Cognitive Neuroscience: Unlearning Something Learnt

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion and Implications
References

Introduction

The human brain is highly sophisticated, and cognitive neuroscientists have been struggling to understand how it functions. The mind has the ability to remember specific things, but forget others very quickly. It chooses what to remember and what to discard immediately it is registered in the brain. One learns through remembering new concepts in life. According to Siff (2010), learning can take two perspectives.

The first perspective will be the knowledge that is imparted in a person by someone (mostly a teacher) so that an individual may understand a given concept. For instance, for one to understand Pythagoras Theorem, it will be necessary to have a teacher who will explain the concepts of this theory and its relevance to society. The learner will have the knowledge about this theory if he or she can remember the concepts as taught by the teacher.

If this happens, then it will be right to say that one has learned. The second approach to learning is through experience. For instance, in case a child touches a naked flame it will be burnt. It will learn that naked fires cause pain. This will be registered in its memory, and it will grow up knowing that fire is dangerous. One question that cognitive neuroscientists always ask is whether one is able to ‘unlearn’ what has been learned.

In this study, the researcher holds that unlearning what has been learned depends on the nature of the item that was learned and the manner in which it was learned.

Research question

It is important to use a research question when conducting research. The question acts as a guide that defines the data that should be collected from the field. The following is the research question that will be used in this study.

Can one “unlearn” something after learning it?

Based on the above question, the researcher developed the hypothesis below.

Unlearning what has been learned depends on the nature of the item that was learned and the manner in which it was learned

In order to answer this question, the researcher will use the reports by Johnson (2005), Brown, and White (2002) who extensively discussed the science of the brain and how it works to learn and unlearn things based on their relevance to one’s life. These two pieces of literature will be the primary sources of information. The researcher will analyze their hypotheses, their methodologies, and reliability in addressing the issue under investigation. The researcher will also use eight other sources to back up the findings of these two primary sources.

The Sources used in this research were obtained from reliable online sources. The journals were retrieved from JStor and PubMed, while the books were available in the library. The researcher used the following key words “unlearn,”“learn,” and “cognitive neuroscience.”

Discussion

Unlearning what has been learned may be very easy, but at the same time, it may be almost impossible. According to Brown and White (2002), in order to understand the ability of one to unlearn what has been learned, it is important to first understand the learning process as explained in Cognitive paradigms. As mentioned above, learning can take two approaches, each having different impacts on one’s life.

The first approach is the teacher-learner process that in modern society takes place in a classroom setting. The second approach is the process of learning through one’s own experience. This involves gaining knowledge from a practical event in one’s life. These two approaches will be critically analyzed in order to determine whether it is possible to unlearn what one has learned.

Teacher-learner context of learning

The first approach to learning is the teacher-learner context. The report by Brown and White (2002) focuses on the learning process, specifically how one is able to grasp some concepts but forget others very quickly. These scholars say that the brain is the software that defines every activity that one does. The programs that run within one’s brain in the learning process are heavily reliant on the perception of a person towards something.

The scholars say that no one is too foolish to understand the concepts learned in class unless there is a neurological disorder within the brain. However, it is common to find one is at the top of the class and others at the bottom. This depends on the memory, which is actually the learning process. The brain will absorb what the mind tells it to, and reject what it is instructed to reject. This instruction, according to Johnson (2005), is given by one’s attitude or perception. The attitude or perception controls what gets into our memory. However, it is also important to note that another aspect of the brain is in control of attitude and perception.

Raman (2003) refers to this aspect of the brain as the conscience. It defines the ability of one to grasp a given concept and let it stick to the brain. In a teacher-learner context of learning, one would need to control the attitude in order to make the memory register that knowledge is given by the teacher. If the memory successfully registers the knowledge that the teacher is passing, then it will be right to say that learning has taken place

Unlearning what has been learned in this context will largely depend on the facts that are presented to an individual. For instance, in the past, society believed that the sun goes round the earth. This belief was particularly strong among the Christians as it was considered part of the creation theory in the bible. When Eratosthenes challenged this notion and claimed that the earth goes around the sun, he was widely condemned, and his new knowledge was dismissed.

People at this time could not believe that the earth is not flat. They had learned that the earth is flat not only through their religious teachings but also in their social lives and what they believed was experienced. Unlearning this knowledge was not easy.

However, Hawkins and Wilmot (2012) say that the problem was not with the memory but the perception. The perception towards this new knowledge was influenced by religion. This new fact to the Christians was a mockery of their beliefs. They shut down their brain and it became impossible to unlearn. However, unlearning something that was learned theoretically cannot be that complex. According to Hislop (2013), using Kurt Lewin’s change model may help in explaining the process.

When faced with new knowledge that challenges the already existing knowledge, then this model may be very important in unlearning what has been learned. In this model, the first step suggested is to unfreeze. In this case, unfreezing will involve asking relevant questions about the existing and the new knowledge. When using the example given above, one would need to ask for proof that confirms either of the two claims. Another example may be a wrong concept that was taught by someone in the past. During this first stage, one would need to determine the available facts that make the new knowledge right, and the old one wrong.

When it is clear that the new knowledge has the truth over the previously held notions, then the next step will be to change. At this moment, one would be debugging the system in the brain of the wrong concept, and in its place installing the new concept that has just been learned. Sometimes this may require will power in order to avoid getting confused in the entire process (Moskowitz, 2010). The final stage will be to freeze or refreeze. In this last stage, the learner will be condensing the new information in the mind like the knowledge that will guide one in the future.

This entire process of unlearning what has been learned demonstrates that it is important to have new knowledge that shall replace the unlearned knowledge. Challenging the notion that the sun goes around the earth would be easier if new knowledge is introduced to replace it. In this case, the new knowledge was that the earth actually goes around the sun.

Learning through experience

The second aspect of learning is through experiences that one gains in life. Fire is dangerous and unless it is used responsibly, it can cause serious harm to the body or destruction of property. Despite what we may learn about the fire from the theoretical perspective, what we know about it from the practical aspects will always be stronger. According to Gazzaniga and & Bizzi (2004), what is learned through experience always has a strong bearing on our memory. It may not matter whether or not the mind wants to hold it in the memory or not. It shall remain within the memory, and will always be retrieved through a reflect reaction.

A good example is a survivor of a tragic event, such as a bomb attack. The events of such a horrific incident shall always remain in the mind even if one desires to forget about the entire incident. Sometimes the psychological state of one’s mind may dictate how often one will be remembering such incidents. In other cases, one may not have control because of the reflective reaction that would take place in case something that reminds one of the incidents happens.

A survivor of a bomb attack will always have a shock, and may even scream when there is a loud bang such as a tire burst. This is so because the brain had learned that such blasts are associated with death. For this reason, every time there is a blast, the image of death starts haunting such a person, and this explains why he or she may involuntarily scream whenever there is a loud bang.

Unlearning what one has learned through experience may almost be impossible. According to Baars and Gage (2013, p. 78), “The truth is never altered, it can only be restructured.” One can never forget that he or she narrowly survived a serious bomb attack such as September 11, 2001, terrorists attack the World Trade Center.

It is likely that one would most probably go to the grave with the memories despite the desire to forget such events. Sometimes such knowledge may start haunting a person, directly affecting his lifestyle in negative ways. Someone may start suffering from nightmares or even a complete breakdown of the nervous system.

In such cases, there will be a strong desire to unlearn what was learned in order to restore a normal lifestyle on such a person. It is at such moments that cognitive neuroscientists will be needed to help such individuals. As stated earlier, it will not be possible to unlearn such experiences.

However, the psychologists will need to help the affected individual to learn how to live with this kind of memory. It will involve what Posner (2012) calls psychotherapy where the psychologist will introduce new knowledge to be part of the horrific knowledge. The new knowledge introduced will be expected to diffuse the horrific memories so that the affected individual can remember such terrible incidents without being horrified.

Conclusion and Implications

The two primary sources used in this study found out that unlearning what has been learned depends on what was learned and how one learned it. This confirms the hypothesis of this study. It is very easy to unlearn a misconception when presented with the facts. However, it may not be possible for one to unlearn the fact that one’s parents were murdered in cold blood if the person witnessed the murder as a child.

Through the primary and secondary data these two scholars collected, they found out that such horrific experiences are the information that forever remains in one’s life. Cognitive neuroscientists may only help such a person live with the painful facts without suffering from any form of emotional torture. The two findings closely relate to each other in their conclusion of the fact that unlearning something learned may depend on a number of factors.

The implication of this study to cognitive neuroscientists is that in order to help someone suffering from such horrific memories, it may be necessary to introduce new knowledge that acts as a therapy to manage the phobia associated with the memory of the event.

References

Baars, B. J., & Gage, N. M. (2013). Fundamentals of cognitive neuroscience: A beginner’s guide. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Brown, S. & White, J. (2002). Learning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46 (39), 19-58.

Gazzaniga, M. S., & Bizzi, E. (2004). The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA [etc.: The MIT Press.

Hawkins, P. & Wilmot, J. (2012). Supervision in the helping professions. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, C. (2005). Unlearning. British Medical Journal, 331(7518), 703-750.

Moskowitz, M. (2010). Reading minds: A guide to the cognitive neuroscience revolution. London: Karnac Books.

Posner, M. I. (2012). Cognitive neuroscience of attention. New York: Guilford Press.

Raman, A. T. (2003). Knowledge management: A resource book. New Delhi: Excel Books.

Siff, J. (2010). Unlearning Meditation: What to do when the instructions get in the way. Boston: Shambhala.

Click Here To Order Now!