I believe many would have heard of the 'over-used' slogan : "You are what you think"; and to a certain extent, even believe it to be so true. Though the context in which this slogan was thought of may not be clear to many, it hints at several important assumptions. For one, it implies that if you think you are smart, you will act smart. Similarly, if you think you are bad, you are more inclined to display or act in a destructive behavior. But, always bear in mind, that the slogan directs its meaning to what YOU think of yourself, and not what OTHERS think of you.
In other words, it means that even if you think you are smart and you, maybe with some air of over-confidence, act smart, the truth is, others may not think you as a smart person at all. The explanation is simply straight-forward: the perception is actually actively built by the person perceiving you although you try to impose certain kind of thinking onto the person. Further explanation: the person is not passive and thus, actively interacts with his or her environment, who after going through a succession of life experiences accumulated throughout the years, is able to build his or her own 'schemata' with regards to perception.
That is one aspect of cognitive behavior which is perplexing to researchers and scholars alike trying to understand the 'mystery' behind the differences in perception and how they are manifested. Of similar interest regarding this human faculty, is the issue on cognitive predilections. Earlier research had successfully provided 'concrete' evidence on the connection between brain localization with our types of behavior (e.g. cognitive, psikomotor, affective, emotive), which further triggered subsequent other research in search of better understanding.
A significant initial contribution to this understanding was initiated by Paul Brocka, who, being curious about the speaking disability of his patient whom he named as "Tan", did a post-mortem autopsy of Tan's brain following his death. He discovered that the human 'speech production' as diagnosed through the 'defect' found in Tan's brain was located at the frontal lobes of the left hemisphere( now named after him and identified as 'Brocka's area') which, had resulted in Tan's disability to produce words. Another finding made by Carl Wernicke further identified another area known as Wernicke's area, to be the area of 'speech comprehension' (still in the frontal lobe of the left hemisphere), in which a defect in this area will cause in the person's disability to understand speech. Defects in both areas of the brain are known as 'aphasia', a language disorder due to an impairment of language modality.
With numerous studies continuously being conducted, various findings provided better insights into the working of the human mind, aka brain. Up to this very day, the interests in brain study and its connection with human's cognitive capacity and capability as well as with other human behaviors, have never ceased to grow. The research into the neural connections of the brain with that of emotion, for example, further provide invaluable insights for deeper understanding of human's behavior as a whole. In fact, as highlighted by Daniel Goleman, the ability for us to perform our task successfully has much to do with our ability to 'feel' right as warranted by the situation, i.e. a type of human innate capacity which he termed as 'emotional intelligence'.
Well, all the research and findings discussed so far point to the significant contribution of 'quantitative' studies, of which the processes and procedures were carried out vigorously in order to provide 'concrete' and 'believable' evidence. The insights regarding brain localization become, among other things, the 'formula' for understanding the association of cognitive 'endeavors' with certain observable behaviors. In learning behavior, for example, the tendency towards involving in certain cognitive processes such as that of analytical or logical thinking, for example, is linked to one's tendency to use one side of the brain (in this case, the left brain) more often than the other (right) side.
Nonetheless, relying on quantitative paradigm alone will not provide us with sufficient information towards a better understanding of human behavior, much alone to learn from that particular behavior. In social science, further insights drawn from 'epistemological' perspective help to complement the scientific findings by enhancing the 'psychological' understanding of the brain. One such great contributor in the field of education , Jean Piaget, for instance, believed in the existence of different stages of cognitive development in human as observed in the difference of children's and adult's thinking behavior. His influential thoughts, consequentially guided the principles behind teaching and learning processes, further sparked the interests of many to engage in other similar research especially those that concern the learning behavior.
Further advancement in the understanding of the development of cognitive behavior in human introduced by Bandura, the proponent of Social Learning Theory, which was then developed into Social Cognitive Theory illustrated the interconnections among personal attributes (e.g the cognitive aspect), environment and behavior. This view somehow situates the capacity of the mind outside its 'individual' confine into an 'external' one, vis-a-vis a larger social system, in which the individuals reside as members of a community. In fact, astonishing discoveries such as that of a thirteen-year old girl, (later named as 'Genie'), who is unable to speak after spending her life locked in a dark room and in subhuman conditions, provides 'clear' evidence into the influential role of social interaction in shaping and developing our cognitive processes. Suffice, it is through social interaction that we, either consciously or sub-consciously develop and enhance our brain capacity through our experiences with the environment and human contact, either directly or indirectly.
And so, it is often in human social interaction that differences of perspectives or cognitive predilections are manifested, which to a considerable extent may develop into a conflict. For instance, a person with a 'critical' qualitative mind may be able to accurately understand, analyze and interpret abstract 'symbolic' meanings of events, utterances, feelings, behaviors, etc. though she may find it hard to provide her assumptions or conclusions with 'concrete' evidence. A quantitative person, on the other hand, while attempting to be practical through logical reasoning may in the process, 'limits' his cognitive capacity from attempting to 'think-out-of-the-box, or to divert his thinking from the 'normal' route since he believes in 'observable' and 'concrete' proofs of logic. Hence, conflict is inevitable.
So, where is the point of contact when two diverse perspectives of quantitative and qualitative paradigms meet and collide? Well, one possible answer, is to rely on the 'affective' state, which has both scientifically proven to relate through neural connections with the brain ( i.e. quantitative) and, widely acknowledged as influential to one's behavior as related and proven through real-life accounts (i.e. qualitative). Thus, BELIEVE in our feelings if we must; in our instinct, hunches, imagination, intuition. If it 'feels' right, just believe it. If it 'sounds' true, simply put your faith in it. Even if sometimes things 'may not' feel OK, trust the 'hidden' voice. It's all we got when both qualitative and quantitative perspectives seem not to make sense or could not come to a mutual agreement, so just BELIEVE in the 'feeling'. After all, there are always TWO possibilities, if we are 'not right', then, we are wrong. Its either you lose or you win, but seldom in cases where the feeling is mutually STRONG between the qualitative and quantitative, that the assumption is incorrect. That, actually is from the perspective of a 'qualitative' person, of course.
Well, with all the lengthy explanation and 'historical review' on the mysterious wonder of our human faculty, do you ACTUALLY believe in what I had been telling you so far? Depending on which paradigm you associate yourself with, I BELIEVE that it is totally your call.
Further advancement in the understanding of the development of cognitive behavior in human introduced by Bandura, the proponent of Social Learning Theory, which was then developed into Social Cognitive Theory illustrated the interconnections among personal attributes (e.g the cognitive aspect), environment and behavior. This view somehow situates the capacity of the mind outside its 'individual' confine into an 'external' one, vis-a-vis a larger social system, in which the individuals reside as members of a community. In fact, astonishing discoveries such as that of a thirteen-year old girl, (later named as 'Genie'), who is unable to speak after spending her life locked in a dark room and in subhuman conditions, provides 'clear' evidence into the influential role of social interaction in shaping and developing our cognitive processes. Suffice, it is through social interaction that we, either consciously or sub-consciously develop and enhance our brain capacity through our experiences with the environment and human contact, either directly or indirectly.
And so, it is often in human social interaction that differences of perspectives or cognitive predilections are manifested, which to a considerable extent may develop into a conflict. For instance, a person with a 'critical' qualitative mind may be able to accurately understand, analyze and interpret abstract 'symbolic' meanings of events, utterances, feelings, behaviors, etc. though she may find it hard to provide her assumptions or conclusions with 'concrete' evidence. A quantitative person, on the other hand, while attempting to be practical through logical reasoning may in the process, 'limits' his cognitive capacity from attempting to 'think-out-of-the-box, or to divert his thinking from the 'normal' route since he believes in 'observable' and 'concrete' proofs of logic. Hence, conflict is inevitable.
So, where is the point of contact when two diverse perspectives of quantitative and qualitative paradigms meet and collide? Well, one possible answer, is to rely on the 'affective' state, which has both scientifically proven to relate through neural connections with the brain ( i.e. quantitative) and, widely acknowledged as influential to one's behavior as related and proven through real-life accounts (i.e. qualitative). Thus, BELIEVE in our feelings if we must; in our instinct, hunches, imagination, intuition. If it 'feels' right, just believe it. If it 'sounds' true, simply put your faith in it. Even if sometimes things 'may not' feel OK, trust the 'hidden' voice. It's all we got when both qualitative and quantitative perspectives seem not to make sense or could not come to a mutual agreement, so just BELIEVE in the 'feeling'. After all, there are always TWO possibilities, if we are 'not right', then, we are wrong. Its either you lose or you win, but seldom in cases where the feeling is mutually STRONG between the qualitative and quantitative, that the assumption is incorrect. That, actually is from the perspective of a 'qualitative' person, of course.
Well, with all the lengthy explanation and 'historical review' on the mysterious wonder of our human faculty, do you ACTUALLY believe in what I had been telling you so far? Depending on which paradigm you associate yourself with, I BELIEVE that it is totally your call.
No comments:
Post a Comment