Schemata and Schema and ... bears (oh my)!

[_Res Ipsa]

learned that there is a region of the brain that constructs stories to explain inputs from the senses. There is a second region that filters those stories to select those that are the most consistent with each other and with past memories, etc. If the latter are is damaged, the person will consistently confabulate — express false explanations for what is happening around him while absolutely believing they are true.

Kathryn Schulz, Being Wrong — Adventures in the Margin of Error

I wish this book had been around when I left Mormonism. I had a tough time dealing with the fact that I had been so wrong about something so important in my life.

Assuming I am reading and understanding this correctly. Questions:

1. When you say that the brain constructs stories are you talking about schema?

2. Were the terms schema or schemata used in the book?

3. Did the book discuss the process of accommodation and assimilation? Because that sounds like what you're describing.

4. What examples can you give me that demonstrate how the brain constructs stories from sensory input? That's the part I'm not quite understanding.

I'm trying to find a way to relate to and understand what you are describing. It may be what I'm already familiar with only stated differently.

Just on a cold read here, I would say that your let's call it deconstruction of Mormonism, had something to do with accomodation and assimilation and that you may have been naturally resistant to accomodating new information regarding the religion. I think that any adult would be resistant to such a process concerning their personally held beliefs particularly those that impact their view of eternity and their presumed eternal destination.

Suddenly, the perception of the world and the role of eternity is turned on it's head. Anyone would be resistant to that.

ETA: Can we do a thread on this? I'll set one up later in the day if you are agreeable.

1. Is this Piaget? If so, I'm pretty rusty. I think the "story" part is like an overlay of the schema. The schema is an entire framework, while the story is a narrative based on the framework.

2. No.

3. Yes, but not using those terms.

4. So, that's my own gloss. I think it's similar to accommodation and assimilation. Take those Covington's kids. Our brains took in various inputs in the form of watching videos, listening to talking heads on TV, and reading publications. Then our brains took all that information and turned it into a story about what happened. But it didn't do that just based on the sensory input. It did so using the schemata, which is why we came up with so many different stories amongst us.

I read this book back to back with "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)." Together, they were a great walkthrough of how the brain gets stuff wrong, and why it is so hard to give up that wrong stuff.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, it's part of Piagetian cognitive theory. It represents constructivist theory in general. I do think the concept was developed by Kant and later identified and labeled by Piaget as such. I'd have to go search that up to verify. I'm definitely rusty on Kant!

[_Jersey Girl]

Not to worry, I'll get to your number 4 eventually here. Back to the OP first.

learned that there is a region of the brain that constructs stories to explain inputs from the senses. There is a second region that filters those stories to select those that are the most consistent with each other and with past memories, etc. If the latter are is damaged, the person will consistently confabulate — express false explanations for what is happening around him while absolutely believing they are true.

I think you're talking about parts of the cerebrum. Cerebral cortex specifically? Come on, did she name them? Otherwise I need EA over here to take my place before I die a slow and painful death in full public view. ;-)

Did she make any distinction between the male v. female brain? I just want to know that. I'm curious about it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes, it's part of Piagetian cognitive theory. It represents constructivist theory in general. I do think the concept was developed by Kant and later identified and labeled by Piaget as such. I'd have to go search that up to verify. I'm definitely rusty on Kant!

Yeah, me too.

My first wife studied Piaget while we were in school. I thought it was really interesting. But that was many miles ago.

[_Maksutov]

Piaget is underrated.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, it's part of Piagetian cognitive theory. It represents constructivist theory in general. I do think the concept was developed by Kant and later identified and labeled by Piaget as such. I'd have to go search that up to verify. I'm definitely rusty on Kant!

Yeah, me too.

My first wife studied Piaget while we were in school. I thought it was really interesting. But that was many miles ago.

I lived, breathed, ate, and slept Piagetian theory for three decades (I still do) and that includes about 5 years or so after I was given a book at a parent in-class training and really had no idea what it was and yet at the time, I was learning the concepts of constructivist in practice in a lab school. I don't regret that those experiences preceded formal education because by the time I went to "the big school" :-) I had in real life experience to attach the course content to. So ironic that I started out and ended in a lab school. I love that part of my story!

Though I don't think it ever really ends if you're married to it. ;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

Piaget is underrated.

Piaget is a God. Write that down.

[_Res Ipsa]

Not to worry, I'll get to your number 4 eventually here. Back to the OP first.

learned that there is a region of the brain that constructs stories to explain inputs from the senses. There is a second region that filters those stories to select those that are the most consistent with each other and with past memories, etc. If the latter are is damaged, the person will consistently confabulate — express false explanations for what is happening around him while absolutely believing they are true.

I think you're talking about parts of the cerebrum. Cerebral cortex specifically? Come on, did she name them? Otherwise I need EAllusion over here to take my place before I die a slow and painful death in full public view. ;-)

Did she make any distinction between the male v. female brain? I just want to know that. I'm curious about it.

Naw, she didn't get specific on brain regions, although I'm pretty sure Cerebral Cortex is the right answer. She was just explaining how confabulation works in a general way. No male v. female brain either. Lots on cognitive biases, self justification, cognitive dissonance, etc.

[_Res Ipsa]

I lived, breathed, ate, and slept Piagetian theory for three decades (I still do) and that includes about 5 years or so after I was given a book at a parent in-class training and really had no idea what it was and yet at the time, I was learning the concepts of constructivist in practice in a lab school. I don't regret that those experiences preceded formal education because by the time I went to "the big school" :-) I had in real life experience to attach the course content to. So ironic that I started out and ended in a lab school. I love that part of my story!

Though I don't think it ever really ends if you're married to it. ;-)

I recall Piagetian theory as being pretty darn sensible when it comes to educating children.

And just to be clear: the divorce had no connection with Piaget.

[_Jersey Girl]

Moving along here. I want to say that this thread comes at a particularly good time. I'm frozen in over here and will be tomorrow. I just dropped out of an online class so now I have this thread to keep me sane. We hope!

What I really wanted to go to was the religious transition you mentioned. I think this is a good starting place to provide background to whatever this turns into regarding moving out and away from a particular religious sect or from God belief entirely assuming that one held God belief to begin with.

Here is your #4.

So, that's my own gloss. I think it's similar to accommodation and assimilation. Take those Covington's kids. Our brains took in various inputs in the form of watching videos, listening to talking heads on TV, and reading publications. Then our brains took all that information and turned it into a story about what happened. But it didn't do that just based on the sensory input. It did so using the schemata, which is why we came up with so many different stories amongst us.

Yes, I was just about to make my break from the Covington students and here they are again. Thanks but not really.

I'm going to stick with the language that I know best, Piagetian theory. If you have something to introduce from the book, I'd be interested in learning something new.

Simply stated, schema is a mental construct. I like to call them mind pictures but only briefly in a professional setting to remind students of what they represent.

Schemata represents a collection of schema, mental constructs or mind pictures.

Assimilation and accommodation is the process by which you take in new information and use it to further modify your schema, discarding other previously held information, or reject the new information you've received.

I think we might keep the rejection piece in mind here because I think it fits both the Covington students and transition from religion themes.

The development of schema is complex in my view because it changes with time, experience and education. It won't seem like it as I offer a example series of the process of assimilation and accommodation over a period of years, but when you consider the schemata that goes into assessing the Covington students and how we view them, I think it tends to blow the mind.

Schema at random ages: The Bank

4 year old : The bank is where I get a lollipop. The dog gets a treat.

10 year old: The bank is where Mom gets money to buy me new Nikes.

12 year old: The bank is where I save my birthday money to buy my own Nikes.

15 year old: The bank is where I put my birthday money, grass mowing money to save up for a car.

17 year old: The bank is where I put the money I make from my part time fast food job to save for college, leaving out money for car insurance and gas.

25 year old: The bank is where I store my pay check so I can empty out my account every month to pay for gas, utilities, food, insurance, and rent. Who the hell invented rent?!?!

You can do the same with every type of transaction that takes place at a bank or you can take your schema about the bank and it's various departments/functions, and add it to your collection of schemata regarding finance, economics...even the community.

I am of a mind that the development of schema begins at least at birth and is tweaked throughout a life time. While you are revising your schema about one issue, you are likely revising another set of schema because they intersect one another and so yes, I think the process is kind of incredible for we begin taking in sensory input from birth and use a series of certain types of circular reactions to evaluate ourselves and our actions in relation to the sensory input and that represents the very beginning of our learning process.

The baby cries. An adult responds verbally and physically. <3

I probably just botched that. My mind goes faster than my fingers sometimes.