Article Type : Research Article
Authors : James F Welles
Keywords : Brain; Mental health
The brain of an infant may be the blank tablet envisaged by
Locke [1], but as it is shaped by both experience and language it develops into
the mind of an adult. As the character of the maturing individual becomes
defined, the mind shapes experiences decreasingly according to immediate
stimuli themselves and increasingly according to linguistic interpretations of
and emotional reactions to perceptions. Thus, the environment does not dictate
human behavior but provides but provides a context for its expression.
The basis for
interpreting environmental stimuli is the schema-the cognitive program (Ger:
Weltanschauung) which acts as a template for perceptual experience and provides
expectations and explanations about objects and their relations to and
interactions with each other [2]. It is populated by or constructed of memes [3],
which are subjected to selection pressure by the psychocultural environment and
thus are not necessarily as true as they are gratifying and popular. Just as a
reigning intellectual paradigm defines each of our modern sciences (e.g., atoms
in chemistry) [4], aschema defines the mental life of an individual by
providing an intellectual frame of reference for information, ideas and
behavior. Traceable back to Edmound Husserl’s phenomenological observation of
the mind’s tendency to organize experiences [5], like Piaget’s mental structure
[6], it comprises the "Cognitive map" of the individual's reality and
determines his 1. world-view, 2. self-concept, 3. self-ideal and 4. ethical
convictions. While providing basic notions about principles of nature and theories
about how the world works, the schema both fosters and inhibits further
learning. It is particularly good at promoting learning of refinement, whereby
established expectations are confirmed and reinforced and responses made more
subtle. However, learning of novelty is made less probable and more difficult
by preset patterns of thought which limit an individual's range of cognitive
adjustment. Thus, the schema encourages self-corrective, fine tuning of itself
even in cases in which it remains a maladaptive behavioral program. The
learning process can be broken down into two interrelated steps: assimilation
and accommodation [7]. Assimilation is the perception of stimuli and the
incorporation of experience into an existing schema; it is accomplished by assigning
the percept of an object or phenomenon to an established cognitive category as
defined by the individual's vocabulary. An Accommodation is the change or
modification of the schema due to the assimilation of new information. Minor
adjustments, refinements and modifications of the schema are very common and
occur with little or no awareness or emotion. The resulting schema is the
individual's reorganization of his experience into a system which provides both
predictability of events and a sound basic strategy for successful behavior.
Attitudes: However, as an
individual matures, the presence of the schema tends to dominate the process of
assimilation by defining perception in progressively restrictive terms and by
the formation a There are, of course, nonverbal schemas - e.g., those which
permit us to interpret physical forms, body language, music, etc. However, as
our prime concern here is with interpersonal stupidity, we will concentrate our
attention on verbal/behavioral schemas of attitudes which evaluate perceived
data. Attitudes determine whether a given fact is construed favorably or not.
This point is easily demonstrated by a play on a standard form of humor:
"I have some good news and some bad news: the Yankees won last
night". This is good news to Yankee fans and bad news to Yankee haters.
Laugh or not, there are
three factors which may contribute to the formation of attitudes. First of all,
attitudes may be rooted in a person's need to know about the environment. Such
attitudes are data based and provide a verbal knowledge system to which
incoming bits of information are compared or contrasted. Attitudes may also be
adopted because of externally applied social rewards and pressures of normative
group influence. Finally, attitudes may be expressions of the value system of
the individual and provide him with the self-satisfaction of self-sustaining
internal rewards [8]. Along with their function of evaluating information,
attitudes also act to promote the achievement of goals deemed to be worthy, to
maintain self-esteem and to express views. Most important of all to students of
stupidity, attitudes determine what a person considers to be his "Best
interest". This is crucial if stupidity is deliberate, informed,
maladaptive behavior that is, behavior counter to one's own best interest. The
determination of "Best interest" thus turns out to be quite an
arbitrary process. The basic problem with such an evaluation is that judgment
is so "Attitudinal". For example, the extreme case of homicide may
variously be considered a crime (murder), necessity (self-defense), heroic
(combat) or simply negligent if not accidental: the evaluation of the act
depends very much upon the circumstances and the attitude of the judge.
It is by interacting with
the environment that people reveal their attitudes—the beliefs, values and
ideas which the reference group's language and norms have molded into a schema.
Socialization internalizes this system so that it defines who and what a member
is and does. As a young person matures or an initiate conforms, external
rewards and punishments become anticipated and behavior adjusts to preconceived
expectations.
It is important to note
that the creed of a group functions as a unifying force [9]. Political and
economic systems (e.g., democracy, capitalism, etc.) are often misconstrued as
descriptive of how societies interact with their environments. Actually, along
with behavioral rituals which are also binding, such systems are concrete
expressions of ideological creeds which promote group unity. When the system's
values are internalized, the individual feels himself to be part of a
homogeneous group of people comfortable with themselves regardless of what they
are doing.
One of the inherent
drawbacks of intense group loyalty, however, is that it can interfere with
logical analysis of problems [10] and corrupt the super-ego values of the
group. The unacknowledged goal of most groups is maintenance of the schema.
Reason is used to rationalize, and value-based perception is skewed to favor the
schematic/social quo. Conformity is the standard and intellectual integrity a
threat to short-term, immediate complacence. Unfortunately, the long-term
consequences can be disastrous, as happened in the Penn State scandal centered
on convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky [11].
To achieve and maintain a
healthy balance, there must be a dynamic tradeoff between the short-term social
needs of the group and the long-term intellectual imperative of information.
This inherent compromise is typical of the human condition and displays itself
as emotional conflict, suppressed or expressed, in all but the total
conformist. One of the saving graces of a schema is that, consistent with the
theory of cognitive dissonance, it can easily make minor adjustments changes
which reduce rather than arouse emotional tension. Accumulated minor
adjustments can add up to a significant schematic alteration which would be
traumatic if forced in one step. This process is comparable to the gradual
evolution of one species into another by the accumulation of genetic mutations.
Minor adjustment makes it
possible to retain the schema while behavior adapts to novel circumstances.
This is ideal for a stupid society, as it permits vague and ambiguous leaders
to do somewhat more or less than they should while their followers can believe
their cause to be sacred. As new behavioral norms emerge, so too may an
identity crisis or conflict gradually evolve as traditional values are
deemphasized for the sake of group cooperation in new circumstances. The
mechanism of successful schematic adaptation to novelty is, usually, largely
language dependent, as it is language that provides the basis for our cognitive
life, including the expanded mental capacity to be both very intelligent and
very stupid.