I have always been comforted by certainty.

However, recently I have learned that my

schema of certainty was a deep misconception. I believed that I could be certain about reality and
the principles by which it was governed. The schema was deepened by the perception that the
principles would not change, allowing me to have a consistent and certain reality.
This misconception has several roots in my development. The first and perhaps most
influential is the co-construction of this schema at my Mom’s family dinner table. At these
meals, most family discussions would end up in debate. During the debates scientific knowledge
was presented as certain fact and was unassailable. This shaped the psychological tools in my
mind and implied that I had to know more scientific facts to win a discussion. My schema was
further reinforced by a school system that emphasised the problem-solving power of math and
science. In science, I was taught an outdated model of the scientific method which, explained
that one can achieve results directly from the data. This model implied that one can draw certain
conclusions from the data produced by experiments. This schema provided me with a great deal
of power to take action to change my life. It allowed me to succeed in high school, go to
university and thrive in my career. I was never in a place where instructed/guided learning could
lead to a change of perspective because of personal issues. As a result, I was unable to enter the
zone of proximal development and was stuck in the self-directed learning zone. The above
factors led to the development of an incorrect schema of certainty.
A few key factors occurred during quarantine that forced me to confront this
misconception. The first factor occurred because of my defensiveness during discussion and
debate. Due to these reactions, I was envitably identified as confrontational. This triggered self
reflection because I had made the decision to enter the Master of Teaching program. It became
clear that if I were to be a good teacher, I could not become defensive with stubborn students. As
a result, I started to look more carefully at people’s arguments in the hopes of finding shared
values. This was compounded when I read a passage from the book Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance by [author] that stated “… that the law of gravity exists nowhere
except in people’s heads! It’s a ghost!”. Both ideas could not be assimilated into my schema of
certainty which, forced me into a deep sense on disequilibrium. This led me into many
discussions with my Dad (a cognitive science professor). In each of these discussions he would
draw out my arguments for my belief in certainty. He would work within this framework to
question my schema leading me to point my own inconsistencies and logical failures. To each
discussion he would bring in-depth knowledge of past thinkers who have contemplated this
issue. A strong example was Descartes and the logical result of I think therefore I am. These
discussions forced me to accept the failure of my beliefs. However, I was unable to
accommodate the new ideas a build a more accurate schema.
To help accommodate a new schema I started a book called The religious case against
belief by James Cares. In the book he proposed a model of belief and I was quickly able to
identify my obsession with certainty with this model. He then proposed a model of higher
ignorance. In this model there is a boundary and a horizon. Within the boundary are all things
that I know and outside this boundary there is a horizon. If one approaches the horizon it simply
extends farther. This metaphorical horizon is higher ignorance. It is the acceptance that one
cannot and will not know everything but should still strives to reach it. This new model provided
me with a powerful new world view. It allowed me to accommodate the ideas above and create a
new schema. In this new schema it was a virtue to seek the horizon but accept that I would never
reach it.
 My new schema is one of never-ending horizons with new ideas and theories to explore
and shape my worldview. Furthermore, this view helps me to engage in discussions with those
who have deeply opposing views to mine and not react defensively. This model will also help me
to become a more effective and engaging teacher. As a result, I continue forward into the world
openly adapting my schema to more probable explanations and ideas.

References:

Carse, J.P. (2008). The Religious Case Against Belief. Penguin Group.

Pirsig, R.M. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence. Harper Collins.

Perry, N.E., Woolfolk, A. & Winne, P.H. (2020). Child and Adolescent Learning and Development. Pearson
Learning Solutions.

M. Suzanne Donovan, John D. Bransford, and James W. Pellegrino. (1999). How People Learn: Bridging
Research and Practice. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/1-.17226/9457