The brain works by taking input from the senses and storing that input in a manner such that the memory is retrievable through associated, related memories.

This method of retrieval (through related memories) is most effective when we learn by choice. Learning by choice consists of 3 things:

Hypothesis Experience or Experiment Results

Hypothesis is just the question. "What is it?" or "What would happen if ....?" are examples. It is the same whether it is a baby seeing a new toy or a physicist trying to figure out how the world works.

The experience or experiment is putting together the requisite parts and making or letting it happen.

The results involve sensing the experience and processing them and comparing that information to the hypothesis and storing that information in memory.

When we have an experience that is not of our choosing, we go through the experience and results phase; but, the results are more difficult to assimilate because we have no hypothesis with which to compare. This can cause storage anomalies.

The brain stores all input as memories. The ease of recall depends, to a large degree, on the 'strength' of the ties or relationships to other memories. The effective use of memories depends on how well they are related to other memories. This is a function of both strength of the neural connections (strength is increased with use) and the number of connections to other memories.

An experience without hypothesis will not be as well related to other memories -- usually. There is something that can change, not the number of connections, but the strength of the connections: Fear. This does not necessarily have as positive an effect as one might think.

When one has an unhypothesized experience that includes the perception of danger, lower brain functions kick in. The main function of the brain, under these circumstances, is to get through the experience without harm. The results of such an experience have strong ties to the emotional area of the brain and relatively weaker connections to related memories. Some of the brain chemicals involved in fear reactions are said to increase learning. This is sort of true, but not in a positive manner. These chemicals strengthen the neural connections without repetition. They give a disproportionately strong connection. These connections are out of proportion to the rest of the connections.

Now, when one draws on one of the memories that is related, there is at least a vague (and often strong) feeling of fear associated with it. We try to avoid fearful situations. so we try to avoid any memories related to fear.

This is shown in a real sense by victims of abuse who either try to deny the severity of the abuse or try to suppress the memory of the abuse. This is an effective, functional method for the brain to deal with such memories -- in a sense.

Unused neural connections will atrophy -- just like an unused mussel. If all of the connections to or from a neuron atrophy, the neural cell will die. If one can effectively forget about an experience, the connections (relationships to other memories) will weaken and, eventually, die.

Unfortunately, because a memory can be accessed by any related memory, and any memory is (directly or indirectly) tied to virtually every other memory, the atrophy and actual neural death will seldom occur. The undesirable memory is always being accessed -- often in surprising and sometimes undesirable ways.

One of the main functions of the brain is to make connections. When an experience occurs without hypothesis, the brain will often process the results -- attempting to build a hypothesis, after the fact. This has interesting implications.

We are all born feeling good about ourselves. This feeling tends to be reinforced, in the beginning, by everybody fawning and gooing over us. When we have one of these fearful, negative, unhypothosized experiences, our brains, in the process of developing a hypothesis as to why it happened, tries to make the connection that *we* were the cause -- maybe because *we* were bad, somehow. This often seems to be the only logical conclusion.

There is a concept in psychology, called 'projection'; which says that we can see in others only what we feel about ourselves. When we are babies, we feel good about ourselves and this feeling is reinforced by others cooing and cuddling us. If we are good, then (by projection) everybody else is good, too. If they are good, and we had this bad experience ..... it can only be because we did something bad to make it happen. We must, then, be bad. For some reason, with victims of abuse, this seldom gets projected on others. Victims of abuse tend to feel that *only* they are bad and everyone else is good -- because nobody else is victimized.

This just described some of the strongest of the hypothesized learning that contain fear. The reader might feel that this is a long way from telling a young person to brush his/her teeth. Well, it is -- sort of. It is a matter of degree only. When a person is told to do something by somebody in a position of perceived power, there is some implied fear. Further, any coercion or manipulation is a distortion of pure, natural learning; and as such, distorts the process, making it less effective. My question would be: If you want to undermine learning, to what degree do you want to hamper it; and *why*?