No Anxiety

Psychology and Psychotherapy Articles

cognition

On Nature…and the Nature of Cognition

by

by Robert DePaolo

Abstract

This article discusses the roots of cognition and decision making. Those phenomena are assumed to originate with the first molecular interactions in semi-closed systems made possible by the advent of lipid-secured membranes create interactive feedback as opposed to the “drift” seen in open systems. This prototype is viewed as a precursor to advanced cognitive abilities, culminating in human cognition.

Whatever is meant by terms such as cognition, intelligence and memory cannot readily be described in concrete organic or neuro-functional terms because there does not seem to be any direct correlation between the wiring or interconnections within the animal brain and the capacities to use basic behavioral mechanisms such as flight, aggression, altruism, or even instinct. (Timmer 2012). Part of the problem lies in semantics; particularly since it is homo sapiens sapiens doing the classifying. We are the only scientists in nature thus our descriptions of nature are both confined to and embellished by our own values and experiences. As owners of a massive cerebral cortex we typically view functions such as altruism and long term planning as the result of big brains. Indeed several renowned thinkers in fields as diverse as psychology,anthropology, neurology have surmised that such functions are a luxuries bestowed on us through the evolutionary expansion of the frontal cortical lobes (Rowe. Bulloch et.al 2001) Others have through meticulous research concluded that limbic circuits within the human brain like the hippocampus provide memory consolidation capacities (Suzuki,Yaneke,et.al. 2004). It appears during a learning task the hippocampus becomes active when the task has been learned, analogous to a librarian who gathers the books and re-organizes them into proper catalogue sequence after the readers have gone home.

On the other hand, most animals and all plants lack a hippocampus and have no frontal lobe. For example a female cobra’s brain is miniscule compared to ours, yet once she recognizes she is pregnant. she digs nests to hide her young, obviously contemplating the possibility that predators and/or unfriendly climatic conditions might jeopardize their safety.

So many other ostensibly complex cognitive abilities are seen in this neurologically simple creature. To prepare for the birth of offspring, the female cobra must on some level be a naturalist, cognizant of the habits of predators. She must be a prognosticator, able to guess as to possible variables related to temperature and terrain. She must also be empathic enough to put herself in the shoes of a hungry predator who feeds on cobra eggs. In effect she must sense their hunger by extrapolating from her own. She must be a chronologist, capable of determining when her offspring will emerge from the eggs and altruistic enough to not only become enraged and frightened over threats to her offspring but also to feel satisfaction when her protective gestures lead to successful outcomes as her offspring make their way into the world safe and sound.

Interestingly, one can attribute all these cognitive and emotional traits to organisms even simpler neurologically than the cobra. It is even possible to extend discussion of so-called cognitive abilities to simple celled creatures because many appear to make decisions in adapting to their surroundings. For example amoeba engage in foraging behaviors tantamount to a huting strategy (Cumming, Hall et. al. 2010). Even at the level of the most primordial organisms, bacteria and viruses – for that matter mere molecules such as RNA and DNA there are decisions being made without use of brains, language or memory substrates – at least as viewed in a conventional sense.

The Search for a Cognitive Monolaw…

In discussing the nature of cognition, one can attempt to gain closure in several ways. One way is by assuming all these behavioral traits seen in brainless and meagerly encephalized organisms are instinctive, thus built into their rigid neurologies. In that sense nature can be said to provide then with the luxury of not having to use cognition or make decisions. A second way is to assume that our concept of cognition is anthropocentrically derived and a somewhat reductionist take on the nature of mind. Unfortunately, neither approach resolves very much.

The instinct argument has flaws, as was pointed out by Maslow (1954). To assume organisms are endowed fortuitously with an ability to act in adaptive ways with little or no neural mechanism by which to do so, one has to first ask about the sources of these fortuitous abilities. Did nature say “presto” – you now have an instinct that just happens to coincide with the demands of the outside world? Unlikely. Even if one invokes the Darwinian argument that various behaviors were honed by evolution over time it does not explain the structural and functional origins of the behavior to begin with. While it is possible that some organs and behavior patterns evolved to serve purposes other than ones for which they were eventually employed – for example the wings on insects and birds that favored temperature regulation before being employed in flight, this still does not address the question of why structures evolved coincident with purpose – as opposed to being random and inconsequential. It also begs the question of how many behaviors had to be tried, winnowed out and selected before the (temporary) right ones arrived through evolution. In fact that juxtaposition of the random with the purposeful is what makes natural selection seem a bit problematic (Russell 2007).

In his book How the Mind Works (1997) Steve Pinker addressed this problem.by proposing a quasi-computer model of mind. He suggested that each layer of the nervous system has built in modules, i.e. for language, perception etc. and that they arise not through random mutations but through apriori functional circuits requiring little or none of the trial and error process inherent in natural selection. He also suggested they blend smoothly with previously established brain sites both structurally and functionally – a hugely determinstic, if not fatalistic concept for a Darwinian advocate.

Even if Pinker’s well-written thesis is correct, it in nonetheless difficult to explain decision making at the anencephalic and molecular levels.

It would seem there is another way to resolve this issue. It is by assuming the existence of a transcendent law or mechanism in nature that requires no brain yet provides for and encompasses phenomena such as memory, stimulus recognition, decision making and cognition. The obvious question is where to look for such a cognitive monolaw.

The Roots of Cognition…

How can decisions be rendered, circumstances recognized, prior experiences referenced/recalled without neural mechanism by which to conduct these operations? One way to address that question is by analyzing the most basic equipment available to the first organisms. A basic requirement of a life form is the capacity to replicate via the transactions between RNA and DNA to align genes in the proper sequence. Another requirement is the alignment of amino acids coupled with the release of water for binding during this process to build proteins leading to the construction of cells and organs. Life also requires mechanisms to react to the outside world for energy replenishment and to facilitate approach and avoidance responses. Yet there is yet another, often overlooked component – a capacity to undergo flux and at the same time maintain internal stability. In other words a homeostatic, self-correcting (cybernetic) mechanism. If not for the latter, life could have come and gone many times over without lasting long enough to undergo changes in complexity.

Resilience…

In many ways the latter typifies the essence of life more than any other quality because longevity is the key to development and fitness. While replication is often cited as the sine qua non of life, and while protein synthesis is considered similarly important, crystals and other non biotic elements divide under certain chemical conditions in a process that runs parallel to replication.(Ferro, 2010) Moreover, as Shapiro has pointed out, amino acids can come together to form proteins yet not in themselves comprise anything resembling what we might call “life” (1986) Any number of pre-organic entities might have formed in the primordial soup, some providing organic essentials. Yet many undoubtedly broke apart from the onslaught of temperature shifts between day and night, oceanic tumult and/or due to the fragility of the compound itself. In that sense, for life to ensue required a holding together of a proto-organic entity so that its mechanical resilience would enable the prototype to expand, become more systemically complex (for example prokaryotic cells incorporating other components to evolve into nucleated eukaryotic cells. Thus if one seeks the foundation of biological existence it might be described in one word…”glue.”

The Origin of Stasis

A most essential glue factor in the advent and continuation of life forms was of course, carbon, a compound that is neither plentiful in the universe nor in the earth’s atmosphere but one that makes up for its lack of availability with extreme resilience. It is most easily seen in the diamond, the hardest substance on earth, which consists exclusively of carbon atoms. Yet carbon is not just firm and resilient, it is also highly chemically accommodating… or “social” if you will. It is capable of bonding with a wide variety of other molecules and provided a perfect base for not only the origin but the continuance of early life forms. Because it has these communal properties it can be said to be the most communicative of all the compounds – a central grammar in the expression of biochemical synthesis.

Yet if carbon provided the mechanical and attractive necessities for life to form, what then provided the functional properties, i.e. the reactive essentials that enabled living things to multiply, heal, move, and ultimately make decisions? To an extent the answer might lie in yet another single term…electricity. Nothing in nature. including carbon can interact with (attract or repel from) other components without the impetus of an electrical charge. Positively charged atoms repel other positively charged atoms, while they are attracted to negatively charges. (The reason probably has to do with the inherent symmetry of the universe but that is beyond the scope of this article). In any event, on some level, stability, resilience, organic communication and genetic alignment – all those things that comprise life, are ultimately rooted in attractions and repulsions. The centralizing feature of carbon is itself rooted in that process. Therefore in seeking the roots of pan-organic cognition this might be a good place to start.

Where have you gone Albert Einstein?..

Watson and Crick, discovers of the DNA molecule, can be compared to Isaac Newton with respect to the latter’s contribution to an understanding of gravity. Newton used precise mathematical terms to determine the “what” of gravity. However it was not until Einstein came along and developed his theories of relativity that we came to know the “why.” As of now there is no “why” (or how) when it comes to an understanding of how life began and more particularly how organisms (indeed molecules such as messenger RNA) are able to make decisions. Some discussion of electricity might be helpful in that respect.

The Roots of Communication…

Communication can be discussed in other than anthropocentric terms, without compromising the nature of human communication. In other words there can be said to be a substrate or monolaw of all communication in nature that encompasses, and set the stage for human language. In its essence communication is really nothing more than an interaction of two components with a systematic (repeatable, predictable) behavioral outcome., i.e. a nonrandom interaction. When a positively charged atom interacts with a negatively charged atom, a galvanization occurs. That is a form of communication.

There are several types of communication. For convenience sake three can be discussed. One type is unilateral – like a breeze pushing an old newspaper along the street. In this instance the newspaper does not have much impact on the breeze, other than perhaps some minor degree of interference from friction. Another type of communication is reciprocal and is exemplified by a protozoan moving back and forth in response to temperature and light differentials.

Communication can also be multi-factorial, whereby complex channels within a system interact with one another to produce fluctuations without loss of systemic integrity. In each instance the level of decision making is different. In the unilateral model (the breeze and the newspaper) the decision is so basic as to be inconsequential. The paper drifts off and does not turn back on the breeze to cause a readjustment. In a two way, reciprocal model the system is modifiable and can be defined as proto-cognitive because the interaction does not end with the first stimulus. In a sense the advent of feedback produces a communicative imperative – seen in the to and fro reactions of the protozoan. At that level, and as a result of feedback, decisions can be said to exist on every organic level.

One does not need a brain or even a primordial nerve bundle to exercise cognitive decision making. One only need electrically-fostered closed, reciprocal interactions. In fact, as Cenik, Cenik et. al have demonstrated with respect to the origin of life the mystical, heretofore unexplained ability of RNA to “send messages” to DNA in creating protein structures in the body might be the result of a simple electrico-chemical reciprocity within a closed system (actually semi-closed is a more apt description) where feedback forces mechanisms to interact in orderly, systemic (and redundant) fashion. The charge originates from a nucleic acid compound) which conveniently contains a highly combustible sugar and energy catalyst known as ribose. A message is conveyed because the system is contained rather than unilateral inputs drifting off into the ether In effect, reciprocity is trapped within the membranes. Boundaries enable feedback to occur. A similar process applies to the famous Miller-Urey experiments where charges impinging on chemical compounds helped produce amino acids (1959).

Membranes are crucial. The availability of lipids in the earth’s earliest environment was necessary since they can form a sheath to both insulate cells and organisms from the outside milieu yet enable nutrients to pass through its border so that organisms can extract energy from the sun and other sources. Semi-permeability is a crucial necessity for life sustenance.

From the Simple to the Complex…

In terms of the above discussion, the most essential difference between cognition at the most basic level and within the realm of human thought might lie in the difference between a simple and complex feedback systems.

Complex Cognition…

In some ways complexity is how life overcomes the law of entropy which holds that all systems in nature will proceed toward decay. The more diverse yet internally regulated the variables in any system the less likely it is that decay will ensue. Since we all die life does eventually proceed toward decay but only after staging an enduring battle against entropy in the face of constant changes in metabolism, maturation, injury and general wear and tear. Organisms endure and can delay entropy due to what H. Ross Ashby called a cybernetic process. Here he was referring to a self correcting system in which higher order rules govern the ebb and flow of internal variations. This applies to brain and soma because while the mind recognizes dangers, for example fleeing from or avoiding unpleasant experiences, so does the immune system and all other bodily structures and functions. Indeed one could argue that a cognitive process exists on every level of organicity and in its essence has little to do with brain or mind.

Utra-stability…

In that regard a related concept proposed by Ashby was that of ultra-stability. This involves a system where local events can fluctuate but in being tethered to a larger system ultimately re-synthesize in adherence to the rules of the larger system. As confusing as this might seem, we can use the game of chess to create a comparison. Each move by an opponent leads to a counter move. One player might see a direct line between his opponent’s rook and his queen and choose to move the queen to evade to avoid the problem of exposing the king. However in contemplating the move the player notices that his knight is within striking range of the opponent’s rook and that taking out the rook would also save the queen and king. During all this the main “code” of the game (to capture his king and protect yours) remains the same but within that rubric a number of sub-plans are orchestrated.

There is a difference between cognition per se and a game of chess. There are also similarities. The similarity owes to the fact that both operate by multiple sub-plans and actions revolving around a central theme. The point to playing chess is to win. The point to garden variety cognition is neural stability. In that context, Cognition is a dual process, serving two functions; one being neurobiological ultra-stability, the other involving the experiential correlates of that closure.

Arousal, Quiessence and the Sheffield Study…

The above reference to ultra-stability need not be confused with the Freudian notion of tension reduction. For example with regard to the restoration of stability – a mechanism seen in all organisms – it is not a question of arousal or tension being reduced by either neural or experiential closure. It simply refers to restoration of a steady state, which, as conveyed in the classical study by Sheffield could take the form of tension reduction or tension induction (1966).

This view of cognition can theoretically be applied to a wide variety of decisions rendered in nature, and perhaps explain phenomena like messenger RNA and Dawkins’ notion of the “selfish gene. (1976).” While in many ways this might make human thought seem less unique, perhaps even be discouraging to the anthropocentrist it provides a possible clue as to how nature initially paved the way for human intelligence. While speculative, it does offer a possible connection between the hunting amoeba, the maternal behaviors of the cobra and Newton’s calculations on gravity.

REFERENCES

Cenik,K, Cenik,ES, Byeon, G.W., Grubert,F. Candille, SI, Spacek, D. Alsallakh, B. Tilgner, H. Araya, C.L. Tang, H. Ricci, E. Snyder, M.P. (2015) Integrative Analysis of RNA Translation and Protein Levels Reveals Distinct Regulatory Variation Across Humans. Genome Research 25; 1610-21

Cumming, P. Hall, J.R. Junhwan, J. Weaver, A. Quaranta,V. (2010) Human Cells Exhibit Foraging Behavior Like Amoebae and Bacteria. Public Library of Science Journal

Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Best Books

Ferro, S. (Article from Science retrieved Feb.1, 2013) Physicists Create Crystals That Are Nearly Alive

Maslow, A. H. (1954) Instinct Theory Re-examined. Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper & Row

Miller, S.L. Urey, H. (1959) Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth. Science, 130 (3370) 528-529

Pinker, S. (1997) How the Mind Works. Norton

Rowe, A.D. Bullock, PR. Polkey, CE. Morris, RG. (2001) Theory of Mind; Impairmentsand their Relationship to Executive Functioning Following Frontal Lobe Excision. Brain 124 (pt. 3) 600-616

Russell, J. (2007) A Challenge to Richard Dawkins. Science Index, Vedic Science

Shapiro, R. Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creaton of Life on Earth Summit Books.

Sheffield, F.D. (1966) A Drive Induction Theory of Reinforcement. In R.N. Haber (Ed.) Current Research and Theory in Motivation. NY Holt. Rinehart & Winston

Suzuki, W. Yanike, N. Wirth, S. (Article Retrieved May 13, 2004 from Science Daily). Scientists Show Hippocampus’ Role in Long Term Memory.

Timmer, J. (Article Retrieved Oct.8, 2012 in Science and Organism Exploration) Organism without a Brain Creates External Memories for Navigation.

A DISCUSSION OF READING DISORDERS: Cognitive, Perceptual and Mnemonic Elements

by

By Robert DePaolo

Abstract

This article discusses the interplay of perceptual, memory and cognitive skills in learning how to read and extrapolates from that as to possible causes and remedial strategies involved in the diagnosis and remediation of reading disorders.

A Perplexing Problem…

In some ways the very idea of a reading disorder makes little sense; particularly in light of the “all things being equal” paradigm – i.e. that reading teachers and curriculum materials are usually adequate vehicles by which to impart this skill. To some extent, this is also true with regard to neuro-developmental factors.

For example, assume a given child has average intelligence, which, according to a study conducted by the Council of Exceptional Children (2011) is typical of most students with reading disorders. The fact that intellectual tests measure many of the same skills needed to learn to read, i.e. auditory memory, visual perception, visual computation and spatial perception suggests the reading disabled child’s cognitive and perceptual faculties are functioning well enough to absorb a wide variety of inputs from various sources (school, family, the general environment). This is especially relevant in light of the fact that the evidence for a specific, neurological dysfunction is varied and questionable. For example while some MRI studies have pointed to prefrontal cortical and executive function deficiencies (Beneventi, Tonessen et al. 2010) other studies have suggested cerebellar dysfunction (Nicolson, Faucett et. al 2001) while still another implicated working memory – presumably arising from temporal left hemispheric roots (Berninger, Raskind, 2008). These assumptions are mostly based on brain activity levels – as derived from MRI studies and do not point to pathologies per se. In fact Berninger cautioned against drawing conclusions of neuro-pathological roots to reading disorders due to the fact that unusual brain activity patterns can arise from behavioral compensations learned by the child, resulting in skewed shifts in brain blood flow rather than from neuropathy. The idea that various brain sites could be involved in producing the disorder – as it often asserted with regard to more severe learning disorders such as autism, seems somewhat specious. Children with reading disorders are usually normal in every respect, which runs contrary to the global brain dysfunction hypothesis inferable from these various research and theoretical sources.

In that context, assume the child has normal vision, hearing and language-associative capacities. That combination of skills should enable the child to develop the visual associative capacities needed to learn letters and words, the auditory/phonetic capacities to understand sound-symbol relationships and the linguistic ability to interpret reading passages within a communicative/grammatical framework.

The fact that children with reading disorders don’t typically exhibit significant cognitive deficits (i.e. fall generally within or even above average range) does not mean all children fitting in this category will have the same level of reading proficiency. Indeed many of the cognitive and academic tests used to assess intelligence and achievement (for example the Wechsler Intellectual (WISC) and Wechsler Academic scales (WIAT) feature performance correlations as part of the measurement process. For instance a student with a full scale WISC score of 88, will not be expected to read as well as a student with a score of 115. As an aside, one of the ostensible problems with public education in the U.S. derives from the super-egalitarian cultural premise incorporated implicitly into the public education system; that if a child tries hard enough he or she can achieve anything they want. Real life, case studies and data suggest that might be a bit fanciful, and perhaps as corollary, that one-size-fits-all models, as seen in the No Child Left Behind evaluation process and the Common Core curriculum might not be terribly realistic – some discussion of that later.

On the other hand many students with strong, above average cognitive ability have a reading disorder. While some sort of soft neuro-dysfunction might be involved, the learning aspects of a reading disorder will the primary foci of this essay.

The Reading Gestalt…

An interesting parallel can be drawn between how an aspiring little leaguer learns to pitch a baseball and how he learns to read. At the risk of appearing antediluvian, this writer recalls, as a nine year old pitcher in little league a coach’s advice on the mechanics of pitching a baseball. While a certain amount of grumpiness and protest ensued (from both sides) the lesson boiled down to a single principle… make sure your wind-up, leg kick and delivery are all in one motion. Translated, the message was; don’t breakdown the movements. Instead learn to blend them together into one continuous (holistic) movement pattern.

In these words the coach was referencing unwittingly what psychologists call a “gestalt,” which means a melding of parts into a fluid whole. By his reckoning, a competent pitcher. even at little league level, would be able to take for granted – indeed virtually disregard – the nuts and bolts of the specific sequences involved in tossing the ball toward home plate in favor of a holistic, “windup.” Once the muscles and mind were trained that way, the kid can focus on strikes and balls.

Reading involves a similar gestalt process. It isn’t long after immersion that the young reader’s focus veers toward meaning (in line with his natural sense of language) and away from individual phonic, grammatical components. Most reading teachers understand that and come to expect fluency to kick in once the child acquires the fundamentals of letter, word and sound associations. Some also probably understand that teaching these fundamentals can also have a paradoxical effect on the learning process.

Why such an odd assertion? Because the early teaching methods are (not to the fault of the teacher) artificial, while the actual backdrop of reading (the language-based aspect) is natural – even ostensibly genetic.

Reading is obviously a language–related skill. Under normal circumstances language learning comes naturally to a child. As Lenneberg (1967) argued, a child does not have to be taught how to speak. Certainly he or she profits from social interaction, modeling and exposure to language idioms within the environment. However the child needn’t be taught to say his first words and the virtual explosion of vocabulary in the first several years of development appears not to be a direct function of teaching (Chomsky 2012).

Conversely, the child has no inherent predisposition toward an understanding of letters, words or numbers; a fact substantiated by human evolution. While mankind has been talking for perhaps 100,000 years, letters were only invented around 10,000 years ago and when early humans did begin to symbolize their world some 30,000 years ago it was in the form of concrete pictorials rather than abstract symbols. That historical fact makes the brain dysfunction thesis seem a bit specious – it would be akin to surmising that having difficulty fixing a washing machine was the result of deficient blood flow in the prefrontal cortex.

Because reading requires the integration (and restructuring) of a natural skill with a man-made skill, the child is forced to step back and symbolize what he already knows how to do. It is analogous to teaching him to crawl after he has taken his first steps.

Reading is a Conversation…

In some sense, reading is nothing more than a symbolic representation of talking and listening. However reading is obviously a more complex version of language. For example speech per se does not involve visuals. Nor does it require a cognitive pause-function, forcing the linguistic thought process to slow down in deference to the visual and grammatical regulation inherent in a reading exercise.

A child may refer to visual stimuli before speaking; for example seeing or pointing to an object and commenting… “horsie”…”dada” etc. But he does not have to hold back once expression begins in deference to grammatical rules and visual/symbolic differentiations.

Reading, Attention and Integration…

With reference to the above comments, it is possible to assume a reading disorder might be partially related to a difficulty melding fluidly the rapid speed, cadence and flow of natural language with the cognitive, perceptual and mnemonic inhibition involved in learning to read.

Does that imply that a reading disorder is actually an attention-related problem? In some cases that is probably true. For example research conducted at the Mayo Clinic indicated that about half the children diagnosed with ADHD were also diagnosed with a reading disorder (Mann,2010). In other cases it might be that speech cadence, vocabulary and other nuances learned in the home environment differ so markedly from the content of reading passages that the integration of natural and visual language cannot occur with adequate proficiency. To wit, if the child cannot read in the same way he talks, the new (to him) academically – scripted task of learning to read could entail an awkward juxtaposition manifest as schematic confusion.

Beyond Attention…

The fact that many children diagnosed with a reading disorder do not exhibit ADHD patterns suggests other factors are involved. One of which might be social. Language is tethered to social interaction but not all students are highly social. In that context, reading passages that are often descriptive and depict people or creatures interacting, might conflict with some children’s view of the world. While little research evidence research exists to confirm this, some studies have shown that some students are more adept at comprehending mechanical, factual, non-personal reading matter. For instance in a worldwide literacy survey it was discovered that the gap between girls and boys in terms of reading ability was not only significant but widened over time. Yet the study also indicated that boys were adept at reading newspapers, graphic novels, magazines and shortened texts whereas girls preferred and excelled at reading fiction. That suggests that cognitive style, social outlook and gender might play a role in terms of reading proficiency.

Necessary Basics…

That does not necessarily argue for a gender specific reading curriculum – anymore than it would for a math curriculum based on gender, where boys tend to out-perform girls. Moreover, In defense of elementary school teachers, the skill of reading must begin with fundamentals regardless of gender and social orientation. Unless one can recognize letters and words and sound them out, it is difficult to develop any level of fluency. Therefore across-the-board criticism of early reading programs and instructors is unwarranted, especially since elementary level teachers are typically well-versed in child development. That leads to another aspect of the problem, one discussed at length by developmental theorist Jean Piaget.

Schemes – Disequilibrium – Assimilation…

Learning new material entails certain prerequisites. The most crucial is the existence of a priori schemata – i.e. chunks of knowledge, or points of reference to serve as fulcrum, foundation, measuring stick and criteria for comparison between stored memories and new inputs.

Learning does not begin in the classroom. Instead it is initially generated from internal schemata. It is an inside-out process (As an aside, the fact that the teacher is a secondary factor in education provides another reason to abstain from blaming them solely for students’ poor academic performance). Each new input is invariably judged as to relevance and interest in terms of those cognitive schemes. If the input (i.e. teacher’s lesson) is completely in sync with the schemata, i.e. is completely recognizable, it will foster boredom.

Conversely, if the relationship between schemata and input is too discrepant, confusion, cognitive discomfort and task-avoidance will typically result; in which case the lesson will not be assimilated. In order to learn maximally, a certain degree of moderate conflict between schemata and input must incur. Piaget referred to this process as “disequilibrium.”

To maximize learning, input must diverge enough from the schemata so as to be somewhat but not completely recognizable, i.e. be semi-consonant with the schemata. Within that framework the lesson would optimally be some combination of sameness and newness. That juxtaposition is what foments curiosity (as opposed to avoidance and aversion), enhances attention, galvanizes neurological investment, extends memory and most effectively facilitates learning.
Common Core – Yin and Yang…

As discussed earlier, such learning mechanisms automatically lead to a discussion of the much-debated Common Core curriculum. Some, such as Walker (2014) have argued that it works, while others such as Butcher, McGroarty et. al. (2012) have suggested it needs to be overhauled or replaced with something else. Both are right – neither argument is encompassing. For students whose natural language experience coincides with the way reading is taught in school, advanced methods probably do work. For students whose natural language propensities are at odds with the language/reading format used in modern curricula teaching an advanced approach could be not only unsuccessful but counterproductive.

This writer has no ultimate solution to the problem of reading disorders, but one element that can perhaps be gleaned from research and theory on child development – as well as from the distinction between natural and visual language – is that certain questions and principles can perhaps be applied in addressing the problem. For example, educators might inquire as to…
1. Whether students’ schemata match the content of the reading curriculum.

2. How a teacher can evaluate the scope and particulars of those schemata – especially in large classrooms, for instance through use of a life/language experience scales (formal or informal) and interest surveys gleaned from discussion with students or submitted by parents when students cannot articulate such preferences.

3. How a conversational language sample from the student might help in gaining a sense of cadence and vocabulary so as to create a close match between the student’s natural language and the content of the reading language.

4. Whether there are ways to blend the natural flow of language with the restrictive, associative aspects of early reading skills; for example by presenting letters of the alphabet in conversational form, e.g.… A is for apple, which goes good with candy at the amusement park, and you can also put it in pies for Thanksgiving. You all like apple pie, don’t you?..Alright then, A is for apple. Meanwhile, B is the first letter in the word bee – and no one wants to be stung by a bee. Anyone been stung by a bee. Ouch!! B Is it also the first letter in the word baseball, and by the way, are there any Red Sox fans in this class? Maybe one day some of you will play on a team. Maybe you have older brothers or sisters who play on a team now – anyone? Once again, B is for baseball.

5. If there is a way to create disequilibrium – the precious semi-recognizable discrepancy between schemata and teacher input that maximizes learning functions. Here the answer might be surprisingly simple. It can be done by adding questions to the lesson. For example. A is for apple, and you can put apples in pies, you can bob for them in a contest – anyone ever put their head in water to pull out an apple and win a prize? By the way, there must be other places where you’d find apples. Can anyone tell me if there are other foods or a drinks where you’d find apples?

The general point here is that the more student-centered the lesson the more likely it is the student will learn to his or her actual ability.

Conversely as the curriculum drifts more toward a central, systematized approach, the fewer number of students will be accommodated in the achievement equation. In the final analysis, this argues for the time-honored notion that the prime variables in education are the scheme, the teacher and the student rather than data-drive curricula, methodologies or standards geared more toward homogenizing students than toward reaching and teaching as many of them as possible.

REFERENCES

Beneventi, H. Tonnessen, F.E. Ersland, L. Hugdahl, K. (2010) Executive Working Memory Processes in Dyslexia; Behavioral and MRI Evidence. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology 51 (3) 192-202

Berninger, V. Raskind, W. Richards, T. Abbott, R. Stock, P. (2008) A Multi-disciplinary Approach to Understanding Developmental Dyslexia Within the Working Memory Architecture; Genotypes, Phenotypes, Brain and Instruction. Developmental Neuropsychology 33 (6) 707-744

Butcher, K. Manning, M.L. (2010) Gender and Reading Preference. Pearson, Allyn Bacon, Prentice Hall.

Butcher, J. Mc Groarty, E. & Finne, L. (May, 2012) Why the Common Core is Bad for America. Article in Washington Policy Center

Chomsky, N. (2012) On Nature and Language. Cambridge University Press.

Lenneberg, C.H. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language, New York, Wiley & Sons

Mann. D. Research Says Children with ADHD Also Have Reading Disorders. Article derived from Mayo Clinic Research Project. Retrieved Sept. 2012 from Pediatrics, May 2010.

Nicolon, R.I. Faucett, AJ Dean. Ap. (2001) Developmental Dyslexia: The Cerebellar Deficit Hypothesis. Trends in Neuroscience 24 (9) 508-511

Notes on: Intellectual Ability and Reading Disorders. Article in Council of Exceptional Children. NHI Study Confirms that IQ scores are unrelated to Reading Disorders. Nov 11, 2008

Piaget, J (1962) The Language and Thought of the Child. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul

Walker. T. Article in NEA Today. Six Ways the Common Core is Good for Students. Retrieved Sept. 2, 2014

God and Mind: A Psychological Perspective

by

By Robert DePaolo

Abstract

This article discusses the human tendency to believe in a higher power in an integrative psychodynamic/religious context. The argument is presented that, regardless of the validity of any given religious system, a psychological mandate exists which compels mankind to exert control over his world and to adapt when that imperative is frustrated.

Genesis…

Any attempt to determine just when and why mankind developed spirituality is fraught with complications. In order to draw conclusions on that topic, one would have to take into account a number of neurological, anthropological, social and experiential factors. For example, how large does a brain have to be in order to integrate the cognitive, linguistic and emotional faculties needed to make such beliefs possible? Moreover, even if a brain has that potential, what socio-political phenomena have to be in place before a need for spirituality arises? Would God have summoned Moses to Sinai if the Egyptians had not enslaved his people? Would Jesus of Nazareth have sacrificed himself if not for Roman oppression and his perception that fellow Jews had drifted from the Torah? Even beyond that, did Moses and Jesus have to be of a certain psychological disposition in order to embark on their quest? Such questions are so intertwined as to preclude clear delineations of cause and effect.

One the other hand, whether one is religious, agnostic or atheistic, there would seem to be certain prerequisites in adopting a religious belief.

One requirement, as suggested by Lee (1995) and McArthur (2007) would be a state of duress. This is based on the notion that belief in a higher power derives from a state of helplessness or oppression pervasive enough to prompt the search for a hero or savior among a significant number of people. That dynamic existed during the early development of Judaism and during the early development of Judaism (Clayton, 2006 ) Christianity (Wylen 1995) and Islam (Lapidus 1988).

The question is whether that would be sufficient. For example, religious beliefs were strong during the Davidian era, when Israel wielded considerable power in Judea. In addition, strong religious beliefs existed within Roman society, despite their widespread dominance over vast Eurasian territories.

Despite “duress theory” it is conceivable that the belief in God has little if anything to do with historical forces, and that some fundamental trait inherent in our neuro-psychological wiring lies at the root of a search for transcendence. Some have even suggested that such a belief trait might not be quintessentially human. For instance, anthropological evidence seems to indicate that the Neanderthal peoples believed in an afterlife (Vegas 2011). While evidence for a specific godhead is scant among these archaic humans, it is not unreasonable to assume that if they conceived of a life after death, they must have filled in the blanks about the nature of that spiritual life – including a supervising entity responsible for orchestrating the vicissitudes of life and natural events.

Even more interesting is the possibility that a most basic root of religious belief can be seen in primate social groups, where rank order is essential in maintaining their solidarity. Chimp alpha males and females typically regulate behavior patterns, especially males, by instilling a fear-based sexual taboo through chronic vigilance and assaults on lower ranking males who attempt coitus with females during estrus. The end result is that while lower ranking males find ways to access females in estrus, dominance determines paternity to a large extent (Newton-Fisher, Thompson et. al. 2010). In addition, lower ranking members typically bow in deference before alpha males when the behavior of the former have come into question.

In that context, one could argue that adherence to hierarchical dominance, coupled with evolutionary enhancements in human cognition and language might have made a belief in and need for God inevitable for the human species, not just as a spiritual force but somewhat ironically, as an adaptive cognitive trait for maintaining social order for primates, whose large brains create vast permutations (good and bad) in social behavior patterns.

If that argument has validity, and if the alpha male (or female) comprise primate prototypes for God, one might expect humans to blur the lines between God and man. The historical record lends support to that assumption.

For instance, dominant males were viewed as gods in ancient societies; Ramses of Egypt, Constantine of Rome and Alexander of Macedonia, being among the most prominent. Beyond that, the distinction between earthly leader and God were often blurred even in monotheistic religions.
For example both Jesus and Isaiah were born of human flesh yet were elevated beyond mortal status by virtue of the fact that, unlike most common folk and even lower prophets they ascended into heaven after death to sit beside the Father.

Still, while the hierarchical process might explain some aspects of god worship, it leaves explanatory gaps. The most obvious revolves around the question of why Homo sapiens would need a transcendent god when human gods (alpha males) would be just as functional in sustaining social order and behavioral codes. For that reason, it seems one has to go beyond the primate word to gain a more comprehensive understanding of human spirituality.

Divided Morality…

A complete assessment of the origins and human impact of religion must take into account the various functions of God in a pagan system. The Greek and Roman deities were hierarchical, but also in many ways operated within divisions of labor – an interesting parallel to their systems of republican government.

The obvious flaw in the pagan model is that having various godheads, each with specific function could lead to clash among them – as often occurred in Greek Mythology. Having moral supervisors caught up in endless conflict amongst themselves would hardly be conducive to maintaining socio-moral order. From that perspective, it is not surprising that Monotheism out-lasted paganism as a religious model over time.

Paterfamilias…

Another theory on the origin of religious worship was that of Sigmund Freud. He wrote that God is symbolic of the father figure, whose presence is necessary to restrain man’s violent impulses and maintain social order. (Armstrong, 1993) In some ways this is similar to the primate argument and has similar flaws. For instance it does not explain the existence and historical importance of female deities such as Shiva, Hera, Isis and Duttur – the mother of Tammuz, the Babylonian god of fertility. Nor does it address the fact that males are more prone to aggressive behavior. Having male Gods regulating morals through violent retribution – a trend seen in every religious text, including the Old Testament, (Acts 1:9-12), (Nahum 1:2) wouldn’t necessarily serve as a model of restraint. Clearly the laws and punishments of worshippers would be derived from the behavior patterns of the Supreme Being; as the stoning of adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves in Mesopotamian cultures point out clearly. In fact, violent retribution was so much the norm in the early agricultural settlements that one has to wonder what modern society would be like today if not for revolutionary thinkers like Jesus, who reached back into doctrinal antiquity to resuscitate the idea of compassion and forgiveness, and Siddhartha Gautama who created a new spiritual template based on a presumed unity among all living things and a life style of simplicity.

Since theories of alpha dominance, father-symbolism, republican-paganism and hero-seeking would seem incomplete in explaining man’s penchant for religious belief, it might be interesting to discuss a more basic, psychological root of spirituality.

A God of Persistence…

As an introductory comment; the following discussion does not preclude the existence of an actual God, especially as a force of nature, not necessarily corporeal or personified but woven into the actual physical universe and certainly into the neuro-functional structure of the human mind.

For purposes of discussion, one can assume that on some level the idea of God is existential. That is, in order for God to exist and impart moral codes to mortals requires communications between himself and his audience (mankind). In other words if God had selected a chimp to climb Mt. Sinai, things might not have worked out so well (please pardon the reductio ad absurdum premise). Therefore one precondition of faith is the potential for a meeting of minds between mortals and God.

The “mortal” side of such reciprocity is a bit easier to explain because it can be found in the makeup of the human mind. Our brains are wired to control our environment. With fronto-parietal circuits in the cerebral cortex devoted to fine motor controls and speech precision, we are not only capable of prompting, categorizing and manipulating our world with language but also of extending such controls from mouth to hands along the motor strip so that we can make tools to actualize those categorical possibilities.

However it isn’t just the doing and talking. It is also a psychic mindset (a kind of internal metric) creating an expectation of control; a notion discussed eloquently by Bronowski (1973) One suspects that in the course of human brain evolution emotional circuits in the limbic brain networked with the control centers in the fronto-parietal catch-area so that feelings of satisfaction or frustration could result from successful or unsuccessful attempts at controlling tasks and circumstances. Lending support to this argument is the work of Mansell (2010) who demonstrated that feelings of pleasure and the onset of psychopathology are very much related to the perception of control or lack thereof.

In that context, there are certain elements of the control dynamic that play out in human psychological functioning. One instance occurs when control is attained and positive feedback signals prompt a pleasurable emotional response. Another occurs when attempts to exert control are frustrated, at which point anger and other negative emotional reactions occur in accord with the classic frustration/aggression mechanism (Berkowitz 1993). A third occurs when continuous attempts at control fail, the actor abandons his behavioral strategy and reverts to repetitious behaviors as a means of overriding goal frustration. The repetition pattern, often referred to in clinical circles as vicious circle behavior, typifies many types of psychopathology (Melvin 1979).

Obviously neither anger nor mere (neurotic) repetition is adaptive since a prolonged state of anger is both emotionally taxing and socially inappropriate. While creating the temporary illusion of control mere repetition seldom leads to response satisfaction.

That is where a fourth and more adaptive response tactic comes into play. It occurs when, after unsuccessful attempts at control, the actor is able to reverse the relationship between actor and object; by in effect resetting an internal gauge. At that point he becomes a function of the original target rather than vice versa. In so doing he relinquishes his status as controller and puts himself at the mercy of external circumstances.

The cognitive transition from the controller to the controlled alleviates tension and is thus negatively reinforced. That is because the feeling of relief resulting from relinquishing control feels good and will be repeated when similar circumstances arise again.

But the process does not end there. Despite relinquishing control the person still needs closure, i.e. some sense that the task will have an endpoint. In order to be deemed a controller, he must be deemed an actor and thus be assigned an identity. For example, the uncontrolled predator who took his son might over time be viewed as a god. The uncontrollable climate pattern would after an extended cold spell, become personified and deified. Perhaps the sun would be deemed a benevolent god, the wind a vengeful god via this conversion process.

In that context, the person would defer to and personify things he could not control, leading to attributions and the search for a hero or entity more powerful than he whose powers could help or harm him.

Still, the idea of faith fueled by psycho-adaptive submissiveness in a creature whose neuro-behavioral features emphasize control does not answer the question of how religious beliefs became so entrenched through the ages despite technological advancements that enables us to increasingly control more aspects of our environment.

One reason might be because science cannot ameliorate the need to exert control in most aspects of life, including relationships, personal feelings and concerns about things that have yet to happen. In other words, science can never keep up with the totality of human experience.

Aquinas’ Conundrum…

Since no single idea on religious origin is likely to be complete, it seems fair to ask what this conversion/submission theory implies about the existence and nature of God? For example, is God real or imaginary? Ethereal or man-made? A human-like figure (with muscles, bones and blood modeled in his image) or an amorphous entity with some sort of mysterious plan mankind might never come to understand?

Such questions are abstract and will probably never be answered definitively. On the other hand, that is what makes speculation so inviting – thus the following.

A Concept…

To begin with, while the word God will be used here for convenience sake, the term God is presumed to be a force, potentially discoverable through physical laws) that regulates the natural world but as an existential entity operates primarily through the operations of the human mind.

Now, with respect to the questions raised above, some answers are ponderable; especially if, as mentioned above, one views God as a driver of human cognition.
In that context, one can assume God was not created by man because man did not create his own mind, or its capacity to reset the neuro-cognitive gauge in reversing the natural tendency to exert control. (One could argue that was the true intended message in Genesis). As for God’s plan, and as a corollary, whether He is inherently benevolent or vindictive, it seems by granting humans a capacity to convert their penchant for control through submission He has revealed both His plan and modus operandi. It is to provide us with the gift of persistence. In accord with that notion, one could presume (for example) that He does not take lives – that’s out of his control. Instead He provides a capacity for mourners to persist in the aftermath of a loss. Nor does He punish transgressors. Instead He provides them with a capacity to adopt a more humble and submissive mind-set in deferring to laws and moral codes. Whether or not they take advantage of that capacity will determine their fate, and is ultimately up to them. (That is where the lines between free will (which most religions accept as a given) and the implied ultra-deterministic governance of a deity intersect.

This speculative account argues that God goads us on, implores humans to maintain their individual and collective momentum. He is more than a mere psychotherapist, yet perhaps his purpose is similar to a process described by Carl Jung, who wrote that life unfolds in alternating patterns of growth and stagnation – laughter and sadness served up like a day to night transition. Those who learn to accept temporary stagnation, indeed use it as a rest period in restoring energy will once again be able to regain control, at which point good deeds and human creativity can once again emerge.

The arguments rendered above are, of course, merely philosophical. They do not address the many questions about the nature of God pondered by theologians over time. For that matter the notion that faith’s origin lies in a coping strategy could be deemed reductionist. On the other hand something within the laws of nature gave us a brain with which to control our world in ways not possible for other organisms.

Such a thrust-forward cognitive style can be both advantageous and detrimental. The same need to create, explore and resolve can also destroy us. For every sky scraper we construct, for every poem we write, awaits a stress reaction in circumstances where control is thwarted. If having the ability to persist and survive by altering our internal dispositions was the only gift from God, it would be not only spiritual but all in all, a pretty good deal.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, K. (1993) A History of God. New York Ballantine Books

Berkowitz, l.. (1993) Aggression; Its Causes, Consequences and Control. New York McGraw Hill

Bronowski, J. (1973) The Ascent of Man. Boston and Toronto, Little Brown & Co.

Clayton, P. (2006) Chronicle of the Pharaohs Thames and Hudson.

Lapidus, I.M. (1988) A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press

Lee, R. (1995) The Superstress Solution. Random House

Mansell, W. (2010) Control Theory and Psychopathology: An Integrative Approach. Psychology and Psychopathology; Theory, Research and Practice Vol. 78 (2) 141-178

McArthur, H. (2007) Faith Can Help People Cope with Stress. Article retrieved April 8, Tuscaloosa News

Melvin, K. Irving, T.K. Prentice-Dunn, S. (1979) Fear-Motivated Vicious Circle Order Behavior Maintained Through Secondary Punishment. Animal Learning and Behavior Vol 7 (2) 185-190

Newton-Fisher, NE, Thompson, NE, Reynolds, C. Boesch, C. Vigilant, G (2010) Paternity and Social Rank in Wild Chimpanzees (Pantroglodytes) From the Budango Forest, Uganda. American Journal of Physiological Anthropology, July 142 (3) 417-28.

Notes: In Nahum 1:2 In the Old Testament refers to an Unchanging God and in the New Testament Acts 1:9-12 there is reference to… A Jealous and Avenging God who would is filled with wrath.

Treanor, M. Erisman, S. Salters –Pedneault, K. Roemer, L. and Orsillo, S. (2011) An Acceptance-Based Behavioral Therapy for GAD: Effect on Outcomes from Three Treatment Models. Depression & Anxiety 28 (2) 127-136

Vegas, J. Did Neanderthal Believe in an Afterlife? Article in Archeology. April 8, 2011

Wylen, S.M. (1995) Jews in the Time of Jesus: An Introduction. Paulist Press