First, he explains that we will experience emotional pain when we recognize that the work we would love to do might just be unavailable enough to make us doubt that we can proceed. Maisel states, “This is an emotional suffering that researchers haven’t examined: the pain of wanting to do certain intellectual work but not being capable of it.” He then goes on to discuss ways to help your brain to be its best. This can range from silencing the self-talk that can rob you of your confidence, to making fewer excuses about why you don’t have the time, patience, or ability to think. Secondly he points out that choosing the intellectual work that matches your native intelligence, or in other words, staying in your comfort zone. He tells us to find an area of work that isn’t too difficult which enables you to do work that makes use of all your strengths.
If you were using the cognitive approach you would only get qualitative data which could be a problem as not everyone interprets the same answer in the same way. This would be more objective. This would also mean it is not valid as you are measuring why you think
Selfperception affects an individual’s self-efficacy skills, therefore affecting how an individual will communicate their experiences. While self-perception is an important trait to take into consideration when dealing with self-reporting, it does however, as mentioned, affect the validity of the results due to individuals underreporting and over reporting their actions. Comparisons of Limitations All three articles discussed the limitation of self-reporting, more so in Article 1. While self-reporting is indeed a valuable asset, self-reporting at times is affected due to individuals underreporting their behavior, as well as over reporting it (Hauge et al., 2009). Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done.
They also struggled with understanding the difference between their ‘best alternative’ and the lens assigned ‘best alternative’. Ethical lenses adopted by individuals tend to influence decision making by affecting how problems and conflicts are approached. Your ethical lens of preference makes you ‘blind’ to the other approaches and makes it difficult to see the benefits of the other lenses and weaknesses of your own lens. This adds tension to groups because what seems like the best solution to a problem to a single team member might be completely inappropriate to another. The team found that these different approaches can create more issues within a team or group if you don’t understand that everyone has their own ‘right approach.’ To a rights and responsibilities lens approaching an issue head on and dealing with the conflict directly might not be fun, but it is necessary in order to move past the problem in the most efficient way possible.
Sarah Watt proves that dishonesty can affect others as well as yourself. It can cause an individual to suppress their emotion which will inevitably lead to larger problems. The text implies that honesty will reveal itself soon enough, but it often forced out at the last possible opportunity. This release of honesty is caused by the characters hidden emotions, but can result in a revelation to begin correcting the problems within their
Skepticism makes a person questions ideas toward multiple things such as knowledge or opinions that are stated as if it is true like facts. Rene Descartes argument for skepticism is to not believe every doubt that you give yourself. In his words "withstand all doubt because the evidence of our senses sometimes misleads us, it does not provide a secure basis for knowledge. We cannot be certain that we are awake and not dreaming." His argument can be argued because people have senses that can guide them to doubt themselves by the way people talk to them or other people actions.
This leads to him stating that many situations are present, but that does not necessarily constitute them as rhetorical situations. Bitzer also talks about the importance of timing centered around a situation and how that can have a great effect on the exigence. Another thing that Bitzer spends quite a bit of time talking about the three constituent parts of a rhetorical situation. The first constituent is exigence. He writes, “Any exigence is an imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a thing which is other than it should be.” By describing exigence this way, he allows the reader to develop the notion that it is a problem in the world that is ultimately waiting to be discussed and changed for the better.
While providing his overall purpose and what he hopes his reader do as result of reading Freakonomics. “It has to do with thinking sensibly about how people behave in the real world… You might become more skeptical of the conventional wisdom; you may begin looking for hints as to how things aren’t quite what they seem... You may find yourself asking a lot f questions” (209 -210). Here, Levitt simply want people to behave correctly with common sense. He also wants the reader to question things and to search for their own answers. Levitts’ purpose is to allow the reader to attack the world and their problems with smarts and their own ideas.
There is definite value in her argument, but because she just scratches the surface of how emotions could be incorporated into the process of acquiring knowledge, there are a few areas of her theory that are problematic. For the sake of brevity, this paper will discuss what is, perhaps, the biggest flaw in the Jaggar reading—standpoint theories seem to be oblivious to differing experiences of particular individuals within groups and instead speaks of experiences of these groups as shared ones. Allison Jaggar asserts that theories that make the distinction between emotion and reason in association with acquiring knowledge are mistaken because they falsely assume that emotions are involuntary responses that can be separated from