Imagine two mice. One wants to get a bit of
cheese and gets electric shocks when it gets the cheese. The other mouse gets
injected a nice adrenaline rush when it gets the cheese.
If you were mouse number 1, you wouldn't
want to get the electric shocks. If this goes on for too long, you'd decide
that cheese is a bad thing, because when you get cheese, you get shocked.
However: If the shocks wouldn't happen
anymore after just a few times, you'd learn that you don't like the shocks, but
that you do like cheese. Cheese without the shocks please!
Now imagine you're mouse number 2. You get
the cheese and then you get the adrenaline rush. Great! You get more cheese and
get more adrenaline. If this goes on long enough, you'd learn that cheese is a
good thing, because it gives you a rush.
However: If the adrenaline rush wouldn't
happen anymore after just a few times, you'd be disappointed and confused.
Without the rush, the cheese isn't that special anymore. You have learned that
cheese isn't that special, but the rush is. You would try to find the
adrenaline rush somewhere else.
Both mice are of the same species, with the
same needs. Yet they give a different meaning to the cheese, because they
experience the consequences of getting the cheese differently. By extension
they give a different value to the cheese all together.
I want to show you that when someone
experiences something differently, that person will also give a different
meaning to something.
If you want to make the first mouse enjoy
the cheese, you have to take away the applying of the shocks very quickly. Then
the meaning the mouse gives the cheese would be right: Cheese is nice, shocks
aren't.
The second mouse would like to keep the
added consequence. It was an improvement for it, because of the different
experience.
Because of this, it isn't fair to force
people, who process information in a very different way, in regular structures.
Something that can be a nice experience to one person, can be a very painful
experience for a person with a very different way of processing information.
When nobody sees the cause and nobody adapts the structure for this person,
this person will learn that the activity is something to avoid. Even when the
end result of the activity has the potential to be very positive.
If the painful part in the structure was
removed, then the person would've had the intended experience.
An example of what I mean can be found in
real life. When there's a concert, they tend to add a loud bass to the music,
as to strengthen the impact. For a lot of people this helps to add to the rush
of the moment and completely enjoy the music.
However, if you're much more sensitive to
sound, the added bass probably won't be enjoyable, but absolutely painful:
People who experience the bass as painful,
will most likely walk away from the concert. The people who love the bass, will
like the concert even more.
If you took the bass away, the people who
are sensitive to sound will probably be able to enjoy the music too. The people
who love the bass, however, will think the concert is boring and walk away.
Because of this reason, it's very harmful
if you force a person with a big difference in information processing in the
regular structures.
Disclaimer: Yes, I realise that everyone processes
information differently and that forcing someone to do something harmful is
always bad. But most people, in general, can find their way in regular
structures (there are exceptions). I'm talking about people with big
differences in processing information, that cause them to not be able to get
along with regular structures anymore. (for example: A person with autism who
might find it hard to get a job, because there is too much sensory input)
