Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - Graduation thesis - On the Importance of Perceptual Thinking and Rational Thinking
On the Importance of Perceptual Thinking and Rational Thinking
People's thinking is dynamic. When you have a certain motivation, your thinking will be developed and utilized. Therefore, stimulating the motivation of thinking and generating the intrinsic motivation of behavior are the key factors to cultivate a person's thinking ability. Cognitive psychologists point out that the development of thinking ability lies in the development of knowledge. The following is what I bring to you about the importance of perceptual thinking and rational thinking. I hope you like it!

Due to the influence of thinking inertia, people are always entangled in the choice between perceptual thinking and rational thinking. However, the way of thinking is not always either one or the other, and it can completely transcend the immediate problems and put them in a larger thinking space, such as innovative thinking.

There is a lot of talk about innovative thinking, but there are different opinions on how to cultivate innovative thinking, which makes people puzzled. In fact, innovative thinking itself is a way of thinking, which exists in everyone's mind. It is only because of the influence of too many authoritative thoughts that they dare not cross the line and suppress their own way of thinking, which will lead to the situation of poor innovative thinking today. In other words, to develop innovative thinking, we must first get rid of the rigid way of thinking rooted in our minds and create a free sky for innovative thinking.

For example, when we see a lifelike stone statue of a beautiful woman in the park, we can't help but feel the truth of beauty and admire the sculptor. What do ordinary people think? But people with innovative thinking will not think so. They will think that the image of a beautiful woman actually exists in a stubborn stone, and what the sculptor does is nothing more than remove the redundant stone that covers the beautiful woman. The difference between a good sculptor and a poor sculptor is only in vision and technique, but no matter which sculptor can never carve the most beautiful image. Because what is the most beautiful, mortals can't know. This is an example of the difference between ordinary people and people with innovative thinking.

Another example is beautiful flowers. Flowers have "calculated" the shape and color of future flowers at the seed stage. As long as the seeds remain pure, each generation can produce exactly the same flowers. This "calculation" depends on the genes of flowers. Modern bionic science takes a fancy to this point. This seemingly rational way of thinking is actually an innovative thinking. In other words, innovative thinking is not contradictory to perceptual thinking and rational thinking, perhaps just separated by a thin layer of paper.

The signs that distinguish these three kinds of thinking are: perceptual thinking pursues the satisfaction of senses and desires, rational thinking pursues the gains and losses of essence and direct interests, and innovative thinking pursues comprehensive utility. In the real society, only comprehensive utility is the most practical and practical.

So how is innovative thinking produced and how is it bound? In fact, the so-called innovative thinking is a sublimated version of perceptual thinking and rational thinking, which can also be achieved from perceptual thinking and rational thinking. The starting point is different, but the final destination is the same. However, due to the obstruction of secular interests, ordinary people are short-sighted, and no matter which way they take, they can't open the door to innovative thinking all their lives. This is the misfortune of mankind.

Therefore, to investigate its root, we should start with the one-sided common sense that everyone has two sides. This duality is mainly manifested in that people have both perceptual thinking and rational thinking, which interfere with each other and blend with each other. Most people don't know whether perceptual thinking or rational thinking is at work when they encounter something, and they may not be able to choose perceptual thinking or rational thinking to handle things correctly.

In other words, it is difficult to truly achieve "integration of body and mind", let alone "integration of knowledge and action". It is often impulsive when rational thinking is needed, and stubborn and inflexible when emotional thinking is needed. Therefore, it is always easy to be guided by authoritative thoughts, and eventually form a mindset and be bound by it. So when we distinguish a person or label a person, we often habitually say that this person is more emotional and this person is more rational. In fact, this distinction is not in line with the actual situation. Emotional people may not be able to think rationally, and rational people may not be able to keep rational in everything. Authoritative thoughts always guide us intentionally or unintentionally, limiting us to the choice of either perceptual thinking or rational thinking.

In fact, for ordinary people, perceptual thinking and rational thinking are mixed together, regardless of each other. Just a little more or less. Generally speaking, perceptual thinking focuses on the satisfaction of desire, while rational thinking focuses on the comparison of interests. But in terms of thinking energy consumption, perceptual thinking obviously consumes less energy than rational thinking, and perceptual thinking is relatively less nerve-racking than rational thinking. In other words, most people prefer perceptual thinking to rational thinking. Perceptual thinking mainly senses the stimulation of the surrounding environment through people's various senses, so it is mainly aimed at the present and pursues short-term effects. And rational thinking is mainly through psychoanalysis, for the overall interests, the pursuit of long-term results. However, both perceptual thinking and rational thinking are always limited to how to solve the problem better, and never consider whether the problem is worth solving or to what extent, and never consider whether to turn the problem into a problem through mode conversion.

Therefore, between perceptual thinking and rational thinking, we can't say who must surpass who and who is stronger than who, but they are all lower-level ways of thinking. People will draw different conclusions according to different occasions and different values. But sometimes people have to think rationally, because they have to rely on rational thinking when they encounter life choices, risk avoidance and battles of victory or defeat. Generally speaking, most people use perceptual thinking. After all, few people can keep a clear head under any circumstances. Therefore, the so-called perceptual thinking and rational thinking are just two weapons of human beings. Of course, the basic way of thinking as a human being is perceptual thinking rather than rational thinking. In other words, to truly master and use rational thinking requires some training or hardships. However, the height of thinking goes far beyond rational thinking.

Of course, pointing out the limitations of perceptual thinking and rational thinking is not to absolutely exclude them. It is hard for us to imagine whether a poet can continue to be a qualified poet once he loses his perceptual thinking and replaces it with rational thinking. Similarly, when a serious mathematician has neglected the basic logical relationship, it is hard to imagine whether he can continue to be a mathematician. Therefore, both perceptual thinking and rational thinking have a process of continuous strengthening through continuous training, which is not doomed at birth.

It should be pointed out that both perceptual thinking and rational thinking are not innovative thinking, nor is it as simple as replacing perceptual thinking with rational thinking, because both perceptual thinking and rational thinking have solidified patterns. But there is no model for innovative thinking, only one principle, that is, whether it conforms to objective laws or natural laws, and whether it is the optimal or most reasonable model. People are used to perceptual thinking or rational thinking, so sometimes they turn a blind eye to innovative thinking, because even innovative thinking looks ordinary and nothing special. But as long as given a certain time and environment, innovative thinking will have an unusual brilliance. From the form of expression, innovative thinking is more manifested in the reorganization of related elements, such as integrated innovation is one of the most basic ways of innovative thinking.

Not only in dealing with business and technology, but also in government affairs, thoughts and consciousness. There is a story of "I beg for a horse" in Lv Buwei Chunqiu, the central idea of which is "talking with people and talking nonsense", which is actually a hidden innovative way of thinking and pays attention to comprehensive utility. Now we see that Confucius' thought seems to be a bit trite, but at that time, why wasn't it a great ideological innovation of that era? Fundamentally speaking, innovative thinking is not to show the superiority of thinking mode, but to fundamentally propose solutions to practical problems from the most economical and fastest point of view.

Therefore, when innovative thinking becomes a person's instinctive choice, then this person can break away from the ranks of ordinary people and enter the ranks of the wise. In fact, the essence of ancient and modern Chinese and foreign wise men is such a thing.

In contemporary business cases, Apple's Steve Jobs is a loyal Zen practitioner, and he is an emotional person himself, so that he will more truly consider the user's feelings and the needs of close experience, thus requiring Apple's engineers to take the designer as the center and give priority to the designer's opinions. Although it seems to be a successful example of perceptual thinking, or users seem to be only the success of a single product, it is actually the best integration of product innovation, business model, manufacturing process and service innovation made by Jobs. In fact, sometimes what we see in our eyes is not consistent with what actually exists. The opposite example is that of Taiwan Province Province. Acer and HTC in Taiwan Province Province pay more attention to manufacturing technology and only product innovation, which shows that designers should attach importance to engineers' opinions, thus alienating users intentionally or unintentionally and ignoring the integration of product innovation with business model, manufacturing technology and service innovation. As a result, they are losing ground in the market, and the market scope is gradually narrowing. This is also reflected in the operation of Nokia and BlackBerry. On the surface, it is the failure caused by excessive rational thinking, but in essence, there are defects or misinterpretations in innovative thinking. The essence of innovation is centered on the needs of users, which will not change in any era. This is an objective law.

In fact, today's era has once again entered an emotional era, but also entered an era of multi-factor systems. Many temptations abound, and the future is confused. Users are eager to participate and experience, so as to confirm their position in society and gain a sense of security. Therefore, it is particularly important to be close to and meet the needs of the times and improve users' sense of security and satisfaction, which is the foundation of innovative thinking. Therefore, we should go beyond perceptual thinking and rational thinking and not be confused by the superficial phenomena of perceptual thinking or rational thinking. Although innovative thinking and perceptual thinking or rational thinking are sometimes a little difficult to distinguish, beauty lies in similarities and differences, which need to be understood.

To transcend perceptual thinking and rational thinking, the easiest way to get started is to judge who to do something for and what decisive factors need to be selectively integrated. Or, who will pay for your innovative thinking? How much recognition will you get?