are useless debates over schemas and do not focus on the underlying basic cause-effect relationship that would resolve the debate.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explanation of the movie 'Revolver'

I saw the movie for the umpteenth time last night and I finally got it.

This is what the movie says:

1) In every game and con there is always a victim and there is always an opponent. It's good to know when you are the former so you can become the latter.

2) But the question is how do you prepare yourself for this game?

3) You only get smater by playing a smarter opponent.

4) The smarter the game the smarter the opponent

5) Checkers is an example of such a game. Chess is a better game. Debate is an even better opportunity to learn and so on.

6) But the question is where does the game stop? or one can ask what is the smartest game one can play?

7) The answer according to the movie is: "The game of con you play with yourself".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text below has been added on 3 Dec 2008 and is based on a comment posted on October 30, 2008, at time 4:12 PM. I have only recently understood what this person meant and it is …

What the journey means to me

My journey so far has been about discovering the meta rules of how the self works. The essence of what I have learnt is that the self can change and in fact does change every time it undergoes an experience. Where any experience is significant because of the meaning it carries for us. It means something to us by the fact: it changes our feelings from state (state a) to another state (state b). Where this movement between states is a process we can call witnessing.  The exercise of witnessing can be powerful and enriching.  In fact if we could communicate what we have witnessed through poetry or through prose, perhaps with the aid of metaphors, we could share these experiences with our family, friends and with the larger community. 
Thus to go in retrospect and search for meaning in the experiences we have had can help us grow mature, become stronger and make us more aware.

My Criteria for my marriage partner

1) She should be a home maker. 10 on a scale of 10
2) I should be able to fall in love with her and her with me … 7 on a scale of 10.

First criteria:

10 on a scale of 1-10 for this criteria because I consider my family my second self. The better my partner will be at making my family the best the better off my second self will be. Who doesn’t want to aim for the best? In accordance with this she should have the best of the characteristics that every home maker should have:

1) Intelligent
2) Practical
3) Ability to take stress and bounce back – agility of mind
4) High level of commitment
5) Principled
6) Caring
7) Want her children to be the best
8) Want to learn how to make her children the best

Of course there is an ideal woman out there who would rank very high in all these areas. But then I have to be practical too. I would want to marry the most ideal woman who is compatible with me. Compatibility is covered in the second criteria.


Second Criteria:

Description of scale:

5: passes the basic crite…