Chapter 3: "Man's Search for Meaning", the Psychology of Schemes.

The philosophy of schemes crosses over often with the psychology of schemes. Many of the cross overs will be mentioned as needed. However, at least two cross overs stand up well on their own. Since we are trying first to define the nature of the scheme, studying some aspects of the psychology of schemes, should better define what I mean by schemes.

Particularly, these two psychological theories. One, cognitive schema theory, is a fundamental analysis into how we think and believe. The other one, logotherapy, is an analysis into why believing in something is important in the first place.

Artificial intelligence and schema.

Cognitive psychology is a relatively new branch of psychology. It is the study of human psychology compared to that of a computer. It is believed that computers will be capable, one day, of thinking like humans. It is also believed that the inverse is true: that human brains are in fact just really complicated computers.

With these ideas in mind, it is believed that studying the process by which we program a computer to think like us, can give us interesting insights into how we ourselves think. Whether or not you believe in computers being able to think, one success has already been reported, with the development of psychological schema.

One of the first things that government tried to do with computers is to automate language translation. The first tests, tried in the late 1950's were with Russian (being useful in the 'cold war'). it was believed that these computers could translate better and faster than human translators. It was a simple program, the computer would look up the Russian word in a database, find the English equivalent, and the result was the translation.

It failed miserably. In fact, forty years later, today's translation software is still not up to human standards. The December 17,1996 edition of PC Magazine has a typical example. Here they used a new and rather complex program called the Globalink Web Translator to translate foreign language web pages to English. A rather simple French phrase describing the trunk of a car: "Equipee d'une banquette arriere rabatable, elle autorise le transport d'objets d'envurgure." into, "Escapade of a beating rear bench, it authorizes the transportation of objects of scale."

It is not a problem with the computers or their program. The problem is that human language is a lot more complicated than anyone expected. For centuries we believed that language consisted of just syntax and semantics. If this were true, then computer translation would not be difficult at all.

What we have discovered, is that there is another level of language that linguists and psychologists call schema. It consists of shared knowledge and understanding of those that are communicating. We all realize that people with different cultures have difficulty communicating, because we do not share common beliefs or experiences. Communication between individuals require common knowledge and belief base. Try explaining why Abraham Lincoln was a great president to someone from China who does not know what a president is, or anything about American history. For a better example, try understanding the following paragraph:

If the balloons popped, the sound would not be able to carry since everything would be too far away from the correct floor. A closed window would also prevent the sound from carrying since most buildings tend to be well insulated. Since the whole operation depends on a steady flow of electricity, a break in the middle of the wire would also cause problems of course the fellow could shout, but the human voice is not loud enough to carry that far. An additional problem is that a string could break on the instrument Then there could be no accompaniment to the message it is clear that the best situation would involve less distance Then there would be fewer potential problems. With face to face contact the least number of things could go wrong. (Bransford and Johnson, 1972)

Do you understand it? If not is there a word that you do not know? There is not a single difficult vocabulary word in the paragraph. So, why are you having trouble with the paragraph. The problem is that you do not recognize the context that the author is talking in, that is to say you do not know the "schema". Need some help? Click here to find what this paragraph is talking about.

For computers, though, it is even worse. Computers do not have basic human experiences. When a computer was told that Abraham Lincoln's left knee hurt when he went to Gettysburg, the computer thought that Abraham Lincoln's knee was still back in Washington. Human translators have this basic knowledge computers do not. For a computer to comprehend natural language it has to have in its memory lots of very trivial information. Computers will have to have this information to translate correctly.

Cognitive psychologists have found that what is true for computers is in fact true for humans as well. All of the new knowledge we acquire is best remembered by relating it to prior knowledge, or by visualizing it in some way. Furthermore, this new knowledge is molded in our mind to correspond to our previous knowledge. So, not only is communication dependent on prior knowledge, but thinking itself is prior knowledge based.

So what does this have to do with schemes? Note that schema and schemes are different, but very similar. Schema refers to fundamental knowledge about the topic, while scheme refers to fundamental shared knowledge and beliefs with others. The point here is that what we know and believe is very fundamental to how we think. There is no such thing as thinking in general, thinking is very topic specific.

The cause and effect follows like this: what schemes we belong to determine what we believe. What we believe determines what we can learn easily, and what we know determines how we think. In other words, our belief system clouds our ability to think about things that are not part of our belief systems; rational though requires us to suspend our beliefs.

Schema is also found in educational psychology. It is associated with the transfer problem. Information from one subject area does not transfer to other areas unless the connection is explicitly taught. Even something as simple as the connection between solving 12 = 3x for x in math, and solving f = ma for m in physics is something that has to be taught; students do not connect the two easily, unless they are taught to connect the two. People do not recognize it on their own.

The transfer problem vs. the schema problem is at the heart of current educational reform policies debate. One side wants to fight the schema problem by pushing general knowledge. The other side wants to fight the transfer problem by pushing more integrated learning. The attitude of both sides is that the other problem is unsolvable, therefore we should concentrate on the solving the one they believe can be solved.

The situation is paradoxical, you need knowledge to be able to think, but you also need to be able to think to gain more knowledge. It is this paradox that divides the educational reform movements.

To avoid transfer problems later, let me warn you. This will not be the only paradox that divides ideological schemes, politics is filled with them.

Frankl's logotherapy

Now, you may be asking yourself, if belonging to a scheme clouds my ability to think clearly, then would it not be better to not believe in anything? According to another school of psychology, good mental health is dependent on having something to believe in. This school is called logotherapy, it was developed by Austrian psychologist Victor Frankl. Dr. Frankl was a former concentration camp prisoner at Auschwitz. He wrote a famous book about his experiences and his theories called "Man's Search for Meaning".

The main emphasis revolves around Dr. Frankl's observation that those prisoners who believe they have a reason to live, "meaning" in their lives, were better at doing what it takes to survive their ordeal. Suffering becomes less difficult when there is some purpose to the suffering, or more accurately, when the person doing the suffering believes that there is meaning to the suffering. Here is a concrete example from Frankl's book:

Once, an elderly general practitioner consulted me because of his severe depression. He could not overcome the loss of his wife who had died two years before and whom he had loved above all else. Now, how could I help him? What should I tell him? Well, I refrained from telling him anything but instead confronted him with the question, "What would have happened, Doctor, if you had died first, and your wife would have had to survive you?" "Oh," he said, "for her this would have been terrible; how she would have suffered!" Whereupon I replied, "You see, Doctor, such a suffering has been spared her, and it was you who have spared her this suffering to be sure, at the price that now you have to survive and mourn her" He said no word but shook my hand and calmly left my office. In some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice. (Frankl, 1984)

Logotherapy is a psychological technique of giving meaning to our mental neuroses rather than trying to explain them away like other forms of therapy. Some of the techniques involve reverse psychology, or changing the context of the neurosis. I will not go into detail, except to say the therapy has had its share of proven success. No form of therapy is 100% effective, but logotherapy has proven better than most.

What is important to understand is the comparison to Logotherapy and Scheme Theory. A thesis of this book, in fact it is the title, is that we all need something to believe in -- some meaning in our lives. The easy way to prove this would be to point to Dr. Frankl's work and add Q.E.D. Unfortunately, I have to take the hard way.

The main similarity between Logotherapy and Scheme theory is the definition of meaning. As Dr. Frankl states:

Man's search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a "secondary rationalization" of instinctual drives. This meaning is unique and specific in that it must and can be fulfilled by him alone; only then does it achieve a significance which will satisfy his own will to meaning. There are some authors who contend that meanings and values are "nothing but defense mechanisms, reaction formations and sublimations." But as for myself, I would not be willing to live merely for the sake of my "defense mechanisms," nor would I be ready to die merely for the sake of my "reaction formations." Man, however, is able to live and even to die for the sake of his ideals and values! (Frankl, Op. Cit.)

Scheme theory takes the above definition of meaning as axiomatic, we live for a purpose we all must find for ourselves. A reason to live and to die if we have to.

What then are the differences between Logotherapy and Scheme theory. First, Logotherapy is a psychological theory, while Scheme theory is a philosophical theory. Still, there is an underlying philosophy to Logotherapy, and it also differs in subtle, but important ways to schemes. For those who have taken Philosophy 101, the difference is existential vs. rational. For those who have not, Logotherapy assumes that any way we make our lives meaningful is good, and from a therapeutic perspective it is correct. Scheme theory says that there are good ways to make our lives meaningful and bad ways, also. The problem becomes making our lives meaningful in good ways.

In the next section we will categorize various schemes, and look at each category individually. Schemes not only effect us but society as well. Categorizing schemes will help us sort the good schemes from the bad.

Copyright ©1997 by Paul Cox

Sources for this chapter:

Mayer, Richard E. Thinking, Problem Solving, Cognition, 1992, W. H. Freeman. 225-258.

Bransford, J. D. and Johnson, M. K. "Contextual Prerequisites for Understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall" Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 61, 717-726.

Frankl, Victor E., Man's Search for Meaning, third edition, 1984, Simon and Schuster. 101-137.

Irreverent Guide Index
Visit my Web Page The Xocxoc Page for more stuff on math, philosophy, art, books and movies.