Does working with others lead to better results than acting as an individual?

Working alone allows the you to leak out. You don’t worry as much about what others think, so you express yourself more freely. Restrictions on the imagination fade away, and you want to create something more.

In a group situation, you’re more likely to just ‘go with the flow’ and not voice your opinion. The ‘Flow’ might not be the best route to go along though, as it might just be a vague, generalized stereotype-ish idea. You’re going to mess around with your friends in the group, and you won’t be as efficient.

It’s different if you don’t know the people in the group. If it was a random pairing then you won’t know each other well and will be uncomfortable and scared to share your ideas because you’re scared of ridicule.

I think that if there’s only two people in the group, I think you have an advantage. If you guys are comfortable around each other, and you both want to succeed, then you will excel greatly. If you guys can mess around just a bit, work together well, throw out every idea that pops into your head, and encourage each other, then you’ll be virtually unstoppable.

I’m not the best at having a definite answer to these questions. I think I argue both sides and then kind of lean towards one a bit more. On this, I have to go with working alone. I mean… You are YOU, your mind has the ability to see things different from all others and if you’re by yourself then you don’t have people holding you back. You have to break all your boundaries, stop worrying what anyone else says, and spit your ideas out onto paper. Gag them and spew them everywhere. You’re unique. You can do it all.

BUT don’t forget everyone else. You DO need support and a hug never hurts, just know you can do it yourself and that you don’t need to immobilize someone else with everything you’re trying to do. They have their own stuff. Accomplish your own things, and they’ll accomplish theirs. 😀

Is it true that when we most need advice we are least willing to listen to it? Or is good advice always welcome?

Is it true that when we most need advice we are least willing to listen to it? Or is good advice always welcome? This depends on the individual person, as some people accept advice more readily, but I think the former is truer than the latter.

When people need advice, more often than not they are in emotional distress. They may feel like actually doing something about it is to difficult or heartbreaking, so they just ignore all advice. Or they may take your advice as criticism and block you and your advice out.

When someone most needs advice, they have run out of feasible solutions. They can’t seem to fix their problem, and any chance of it getting better is impossible. Giving them advice at this point in time is like asking them to jab a puppy in the eye. Quite possible, but gut-wrenching and heart-breaking, and it makes them want to throw up and they are absolutely certain they can’t do that.

Misery loves company. That basically sums it up. When we have a problem, we want someone to listen and sympathize. We don’t really want them to fix the problem right at first. It comes off like a lack of sympathy, like “If you’d just listen to me and do this/that you wouldn’t have this problem and I wouldn’t have to listen to you crying like a baby.”

“Advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring. Truly wise people are rare, and there is much debate as to who they are, so advice tends to be disastrous even if the giver had good intentions. If advice is good, it is always welcome, but it is hard to know what really IS good advice, so beware.

>I Love the internet cx You can find quotes for EVERYTHING.!<

Is it true that acting quickly and instinctively is the best response to a crisis? Or are there times when an urgent situation requires a more careful consideration and a slower response?

-…I actually think this is kind of crappy… I might have to rewrite it but I don’t feel like it and I need to go anyways-

Is it true that acting quickly and instinctively is the best response to a crisis, or are there times when an urgent situation requires a more careful consideration and a slower response?

Now days, most people prefer people who think things through, who foresee the consequences and find the best solution with deliberate thought and the mapping out of actions. Spontaneity is something amazing that all people should strive for, but it is under appreciated by people when the situation is perilous, as they think it is best to think things through and look at previous events that were similar to find the probable best solution. They don’t remember when all a person had was their instincts, back when historical information wasn’t readily available and the only course of action was to do what they thought was best.

Military commanders and generals tend to plan and map out their attacks and plans of action. If they were impulsive, they would often make rash decisions. For example, if the persons flight-or-fight response is to fight, they might attack people who might’ve become allies had they not. If it is to flee, then they can easily be overcome by the enemy. Out in the field, they must make on-the-spot decisions, and this is where many mistakes are made. They can’t see the big picture, they don’t know what all is happening, and they may make the wrong decision.
Firefighters, on the other hand, must act on instinct. They don’t have time to think about what they’re doing, not when peoples lives are in danger. Even if they are the type of person to think about things, they often don’t have that choice.

While most of the time it’s probably best to think about things, to make sure what we’re doing is really the best thing, spontaneous, instinctual action is a great ability that we should all be grateful to have. While we may not put it to use in every situation, we should still take our initial response into consideration when debating with yourself about what to do.

Do we learn more from finding out that we have made mistakes or from our successful actions?

Do we learn more from our mistakes or from our success? I believe from our mistakes, because when we mess up, we want to fix it and make it better, and then later on we know not to mess up like that again.

We don’t necessarily learn immediately after we make the mistake. We have to take time to think about it. Just like if you were to run a marathon and win, you wouldn’t even totally grasp what’s happening until after you caught your breath.

But… How are we to know we are truly making a mistake? We only have one life, so how do we know what is actually the right thing to want or to do if we can’t do it all to see what turns out the best? You can’t simply trust the others opinions on the matter, because they aren’t you. You most likely couldn’t make an accurate guess as to what you would do yourself, because you haven’t done it yet. You might react completely different than you think you would, most likely because we have a warped image of ourselves in our mind that isn’t really us at all.

How are you to tell whether or not the mistake has made you smarter, or a better person? Some people are complete idiots who make the same mistake over and over, but never learn. Maybe the failure make you bitter. Besides, who can say what makes a good person? We, as people, have a right to do whatever we like (outside of adultery and murder, because that is flipping terrible).

But, I do think that we can make ourselves what we consider to be better if we ‘learn’ from our mistakes. It’s really all in our head. =D

Bias

In a creative sense, people think better when they are unbiased. They aren’t tied to a specific idea or notion. They’re more open to new ideas, as old ideas aren’t glued into their mind. They aren’t married to a certain perception, and they have a hungry curiosity because they want to find their defining opinions.

If you are talking psychology, there is always a mental model of sorts, with its predispositions and biases. You can’t expect true neutrality, no matter how open-minded the person may be. Not even complete amnesia could create a blank slate, as they memories and habits are still there, very much implanted into the brain, even if they can’t remember.

There is no true state of impartiality. As you grow up, ideas are pounded into your head by your parents and all authority figures that are around. They want your mind to be like theirs. So as you grow up, you become biased. Or at least prone to a certain kind of thinking.

Clearly, there are cases where a bias is helpful in making decisions, as in a mother expecting the worst to happen to her children if she isn’t there to watch them. Or a predatory animal not caring whether or not what it’s hunting is the healthiest thing for it.

Of course, bias can be twisted up due to severe mental disorders, like split personalities or bipolar disorders. Look at Dr. Jenkle & Mr. Hyde. Each is the same, and yet nothing alike. They have different beliefs and thoughts and curiosities and wants and hopes and dislikes. Therefore, defining this one person’s bias is impossible. O.O