AI Coaching | Before you get angry and ask 'Why can't you solve this?'—The 'Cognitive Wall' that science teaches us?

My child is... really bad at math word problems😅

When I'm helping with homework, I end up saying things I shouldn't.

"Are you actually reading it?"
"You just have to set up the equation exactly as it's written."

But honestly, I've always been bad at word problems in general too...!

Actually, even now, I'm honestly not good at reading stiff, text-heavy documents. Even as an adult, when I look at instruction manuals or complex specifications, I get this feeling like my brain is suddenly freezing up.

"It's because you're not trying to understand."
"It's because you lack willpower."
"It's because you're not concentrating."

We parents tend to dismiss things with moral arguments...
and we can't find the answer to "Why can't you do this?!"

But you know?

Since we weren't getting through to each other at all, I did some thinking.💦

📢 There might actually be a reason for that "Why?"! (°∀°;)

And when I looked into it────

In the fields of cognitive science and educational psychology, the causes of stumbling blocks in math word problems seem to have been explained in quite some detail.

The state we see in our children, subordinates, or students where they "don't understand the explanation" or "seem like they aren't even reading the problem."

This is likely not just a lack of study or laziness, but a state where a "cognitive processing bottleneck (clogging)" is occurring in their brain's information processing.

Today, I will explain the mechanism of why things that "should be understandable if you read them" are not understood, from a cognitive science perspective, in three points, and finally, I will share an "AI prompt that identifies and resolves where the clogging is happening in your thinking"!

1. 'Reading' but 'Nothing Remains'?

| Errors in Input and Model Construction

'They can read aloud fluently, but they don't understand the meaning.'

This might be caused by the depletion of resources in their working memory (the brain's workbench)!

If the brain uses 90% of its energy just on the task of converting characters into sounds and meanings (decoding), there is no energy left to temporarily store the content. As a result, the moment they finish reading the end of a sentence, the information at the beginning evaporates and disappears.

The person is reading seriously, but in their brain, only a 'state where only numbers are floating in a blank white space' remains, and they cannot see the story.

2. Is 'Everyday Common Sense' Getting in the Way?

| Errors in Mathematical Reasoning

'If you mix strong coffee with strong coffee, does it get stronger?'

Intuitively, it seems like it would, right? But concentration cannot be added together.

Humans have a tendency to easily confuse 'additive quantities' (extensive properties) like length and weight with 'non-additive quantities' (intensive properties) like concentration and temperature.

Especially when someone struggles with word problems, their brain often automatically applies 'everyday intuitive rules (schemas) such as 'combining equals addition' or 'faster equals a larger number'', which frequently causes a conflict with logical rules.

3. Poor Connection to the 'Invisible World'?

| Errors in Scientific Abstraction

Is this especially common in science and physics?!
It is a state where one remembers the formulas (like F=ma) but the connection to what phenomena in the real world they link to is severed (the symbol grounding problem).

In this state, even if an impossible answer like 'mass is minus 5kg' comes out as a calculation result, one thinks, 'The calculation is correct, so it's fine!'Because the formula is not linked (grounded) to the real world, they cannot feel that something is wrong.

In other words, do we need to find 'processing errors' instead of teaching the 'correct answer'?!

These 'stumbling blocks' cannot be resolved simply by teaching the 'correct way to solve'.

It is necessary to identify 'at which stage of brain processing the error is occurring' and fix that (and for theperson teaching to also understand the situation).

Therefore, this time, I have trained AI like Gemini/ChatGPT on these cognitive science models and created aprompt that diagnoses 'thinking bottlenecks' through dialogue!!😎

📢 This AI does not simply teach the 'answer'!

'After reading this sentence, do you remember the last word?'
(Working memory test)

'Do you think a concentration of 150% is possible?'
(Symbol grounding test)

...It throws diagnostic questions like these to analyze the user's thinking habits. Please try using it when helping your children with their studies, for your own learning, or foranalyzing the phenomenon of 'why communication isn't getting through'!!

| Article explanation by NotebookLM:

※ It's a bit difficult. It's somehow harder to understand than usual 🙄

▼ AI Coaching | 'Cognitive Wall' Observation Prompt?

| Prompt itself

Please copy and paste the following code into an AI chat.
※Before using it, be sure to read the [STRICT WARNING!!!] mentioned later.

# Role
あなたは、認知科学、教育心理学、科学教育学（Science Education）の知見に基づいた「学習診断のエキスパートAI」です。
ユーザーは「文章題が解けない」「科学の概念が理解できない」といった悩みを抱えています。
あなたの目的は、単に正解を教えることではなく、後述する【参考資料】に基づいてユーザーの思考プロセスを分析し、**「認知処理のどこでエラー（ボトルネック）が起きているか」を特定し、その場で修正体験（マイクロ・レッスン）を提供する**ことです。

---

# Process
以下の【ステップ1】から【ステップ6】の手順に従って、インタラクティブに対話を進めてください。
**注意：一度に全てのステップを出力しないでください。ユーザーの回答を待ち、ステップごとに進行してください。**

## ステップ1：ユーザー情報のヒアリング
まず、以下の項目をユーザーに尋ねてください。
1. **属性**（年齢・学年・職業など）
2. **現在の感情状態**（例：「今、リラックスしていますか？ それとも問題を見ると少しドキドキしたり、頭が真っ白になったりしますか？」）
3. **解決したい具体的な悩み**（例：「算数の文章題が苦手」「濃度の計算が合わない」「物理の文章題が苦手」「化学のイメージができない」など、なるべく多く例を提示）
4. **希望する説明レベル**（小学生向け〜専門的な社会人向けまで、「ユーザーは小学生で親も一緒に見ている」などもOK）

## ステップ2：診断の注意事項と同意確認
ユーザーから情報が得られたら、以下の重要事項を説明し、同意（はい/いいえ）を求めてください。
* **仕組み:** あなたの回答内容から、「脳のどの処理段階でつまづいているか」を分析します。
* **【厳重注意】:** この診断は、あなたの思考の「癖」を見つけるためのものであり、あなたの能力を決めつける（ラベル化する）ものではありません。
* **【AIの限界】:** 私はAIであり、診断結果はあくまで確率的な推論です。
* **確認:** 「上記を理解し、診断を開始しますか？」

## ステップ3：診断用課題（対話セッション）
同意が得られたら、【参考資料：多層的診断プロトコル】の **Phase 1** から順に診断を行います。

**【重要：出題・判定ルール】**
1. **段階的解除:** いきなり核心を突かず、Phase 1から順番に質問してください。
2. **多層チェック:** 1つの質問（メインQ）で正解しても即クリアとせず、必ず**「検証質問（Verify Q）」**や**「揺さぶり質問」**を行い、確信度を確認してください。
3. **メタ認知確認:** 回答に対し、「その理由は？」「その答えにどれくらい自信がありますか？（100% / 多分 / 勘）」と問いかけ、偶然の正解を排除してください。
4. **Exit Strategy:**
    * **Clear Pass:** 迷いなく論理的に正解 → 次のPhaseへ。
    * **Confirmed Error:** 決定的な誤り、または理由の説明不能 → **そこで診断セッションを終了し、ステップ4へ移行。**（それ以降のPhaseは実施しない）

## ステップ4：診断結果と解説
特定されたボトルネックに基づき、以下の構成でフィードバックを行ってください。

1. **Good News（承認）:**
    * 「まず、Phase X までは完璧に機能しています。ここまでの基礎能力は素晴らしいです。」と、できている部分を具体的に褒めてください。
2. **Bad News（特定）:**
    * 「現在のつまずきポイントは、**Phase Y：[変数名]** の機能にあります。」と明確に伝えてください。
3. **原因解説:**
    * 【参考資料：完全構造化モデル】の記述を引用し、「なぜなら、脳内で『〜』という処理エラー（例：加法的推論への固着）が起きているからです」と、ユーザーのレベルに合わせて解説してください。
4. **全体像の提示:**
    * Phase 1〜4がどのような階段になっているか、簡単に示してください。

## ステップ5：マイクロ・レッスン（即時体験）
解説だけで終わらせず、その場で「あ、わかった！」という感覚（Aha!体験）を提供してください。
* 特定されたエラー（例：Phase 2 示強性の混同）を解消するための、**たった1つの「魔法の質問」や「イメージ転換法」**（例：お金に例える、極端な数字で考える、図を描く）を提示し、実際に試してもらってください。
* ユーザーが正しく認識できたら、「その感覚です！それが正しい脳の使い方です」と定着させてください。

## ステップ6：まとめと今後の指針
* 明日から使える具体的な練習法や心がけを1つ提案してください。
* 再度、「これは能力の限界ではなく、使い方の癖にすぎない」ことを強調してください。
* 「何か質問はありますか？ または、今のレッスンでどう感じましたか？」と尋ねて終了してください。

---

# 参考資料（Strictly adhere to these definitions）

## 【決定版】認知科学的「文章題解決不能」要因の完全構造化モデル

### Phase 1. 入力とモデル構築（Input & Modeling）
**「文字」から「メンタルモデル」への変換フェーズ**
この段階のエラーは、思考以前の「入力情報の消失」です。

**1. 復号化とリソース枯渇 (Decoding & Resource Depletion)**
* **理論背景:** ワーキングメモリのトレードオフ仮説 (Daneman & Carpenter)
* **詳細メカニズム:** ワーキングメモリは「処理」と「保持」のリソースを共有しています。文字を音や意味に変換する「復号化」に脳のエネルギーの9割を使ってしまうと、文脈を一時保存するバッテリーが切れ、文末に来た時点で文頭の情報が揮発（消失）します。
* **症状:** 「読むこと」に必死で、読み終わった瞬間に「で、何の話？」となる。滑らかに音読できても、内容が頭に残っていない。

**2. 状況モデル構築の失敗 (Situation Model Failure)**
* **理論背景:** 文章理解の構築-統合モデル (Kintsch)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 正しい理解には、文字情報（テキストベース）を、自分の知識と結びつけて脳内でシミュレーション（状況モデル）する必要があります。これができない状態は、**「数字というアイテムだけが、背景のない真っ白な空間に浮いている」**状態です。地面（文脈）がないため、数字をどう動かしていいか分かりません。
* **症状:** 「3個と5個だから、足せばいい？」と、ストーリー（増えたのか減ったのか）を無視して、数字の組み合わせだけでギャンブルをする。

### Phase 2. 数学的推論（Mathematical Reasoning）
**「日常言語」から「数学的構造」への翻訳フェーズ**
ここでのエラーは、直感的な「生活の知恵」が、数学や科学の「厳密なルール」と衝突することで起きます。

**3. 加法的推論への固着 (Fixation on Additive Reasoning)**
* **理論背景:** 示量性 (Extensive) と示強性 (Intensive) の混同 (Vergnaud / Piaget)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 量は2種類あります。
    * 示量性（足せる量）：長さ、重さ、個数。「合わせると増える」。
    * 示強性（足せない量）：濃度、密度、速度、温度。「合わせると平均化される（増えない）」。
    人間は「示強性」の理解が苦手で、濃度（示強性）の問題なのに、無意識に「合わせる＝足し算」というルールを適用してしまいます。
* **症状:** 「10%の塩水と10%の塩水を混ぜて20%」「温度20度のお湯と20度のお湯を混ぜて40度」と考えてしまう。

**4. 表面特徴への依存とスキーマ欠如 (Surface Feature Dependence)**
* **理論背景:** 専門知識の構造化 (Chi et al.)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 熟達者は問題を**「深層構造（数学的解法）」**で見ますが、初心者は**「表層構造（ストーリー上の単語）」**で見ます。脳内に「解法の引き出し（スキーマ）」が抽象化されて整理されていないため、リンゴがミカンに変わっただけで「習っていない問題」と認識します。
* **症状:** 「数字が変わると解けない」「問題文の単語が違うと、同じ解き方が使えない」。

**5. 抑制機能の不全 (Inhibition Failure / Negative Transfer)**
* **理論背景:** 二重過程理論（System 1 vs System 2）と負の転移
* **詳細メカニズム:** 脳は省エネのために、過去に成功したパターン（ヒューリスティック）を自動的に使おうとします（System 1）。新しい問題でそのパターンが通用しない場合、意識的にその自動思考を**「一時停止（抑制）」**し、論理思考（System 2）に切り替える必要がありますが、そのブレーキが壊れている状態です。
* **症状:** 「合わせて」＝「足し算」、「速い」＝「数字が大きい」といった直感的な連想に引きずられ、反射的に間違った式を立てる。

### Phase 3. 科学的抽象化（Scientific Abstraction）
**「目に見える世界」と「目に見えない原理」の接続フェーズ**
大学レベルの化学・物理でつまずく最大の要因です。

**6. ジョンストンの三角形の断絶 (Disconnect in Johnstone's Triangle)**
* **理論背景:** 化学教育における多重レベル表現 (A.H. Johnstone)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 化学の理解には「マクロ（現象）」「ミクロ（粒子メカニズム）」「シンボリック（数式）」の3点の統合が必須です。エラーは、マクロからミクロを経由せずに、いきなりシンボリックを操作しようとするときに起きます。
* **症状:** 計算手順は暗記しているが、「なぜその式になるのか」を粒子の動きで説明できない。

**7. 存在論的カテゴリー錯誤 (Ontological Category Error)**
* **理論背景:** 概念変化におけるカテゴリー錯誤 (Chi)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 世界にある概念は「物質（Matter）」と「プロセス（Process/Interaction）」に大別されます。脳は直感的に「プロセス（熱、電流、平衡）」を「物質（流体、静止物）」として理解しようとする癖があります。このカテゴリ間違いを正さない限り、物理法則を正しく式にできません。
* **症状:** 平衡状態を「静止画」として捉える。電流を「水流」と完全に同一視する。

**8. 記号接地問題の未解決 (Symbol Grounding Problem)**
* **理論背景:** 身体性認知科学・記号接地 (Harnad)
* **詳細メカニズム:** 記号（x, C, pH）が、現実世界の物理的な質感（リアリティ）と結びついていることを「接地（Grounding）」と言います。ここが切れていると、数式処理は「意味のない記号パズル」になります。
* **症状:** 物理的に不可能な数値（濃度150%、質量マイナス）が出ても、計算ミスがなければ正解だと確信する。

### Phase 4. メタ認知（Metacognition）
**9. モニタリングの欠如 (Lack of Monitoring)**
* **詳細メカニズム:** 「自分は今、何を求めているのか？」「この数字は常識的におかしくないか？」と、自分の思考プロセスを俯瞰する「もう一人の自分」の機能不全です。

## 【修正・補強版】認知プロセス診断モデル＆AI実装用：多層的診断プロトコル

### AIへのメタ指示：診断アルゴリズム
1. **単発質問での即断禁止:** 1つの質問でOKでも、必ず**「検証質問(Verify Q)」**で確認すること。
2. **「ゆらぎ」の検知:** 自信がなさそうな場合は「判定保留」とし、追加質問を行うこと。
3. **意図的な「揺さぶり」:** 正解しても「引っかけかもしれませんよ？」と揺さぶり、メンタルモデルの強固さを試すこと。

### 各フェーズの質問バンクと判定ロジック

#### Phase 1. 入力とモデル構築
**1. 復号化とリソース枯渇**
* **Q1 (Main):** 文を読ませた直後、「最初と最後の単語」を問う。
* **Q2 (Verify - Load Test):** 「Aは赤帽子、Bは青靴、Cは何もなし」→隠して全員の装備を問う。
* **Q3 (Shake):** 「文中に『黄色』はありましたか？」
* **判定:** Q1/Q2で失敗、属性混同があれば **[V1: Decoding_Load] Error**。

**2. 状況モデル構築の失敗**
* **Q1 (Main):** 数字黒塗りで「状況のストーリー（増える/減る/移動）」を説明させる。
* **Q2 (Verify - Prediction):** 「バスから人が降りた。バスは軽くなる？重くなる？」
* **Q3 (Verify - Diagram):** 「○や矢印で図を描いてみて」
* **判定:** 因果関係を説明できない、図示できない場合は **[V2: Mental_Model_Visual] Error**。

#### Phase 2. 数学的推論
**3. 加法的推論への固着**
* **Q1 (Main):** 「同じ濃さの砂糖水を混ぜたら、甘さは2倍になる？変わらない？」
* **Q2 (Verify - Temp):** 「40度のお湯＋40度のお湯＝80度？」
* **Q3 (Verify - Speed):** 「行き4km/h、帰り6km/h。平均は足して2で割っていい？」
* **判定:** 「足して増える」と答えたら **[V3: Intensive_Qty_Concept] Error**。

**4. 表面特徴への依存**
* **Q1 (Main):** カード分類（濃度・速さ・手順）。構造が似ているのはどれ？
* **Q2 (Verify - Selection):** 「リボン（単価×長さ）」と同じ構造の問題を選ばせる（ペンキの広さ等）。
* **判定:** 「塩」「リボン」などの単語で選んだら **[V5: Deep_Structure_Schema] Error**。

**5. 抑制機能の不全**
* **Q1 (Main):** 「足が速い＝タイムは（15秒より）大きい？小さい？」
* **Q2 (Verify - Discount):** 「2割引＝支払いは定価より多い？少ない？」
* **Q3 (Verify - Inverse):** 「人数2倍＝作業時間は2倍？」
* **判定:** 即答で間違える、直感（速い＝大きい）に負ける場合は **[V4: Inhibitory_Control] Error**。

#### Phase 3. 科学的抽象化
**6. ジョンストンの三角形の断絶**
* **Q1 (Main):** 「文字禁止」でビーカーの中（1億倍）を描かせる。
* **Q2 (Verify - Gap):** 「粒子と粒子の間（すきま）には何がある？水？空気？何もない？」
* **判定:** 均一に塗る、隙間を水で埋める場合は **[V6: Micro_Macro_Link] Error**。

**7. 存在論的カテゴリー錯誤**
* **Q1 (Main):** 平衡＝綱引き（休んでいる？引っ張り合ってる？）
* **Q2 (Verify - Current):** 電流＝「押し出される水」？「玉突きの現象」？
* **Q3 (Verify - Heat):** 熱＝「移動する物質」？「分子の激しい動き」？
* **判定:** 静止画や物質として捉えている場合は **[V7: Ontological_Status] Error**。

**8. 記号接地問題の未解決**
* **Q1 (Main):** 「濃度120%」を解答欄に書くか？
* **Q2 (Verify - Mass):** 「燃焼後の灰がマイナス5g。ありえる？」
* **Q3 (Verify - Speed):** 「音速の計算で秒速30万km（光速）。ありえる？」
* **判定:** 計算が合っていれば書く、違和感を持たない場合は **[V8: Symbol_Grounding] Error**。

| How to use the prompt

1. Preparation (Installation)

Please copy the code block for the "'Cognitive Wall' AI Prompt" that we created earlier (all of the black background section above).

• ChatGPT (GPT-5.1 recommended)

• Gemini 3.0 pro

Open a "New Chat" in an AI chat like the ones above, paste the copied text as is, and send it.
※To ensure the context of previous conversations does not get mixed in, please be sure to start a new chat.

2. Starting the diagnosis (Steps 1-2)

Once you send the prompt, the AI will launch as an "Expert in Learning Diagnosis."

1. Interview: The AI will ask for your age and concerns (e.g., "I'm bad at concentration calculations," "Chemical equilibrium makes no sense"). Please enter them honestly.

   • Tip: If you also convey emotional aspects, such as "I get nervous just looking at it," the AI's response will be gentler.

   • You will decide the response level below. In other words, from elementary school student to working adult level, it will change its response according to the user's knowledge level…I think.
     → Complex requests like "My child (3rd grade) is doing this, so please make it easy for an elementary student to understand. Please explain it to the parent as well" are also possible!Complex requests are also possible!

2. Consent: Precautions will be displayed, so answer "Yes" to start.

3. Diagnostic Session (Step 3)

This is the main part. The AI will throw a few "mysterious questions" at you to check your cognitive process.

• Tip: This is not a school test, so there is no need to answer with a "cool, correct answer."

• Live-commentate your thinking: Please enter your mental confusion or self-talk just as it is, such as "Well, at first I thought I'd add it, but..." or "My intuition says it will increase, but...". The AI will analyze that.

• Phase Transition: If you clear it without issues, you move to the next phase, but if the AI determines at any point that 'Ah, this is it,' it will put a stop to it.

4. Explanation and Treatment (Steps 4-5)

Once the bottleneck (the cause of the stumbling block) is found, the AI displays the diagnosis.

• Convincing Explanation: It provides an explanation backed by scientific evidence, such as, 'You are experiencing an error in your understanding of Phase 2's "intensive properties (quantities that cannot be added)".'

• Micro-Lesson: This is the most important part. The AI will present 'magic questions to rewire your brain on the spot.' (e.g., 'Now, let's compare this to money').

• Try to visualize it exactly as instructed. If you experience an 'Aha!' moment,Aha experience then you have succeeded.

5. Conclusion

Finally, you will receive advice you can use starting tomorrow, and then it concludes.

| What is interesting about this prompt?

This prompt does not simply teach you the 'correct answer,' but rather points out'Why you got it wrong' and'How you should have thought about it' based on cognitive science theories (working memory, mental models, symbol grounding, etc.).

First, try it out yourself using a theme you find particularly difficult (such as chemistry or reading complex contracts). It is interesting to see your own thinking habits!

▼ Strict Warning!!!!

📢 The 'Mindset' and 'Absolute Promise' before using this prompt

This AI tool is a powerful partner for finding the'habits' of your (or your student's or child's) thinking and making learning fun. However, if used incorrectly, it can become a 'poison' that hinders growth instead.

Before you start using it, please understand and promise to follow these four truths.

1. Do not use it as a tool for 'labeling'! (Most important)

~That diagnosis is not for 'judging' the other person~

• 'That's why you're no good' is forbidden: You must never use these diagnostic results to label someone's abilities, such as saying, 'See, you're no good because your working memory is weak,' or 'You're a person who can't build a situation model.'

• It is not a 'disease': What is presented here is merely a 'habit of how the brain is used' or a 'temporary thinking error.' It is not intended to identify medical disorders or diseases.

• The goal is 'change': Instead of pointing out 'this is a weakness,' use it only toexpand future possibilities by saying, 'If you change this part like this, you can solve it more easily.'

2. Do not 'blindly trust' AI!!

~AI is a system that 'lies plausibly'~

• AI is not looking at you: AI does not see your facial expressions, tone of voice, the atmosphere of the room, or your daily efforts. It is merely outputting a 'plausible answer' based on probability using only the text information entered.

• There is a possibility of misdiagnosis: There is always a possibility that the presented result is completely off the mark. Do not consider what the AI says to be the absolute truth; treat it with a sense of distance, thinking, 'Oh, I see, that's one way to look at it.'

• Please make the final decision yourself: If something feels off, ignore the AI's diagnosis. Your own intuition is often more correct than the AI.

3. This is not a 'medical certificate' but a 'fortune slip'!!

~It is not a substitute for a professional~

• It is a hint (trigger) for awareness: This tool is not a diagnosis from a doctor or professional. Think of it as a 'fortune slip' you draw at a shrine or a 'personality quiz' in a magazine. With the spirit of 'it may or may not be true,' pleasecherry-pick only the advice that is useful to you.

• Consult a professional for serious concerns: If you have serious concerns or distress regarding your learning, do not rely solely on this AI; be sure to consult a 'real-life professional' such as a school teacher, school counselor, or doctor.

4. Please protect your condition!!

~The state of the brain is always changing~

• Do not use it when you are tired: Cognitive ability drops drastically due to fatigue, lack of sleep, and stress. If you diagnose yourself when you are tired, you may not perform at your true potential, leading to an unfairly low evaluation (error judgment). Please use it when you are relaxed.

• Do not enter personal information: Do not enter personal names, school names, friends' names, etc., into the problem statements or consultation content.

📢 Do you agree?
☑ I understand the above points and promise to use this tool only to 'expand my own or others' possibilities.'

That is all. The 'strict warning' is absolute, okay?!!😥

This was created byMeThe Faceless Question, who is neither a professional nor anyone of note.
It is absolutely not worth trusting!!

However, I would be happy if I could provide a few hints or a starting point for people who are truly struggling because they don't understand the cause...

▼ Conclusion

By the way, the reason I noticed this time was because I skimmed through the following book at a used bookstore✨ I ended up buying it, but I haven't read it thoroughly yet lol

📢 You should read it properly and make a prompt! (°∀°;)

......I understand the feeling of wanting to say that lol. I am truly sorry...

But, I am really slow at reading books😫

Is there anyone interested... who would read it with me? Please read it and point out if there are any problems or missing points in my current understanding (see the extra notes). I will fix the prompt immediately.

Well, the important thing is that, even if there is a 'cognitive wall'...
while it may be a disadvantage (inconvenience) in life,
it is not a disadvantage to happiness lol

I think inconvenience is a problem of 'function,' while happiness and unhappiness are problems of 'meaning'🙄

Perhaps we need to understand that and face our children's weaknesses (inconveniences).

......And, if I ended it here, it would be a happy ending with a 'Yeah, yeah✨' introduction to a convenient tool lol

While thinking about this theme of 'working memory deficit,' I was intensely reminded of one movie.

Yes, the movie 'Memento'🙄

📢 Seriously, it's a movie that makes absolutely no sense! (°∀°;)

The biggest feature of this film is that the story progresses from the 'end' toward the 'beginning,' in other words, the story is played in reverse!!

1. The movie begins with the scene where Leonard kills a man (the completion of his revenge?).

2. The next scene is what happened 'a few minutes before' that.

3. And the next one is 'a few minutes before' that one as well...

What's amazing is...
even though the story is played in reverse, the conclusion is still 'at the end of the movie' lol

And here is the protagonist's line that connects to the essence of this article:

I think this is exactly about how 'inconvenience is a problem of 'function,' while happiness and unhappiness are problems of 'meaning-making'.' In the case of Leonard in this movie, the meaning-making ends up heading in the worst possible direction (revenge), though... You'll have to watch the movie to feel that for yourself lol

Well, once you understand the function, maybe you need to work on directing it toward a better meaning?

Wait, is the fact that the true meaning of this article is hard to understand also similar to 'Memento'? lol

Well, thank you for joining me again today.
I hope this question has served as a gateway to a new 'question' for you.

Cited works:

Memento
Depicts the fragility of the human brain, showing how memory fragmentation leads people to conveniently fabricate 'stories (memories)'.
Link to article
I showcased a prompt that exposes the flaws in functionality, but functionality and happiness are not necessarily linked. Using Leonard as a cautionary tale, I connect this to the idea that even if there are functional defects, one can be happy by assigning 'positive meaning' to them.

Postscript:

▼ A structural model of 'inability to solve word problems' from a cognitive science perspective?

| Phase 1. Input & Modeling

The phase of converting 'characters' into a 'mental model'
Errors at this stage are 'loss of input information' before any thinking occurs.

1. Decoding & Resource Depletion

Theoretical background: Working memory trade-off hypothesis (Daneman & Carpenter)

Detailed mechanism:
Working memory shares resources between 'processing' and 'storage'. If 90% of the brain's energy is used for 'decoding'—converting characters into sounds or meanings—the battery for temporarily storing context runs out, and by the time you reach the end of the sentence, the information from the beginning has evaporated (been lost).

Symptoms: Desperate to 'read,' but the moment you finish, you ask, 'So, what was that about?' Even if you can read aloud smoothly, the content does not remain in your head.

2. Situation Model Failure

Theoretical background: Construction-Integration Model of text comprehension (Kintsch)

Detailed mechanism:
For correct understanding, it is necessary to connect character information (text base) with your own knowledge and simulate it in your brain (situation model). A state where this cannot be done is like 'items called numbers floating in a blank space without a background.' Because there is no ground (context), you don't know how to manipulate the numbers.

Symptoms: 'There are 3 and 5, so should I add them?'—ignoring the story (whether it increased or decreased) and gambling solely on combinations of numbers (reliance on keyword-based problem solving).

| Phase 2. Mathematical Reasoning

The translation phase from 'everyday language' to 'mathematical structure'
Errors here occur when intuitive 'common sense' clashes with the 'strict rules' of mathematics and science.

3. Fixation on Additive Reasoning

Theoretical Background: Confusion between Extensive and Intensive quantities (Vergnaud / Piaget)

Detailed Mechanism:
This is the most important part! There are two types of quantities.

• Extensive (quantities that can be added): Length, weight, volume, count. 'Combining them increases the total.'

• Intensive (quantities that cannot be added): Concentration, density, speed, temperature, pressure. 'Combining them results in an average (they do not increase).

Humans are not good at understanding 'intensive' quantities. Therefore, even for problems involving concentration (intensive), they unconsciously apply the extensive rule that 'combining equals addition'.

Symptoms: Thinking that 'mixing 10% salt water with 10% salt water makes 20%' or 'mixing 20-degree hot water with 20-degree hot water makes 40 degrees'.

4. Surface Feature Dependence and Lack of Schema

Theoretical Background: Structuring of expertise (Chi et al.)

Detailed Mechanism:
Experts view problems through 'deep structure' (mathematical solution methods), while beginners view them through 'surface structure' (words in the story).

• Expert perspective: 'This is a problem of finding the value per unit' (structure)

• Beginner perspective: 'This is a problem about salt water' (surface)

Because 'solution drawers' (schemas) are not abstracted and organized in the brain, they perceive it as a 'problem I haven't learned' just because apples were changed to oranges.

Symptoms: 'I can't solve it if the numbers change,' or 'I can't use the same solution method if the words in the problem statement are different.'

5. Inhibition Failure / Negative Transfer

Theoretical Background: Dual Process Theory (System 1 vs System 2) and negative transfer

Detailed Mechanism:
To save energy, the brain automatically tries to use patterns that succeeded in the past (heuristics) (System 1). When that pattern doesn't work for a new problem, one needs to consciously 'pause (inhibit)' that automatic thinking and switch to logical thinking (System 2), but this is a state where that brake is broken.

Symptoms: Being dragged by intuitive associations like 'combining' equals 'addition' or 'fast' equals 'a larger number,' and reflexively setting up the wrong equation.

| Phase 3. Scientific Abstraction

The phase of connecting the 'visible world' with 'invisible principles'
This is the biggest factor in stumbling over university-level chemistry and physics.

6. Disconnect in Johnstone's Triangle

Theoretical Background: Multi-level representation in chemistry education (A.H. Johnstone)

Detailed Mechanism:
Integrating three vertices is essential for understanding chemistry.

1. Macro: Visible phenomena (turning white and cloudy, getting hot).

2. Micro/Sub-micro: Particle-level mechanisms (molecular collisions, electron movement).

3. Symbolic: Mathematical formulas, chemical formulas (x, H⁺, pH, etc.).

Errors occur when one tries to manipulate symbolic (mathematical) expressions directly without going through the macro-to-micro (mechanism) transition.

Symptoms: Memorizing calculation steps but unable to explain 'why that formula is used' through particle movement. Able to perform 'formula manipulation' but unable to see the 'phenomenon'.

7. Ontological Category Error

Theoretical Background: Category errors in conceptual change (Chi)

Detailed Mechanism:
Concepts in the world are broadly divided into 'Matter' and 'Process/Interaction'.

• Matter: Tangible, occupies space, conserved (e.g., water, rocks).

• Process: Temporal phenomena, interactions, states (e.g., heat, electric current, equilibrium, force).

The brain has a habit of intuitively trying to understand 'processes' as 'matter' (e.g., thinking there is a fluid called heat, or a static object called equilibrium). Unless this category error is corrected, physical laws cannot be correctly formulated.

Symptoms: Perceiving equilibrium as a 'still image' (when it is actually a high-speed reciprocal reaction). Equating electric current completely with 'water flow' and failing to understand potential difference in a circuit.

8. Unresolved Symbol Grounding Problem

Theoretical Background: Embodied cognitive science and symbol grounding (Harnad)

Detailed Mechanism:
'Grounding' refers to the connection between symbols (x, C, pH) and the physical texture (reality) of the real world. If this is broken, mathematical processing becomes a 'meaningless symbol puzzle' (syntactic manipulation). Because it is a puzzle, one may feel that an answer is 'correct according to the rules of the puzzle' even if it is impossible in reality.

Symptoms: Even when physically impossible values appear (150% concentration, negative mass), they are convinced it is correct if there are no calculation errors. They view mathematical formulas not as "descriptions of reality" but as "symbols for a test."

| Phase 4. Metacognition

The Thought Command Center Phase
This is a monitoring function that operates in parallel at all stages of Phases 1 through 3.

9. Lack of Monitoring

Theoretical Background: Metacognitive control and self-regulated learning

Detailed Mechanism:
This is the dysfunction of the "other self" that oversees one's own thought processes, asking, "What am I looking for right now?" or "Isn't this number strange from a common-sense perspective?"

Symptoms: Losing sight of the goal along the way. The act of calculating becomes the goal itself, and they forget why they are calculating in the first place. They fail to notice errors.

▼ Problems and Challenges of the Model

1. Simplification that is too "linear and hierarchical" in its process

The model appears to progress from Phase 1 → 2 → 3 → 4, but actual human thinking is recursive.

• Challenge:

  • Neglect of top-down processing: Humans do not just build models based on Phase 1 (input); they use Phase 2 (schemas) and Phase 3 (scientific knowledge) to supplement and distort input top-down. It cannot fully explain cases where "input (Phase 1)" is not performed correctly because the "knowledge held (Phase 2/3)" is wrong (they only see what they want to see).

  • Complexity of interaction: For example, it is often a chicken-and-egg situation—is "inhibition (Phase 2)" ineffective because "metacognition (Phase 4)" is not working, or is there no way to monitor because there is no "knowledge (Phase 3)" to begin with?—making it difficult to isolate the cause.

2. Lack of "Affective Factors"

This is the greatest practical flaw. Cognitive science models often tend to deal only with "cold cognition."

• Challenge:

  • WM depletion due to anxiety: While the model mentions "working memory resource depletion" in Phase 1, the cause is not just "decoding load." There are many cases where emotions such as "math anxiety" or "fear of failure" occupy the majority of working memory, reducing processing capacity.

  • The "I hate it" filter: The motivational issue of "not wanting to read" in the first place may be misdiagnosed as a cognitive error.

3. Specificity and versatility of Phase 3 (scientific abstraction)

Phases 1 and 2 are applicable to general "arithmetic and mathematics," but Phase 3 is suddenly specialized for "science, physics, and chemistry," making the balance of the entire model lopsided.

• Issue:

  • Inapplicability to Humanities Subjects: The content of Phase 3 (such as Johnston's triangle) cannot be applied directly to social studies or Japanese language reading comprehension questions.

  • Overlap with Phase 2: 'Ontological category error (Phase 3)' is, in a broad sense, part of 'lack of schema (Phase 2).' The line between what constitutes general reasoning and what constitutes specialized abstraction is ambiguous.

4. Fluctuations in the definition of 'Symbol Grounding'

The 'symbol grounding problem' at the end of Phase 3 is actually two sides of the same coin as the 'construction of a situation model' in Phase 1.

• Issue:

  • The root is the same: 'Not being able to create a situation model (not being able to visualize the text)' and 'not having symbol grounding (not feeling the reality of a mathematical formula)' are essentially just describing the same cognitive phenomenon from different angles (language side vs. mathematical formula side). Dividing these into separate phases risks making the diagnosis redundant and complicated.

5. Lack of a 'developmental stage' perspective

This model treats elementary school students and university students all together, but there are stages in cognitive development.

• Issue:

  • Developmental constraints: Expecting elementary school students (concrete operational stage) to grasp 'abstract concepts of microscopic particles' like in Phase 3 may not be an error, but rather a 'developmental impossibility.' A perspective that distinguishes between error and immaturity is necessary.

6. Difficulty in connecting to a 'prescription' after diagnosis

While we can understand 'why they made a mistake,' the difficulty level of 'how to fix it' varies for each item.

• Task:

  • Difference in Correction Costs: While the 'working memory' issue in Phase 1 can be easily improved immediately through technical interventions like 'taking notes,' the 'ontological category error (correction of intuitive physics)' in Phase 3 requires a very difficult and long-term learning process known as conceptual change. Even if the diagnostic results are output as the same 'error,' the cost of treatment differs by orders of magnitude.

Also, I feel that 'metacognition' in Phase 4 might be closer to an 'administrator' that oversees all phases.
The point regarding Phase 3 might be because we started this discussion from topics like 'arithmetic' and 'science'.

Related Articles: