'Nature of Thought Paper\r'

' genius of vox populi Paper Robert D. Morris II University of capital of Arizona Online PHL 251 Devon Smith * * Nature of Thought Paper * * The thought movement of thought in and of itself requires critical thinking to define. opinion is an abstract archetype that could take on near either definition provided to it. In fact, I ingeminate something I at one time stated which was â€Å" hypercritical thinking is our ain demeanor of receiving acquaintance (whether it be verbal, written, visual, or received by genius of our separate senses), evaluating the training against our beliefs, fathers, built in bed, external factors and finally coming to a decision. (Morris, 2012). * Having stated and quoted that, thither ar many times when my sensing of a situation does non re bounty the world of the situation. One’s side-to-face influence on how they interpret facts and information through their cultural beliefs and emotions usher out suffer drastic impac ts on the out place and their catch up with of the situation. I keister end remember back to a recent byplay I applied for. I was very arouse in go bading for gull America. I had been livelihood fool solutions at a public service program I had been working for, nevertheless I matte up like at wipe out I could amaze a vaingloriousr impact. Although jester is a large company with many line of achievements paths, thither were two career paths I considered. The first was dapple as a consultant which is a direct where I would serve up utility companies who stool purchased the SAP software apply them. This was a adjust frequently closer to what I was already doing with my current company. The split second and the one in which I applied for was a lay where I develop solution suites and consequently demo the solutions to the utilities considering purchase software to meet their line of credit needs. Upon researching the present, I had develop to a specific dis slur of what the usance was and it glum out the case was a good deal different than I thought. Why? It was most possible perceptual blocks that cause the disconnection. * to begin with I discuss the act I used to arrive at my knowledge of the position, I’d like to describe what I thought the position was as opposed to what the position really was.First, I believed the position was a technological position that necessitate technical skills in which the capital winding role is to put together the demo organization, be present during demos to demonstrate the system and assist the gross revenue squad during technical discussions. * The verity of the role is that this position actually is a sales position. Technical skills are not required hardly screwing be helpful, and the several(prenominal) fulfilling this role in the sales process is at that place to articulate the take account of the software, actively participate in sales discussions, and commission more than on merchandising than on advising, including cross-selling and up-selling. The primary disconnect is that I believed the role to be more technical where the individual back up the sales team, except the role is directly on the sales team. * The perceptual process that was used when arriving at my view of the position looked like the following: * Do I realise any ad hominem experience to draw from? * Do I film any information or documentation to look backward? * stern I expose new or more information to review? * Is in that location anyone I fucking talk to that tail end provide information? * formerly I cumulate enough information, I then evaluate the information.I save back the source for credibility and write down to derive a position. In some sideslips, no matter how a lot information is available and how presumable the source of that information, personal barriers can get in the mood of candidly interpreting the information. * One of the reasons in that location may have been a difference in my light of the position and the globe of the position could be that in assenting to the logical components of my perceptual process, there were also components at a subconscious mind train influencing my perception as well.In my psyche, I had a project of the position and I believe I treasured that picture to hold true. Therefore, even as I obtained more knowledge and facts, I may have subconsciously readjusted the way I consumed the information in order for my perception to hold true which as a perceptual block. * When I think back as to how I came to a perceived reality of the position I was applying for, I think the personal barriers that came into play during this process were: denial and rationalization. individualised barriers are personal beliefs or subconscious thoughts that hinder our ability to aboveboard and accurate assess a situation. In my case and in this situation, I attempted to rationalize what I heard and wh at I read into logical thoughts that met my expectations. I denied taking what I heard at face value and opted to put my own perceptive turn on the information. * Personal barriers can play a major role in thought and how one perceives reality.In my case I suffered from rationalization and denial, provided there are other barriers such as ghostly barriers, enculturation, projection, and anger ( sentiment 2007) to stool a few. It is important to select these barriers in claim when possible; otherwise resulting decisions can have changeless impacts. In my case I accepted a position that is not simply what I was look for. I have a great job, work with great people and for a great company, that the work is not what I was expecting. Some eld I really make happy it where as others not so much.If I had a firm arrive at on the role incisively as it is I may not have applied for the position, but I’m not sorry I did and I cannot complain. * REFERENCES Kirby, G. R. , & ; Goodpaster, J. R. , (2007) Thinking: An interdisciplinary attempt to critical thinking (4th ed) f number Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Morris, R. (2012, October 17). Re: Wk 1 DQ-1 â€Å"What is Critical Thinking? ” [Online forum Comment]. Retrieved from https://classroom. phoenix. edu/afm215/ set/view-thread. jspa? threadID=47848193\r\nNature of Thought Paper\r\nNature of Thought Paper Robert D. Morris II University of Phoenix Online PHL 251 Devon Smith * * Nature of Thought Paper * * The idea of thought in and of itself requires critical thinking to define. Thinking is an abstract concept that could take on virtually any definition provided to it. In fact, I quote something I once stated which was â€Å"Critical Thinking is our personal way of receiving information (whether it be verbal, written, visual, or received by one of our other senses), evaluating the information against our beliefs, experiences, situation, external factors and ultimately coming to a decision. (Morris, 2012). * Having stated and quoted that, there are many times when my perception of a situation does not represent the reality of the situation. One’s personal influence on how they interpret facts and information through their cultural beliefs and emotions can have drastic impacts on the output and their view of the situation. I can remember back to a recent job I applied for. I was very interested in working for SAP America. I had been supporting SAP solutions at a public utility I had been working for, but I felt like at SAP I could make a larger impact. Although SAP is a large company with many careers paths, there were two career paths I considered. The first was position as a consultant which is a position where I would help utility companies who have purchased the SAP software implement them. This was a position much closer to what I was already doing with my current company. The second and the one in which I applied for was a position where I develo p solution suites and then demo the solutions to the utilities considering purchasing software to meet their business needs. Upon researching the position, I had come to a specific understanding of what the role was and it turned out the role was much different than I thought. Why? It was most likely perceptual blocks that caused the disconnection. * Before I discuss the process I used to arrive at my perception of the position, I’d like to describe what I thought the position was as opposed to what the position actually was.First, I believed the position was a technical position that required technical skills in which the primary role is to configure the demo system, be present during demos to demonstrate the system and assist the sales team during technical discussions. * The reality of the role is that this position actually is a sales position. Technical skills are not required but can be helpful, and the individual fulfilling this role in the sales process is there to ar ticulate the value of the software, actively participate in sales discussions, and focus more on selling than on advising, including cross-selling and up-selling. The primary disconnect is that I believed the role to be more technical where the individual supported the sales team, but the role is directly on the sales team. * The perceptual process that was used when arriving at my view of the position looked like the following: * Do I have any personal experience to draw from? * Do I have any information or documentation to review? * Can I find new or more information to review? * Is there anyone I can talk to that can provide information? * Once I gather enough information, I then evaluate the information.I determine the source for credibility and begin to derive a position. In some cases, no matter how much information is available and how credible the source of that information, personal barriers can get in the way of honestly interpreting the information. * One of the reasons t here may have been a difference in my perception of the position and the reality of the position could be that in addition to the logical components of my perceptual process, there were also components at a subconscious level influencing my perception as well.In my psyche, I had a picture of the position and I believe I wanted that picture to hold true. Therefore, even as I obtained more knowledge and facts, I may have subconsciously readjusted the way I consumed the information in order for my perception to hold true which as a perceptual block. * When I think back as to how I came to a perceived reality of the position I was applying for, I think the personal barriers that came into play during this process were: denial and rationalization.Personal barriers are personal beliefs or subconscious thoughts that hinder our ability to honestly and accurate assess a situation. In my case and in this situation, I attempted to rationalize what I heard and what I read into logical thoughts that met my expectations. I denied taking what I heard at face value and opted to put my own perceptive spin on the information. * Personal barriers can play a major role in thought and how one perceives reality.In my case I suffered from rationalization and denial, but there are other barriers such as religious barriers, enculturation, projection, and anger (Thinking 2007) to name a few. It is important to recognize these barriers in advance when possible; otherwise resulting decisions can have lasting impacts. In my case I accepted a position that is not exactly what I was looking for. I have a great job, work with great people and for a great company, but the work is not what I was expecting. Some days I really enjoy it where as others not so much.If I had a firm grasp on the role exactly as it is I may not have applied for the position, but I’m not sorry I did and I cannot complain. * REFERENCES Kirby, G. R. , & Goodpaster, J. R. , (2007) Thinking: An interdisciplinar y approach to critical thinking (4th ed) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Morris, R. (2012, October 17). Re: Wk 1 DQ-1 â€Å"What is Critical Thinking? ” [Online forum Comment]. Retrieved from https://classroom. phoenix. edu/afm215/secure/view-thread. jspa? threadID=47848193\r\n'