esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
I think that what it’s saying is that if input is similar to an existing memory chain but different, and if that difference is not picked up by the conscious mind, then it disrupts the memory chain to such an extent that the disruption exceeds the area of the change.
Whilst trying to figure out what Transition meant by mental equilibrium I came across this article on cognitive equilibrium.
https://www.britannica.com/science/cognitive-equilibrium
“Cognitive equilibrium, a state of balance between individuals’ mental schemata, or frameworks, and their environment. Such balance occurs when their expectations, based on prior knowledge, fit with new knowledge…
“When individuals encounter new discrepant information, they enter into a state of disequilibrium. In order to return to a state of equilibrium, individuals can ignore the information or attempt to manage it. One option for managing discrepant information is called assimilation, and the other option is called accommodation.
“Assimilation is the process of modifying discrepant information so that it matches current schemata. For example, a child visiting a petting zoo may encounter a pony for the first time. The child recognizes some of the features of the animal, so the “dog” schema is activated and the child says, “Dog!”…. Erroneous or not, assimilation does not produce cognitive change….
“Cognitive change, and thus cognitive development, can be achieved only through accommodation. Accommodation is the process of modifying current schemata so that they match discrepant information. For instance, in the previous example of the child at the petting zoo, the child’s caretaker might have said, “No, that’s not a dog; that’s a pony.” In this case, the child’s old schema did not work, so the child must reevaluate the “dog” schema. To do so, the child must determine whether the “dog” and “pony” schemata might both fall under a larger “four-legged animal” schema, whether they can both exist separately from each other, and which characteristics differentiate two animals. The child’s slightly modified “four-legged animal” schema is now less vulnerable to disequilibrium due to discrepant information and is therefore more stable.
The example I’m thinking of is sonata form in music, with exposition, development, recapitulation.
On first hearing, the two themes of the exposition (in tonic and dominant) go into short term memory.
The repeat firms up the “assimilation” phase, moving it from short term to long term memory.
The development lays down a new “accommodation” memory chain separate to the first, but because this isn’t repeated it’s difficult to remember.
Then comes the recapitulation. It starts off as an “assimilation” and then diverges into “accommodation”
What they say about “cognitive development, can be achieved only through accommodation” is too simplistic in that it doesn’t take into account how “assimilation” moves memories from short term to long term. I could even play devil’s advocate and say that “cognitive development, can be achieved only through assimilation” on the grounds that accommodation without reinforcement is all lost when short term memory is deleted.
And thinking about that, now I realise why Missy never learnt the advanced maths that I taught her, she solved all her examples quickly and accurately. But I didn’t put any effort into exact repetition (rote learning) and therefore it dropped out of mind when her short term memory was deleted.