When someone mentions problem solving, I think of a math problem or a major decision we make in life.  I never really stopped to think how we use problem solving skills in everyday life.  After reading the Gestalt approach to problem solving, I was really able to see how we use problem solving for a lot of our everyday tasks (Goldstein, 2011).

Solving some everyday problems is easier if they are able to be represented on paper and some problems are easier to just figure out in your mind.  For instance, some of the problems I face at work are easier to figure out in my mind verses seeing them on paper.  Those problems involve thinking about who may or may not be effected by software changes and trying to decide who will benefit from those changes.  It does help to brainstorm on paper if the problem is too complex but for the most part, no written representation is needed.

We do have times at work when seeing the problem on paper really helps figure out a solution.  There are two processes we use for problem solving.  One is called root cause analysis and the other is called Lean Six Sigma.  The difference in the two processes is that root cause analysis traces the problem in reverse to figure out where the system failure occurs where as Lean Six Sigma looks forward to figure out how to make the current processes better.  I enjoy working with both of these processes but I like the Lean Six Sigma process better because it uses different diagrams, charts, and graphs to help with the visualization of problem solving.

I feel that having diagrams, charts, and graphs really helps with the problem solving process.  Looking at those really helps me visualize a solution.  The examples that the Gestalt psychologists used in our readings not only had directions but also diagrams to show the problem or its components (Goldstein, 2011).  Those two things combined make it easier for me to try and figure out the problem.  I’ve always had to draw diagrams with word problems in math because I need the visual as well as the written piece to figure some of the problems out.  This is probably why I enjoy the Lean Six Sigma approach to problem solving.

These are just two examples of problem solving processes I use on a regular basis at work.  There are so many other ways I use problem solving techniques on a daily basis but these two are the most complex methods that I use.  Now that I’ve taken the time to sit down and really think about how many times I problem solve in a day, I am amazed at how often this happens.  I guess it’s just one of those things that happens in life that we don’t really stop to think about.

Work Cited:

Cognitive Psychology Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience.  Goldstein, E. Bruce. 2011. Third Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

As humans, we experience many episodes of memory encoding and retrieval on a daily basis.  The one process that I found interesting, from our readings, was the principle of encoding specificity.  The principle states that when we encode information, we encode it along with its context (Goldstein, 2011).

One experience I’ve had with the principle of encoding specificity was when I drove past the house I used to live in when I was married to my first husband.  Unfortunately these were unpleasant memories.  My first husband was both physically and verbally abusive and most of the abuse happened in that house.  After moving out, getting a divorce, and starting a new life I was able to repress those memories and feel good about myself and life again.  Ten years ago my current husband and I decided to take a short cut to town and drove past the house where I used to live.  It had been five years since I had lived there but I was shocked at how I was effected by the memories I had by driving past that house.  I got anxious, sick to my stomach, and even started to cry.  I couldn’t believe how strong those memories were even though I felt I had them under control.  I can’t imagine what kind of memories and feelings I would have had if I would have actually walked in that house.  It’s amazing how things that happened years ago can still effect someone like it just happened not so long ago.  I have been past that house in the past year and after 15 years since my divorce, I no longer feel those strong feelings about the memories I have from living there.  I haven’t forgotten about what happened, but I’ve been able to recall those memories without any physical side effects.

I think it’s interesting how our memory works and how it’s capable of remembering things even though we’d like to forget them.  Having this experience with my own past helps me better understand what people with PTSD might go through with their triggers.  I really hope the research Alain Burnet is doing on reconsolidation (Goldstein, 2011) is successful and the answer to PTSD treatment/resolution.  I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to recall bad memories everyday and multiple times a day.

Work Cited:

Cognitive Psychology Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience.  Goldstein, E. Bruce. 2011.  Third Edition.  Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

When I think of perception, and how it effects daily life, I think of Gestalt psychology.  The same length of lines just placed in different configurations changes how we see things in both shapes and sizes.  I think this concept also applies to marketing strategies when looking at the appearance of products and what might sell faster/better.  I am personally guilty of using perception hypothesis when deciding on what containers to use in my product line.

I will share an example with you on how I use perception to help me decide what containers to use in my line.  When I was getting ready to add body polishes to my product line, I wanted to chose a jar that would catch someone’s eye (because of the size) and still give them a great value for the price.  I had looked at many jar styles and had narrowed it down to two 4oz size jars.  One was a traditional jar and one was called a low profile jar.  After ordering a sample of each jar style, it was easy to see which jar I was going to use.  Both jars were the same color (clear) and made of the same materials.  The ultimate question I asked myself when trying to decide what jar to use was, “Would I pay $6.00 for this?”.  The low profile jar looks as if it holds more product than the traditional jar but they both hold only 4oz of product.

I always consider what people might think or perceive about my products when I think about the containers I use.  I have found that this can increase sales because it gives an illusion that they are getting a lot more product than just 4oz’s and they don’t hesitate to pay the price I’m asking.  This is similar to the Muller-Lyer Illusion experiment we did.  Does adding “wings” to a line change how we perceive it?  The answer is yes.  I feel that choosing the right containers will drive sales based on how people perceive the value they are getting.  I know I am guilty of looking at items this way when I shop.  I could be shopping for shampoo and one bottle really catches my eye.  It looks bigger than all of the others and the price is just a little more than the one beside it.  After looking at the fluid ounce weight, I discover they are the same size and the one beside the big bottle is cheaper.  If I hadn’t taken the time to look closer at the bottles, my impulse would have been to buy the larger bottle even though it was more expensive because my perception was that it had more product for the money.

After reading the chapters on perception, I can really see how our mind can misinterpret information based upon how things are arranged.  I find it interesting that two things with the same quantity (lines or volume) can look like a different result just by tweaking one little thing.  I think just relying on our perception could be dangerous.  Just because we perceive something at first glance, doesn’t mean that is actually the whole picture.