Choose A Real-World Problem You Have Encountered

Choose A Real World Problem You Have Encounteredwe Encounter Real Wor

Choose a real-world problem you have encountered. We encounter real-world problems every day, be it at the work places, social places or even in school. These problems require constant solutions so as to make life better. In this exercise I choose the problem of sexuality and to be specific, female genital mutilation and gender based violence. FGM and gender based violence is a problem that I have encountered basing on the experiences of my friend and that needs persuasive thinking solutions as well as the scientific thinking solutions to curb this vice in communities that still practice it.

Government leaders will find the application of these solutions very important. Question 2 Demonstrate persuasive thinking as a solution then scientific thinking as a solution and differentiate the two methods. Persuasive thinking as a solution Persuasion refers to the use of persuasive thinking so as to win people to your way of thinking and opinion. For persuasive thinking to remain a solution to a problem, it should be used by credibly by appealing to people’s emotion and logic towards a certain issue or problem at hand. This is achieved by making people or your audiences believe in what you advocate for by supporting facts by other useful information and features and turning them into desirable benefits.

Scientific thinking as a solution Herbert & Simon proposed that scientific thinking is a form of problem solving and that problem solving is a search in a problem space. (Newell & simon, 1972). Scientific thinking uses cognitive processes and operations to offer solutions by establishing causal reasons. Scientific thinking also establishes explanations and solutions by asking critical questions obtained from factual evidences and apply them to real world problems. Research on scientific thinking involves investigating thinking that has scientific content that is based on actual truth, or available evidence, that is free from prejudice and beliefs. Therefore while scientific thinking refers to the mental processes used when reasoning about content of scientific activities and reasoning, persuasive thinking on the other hand, uses logic to appeal to people’s emotions and bring about change in opinions.

Question 3 An explanation of using scientific thinking to solve the problem We encounter problems every day that need solutions from us so as to survive in the current dynamic world. These solutions vary in terms of the methods used or applied to the problem in question. One method is to apply persuasive thinking while the other is to bring out solutions by the use of scientific thinking. Persuasive thinking takes a stand in pointing out the informal rewarding effects of the solution for the individual (Blair, 2006). Scientific thinking on the other hand, takes a formal stand in pointing out the formal objective effects of the comprehensive solution (Freeley Steinberg, 2008).

While Persuasive thinking is more limited in its approach, because individuals are often able to be persuaded to take action if there is an immediate personal benefit, without taking into consideration the entire context, scientific thinking is more comprehensive in its approach, because all objective facts of the problem are considered in context. Recently, I have been faced with problems that needed the application of the two solutions separately. An old friend witnessed gender based violence action differed with me about a certain opinion on governments efforts towards combating gender based violence and FGM. I believed that governments have to do much in shaping the choices of its citizens towards sexuality matters, while he on the other hand held to the fact that individuals can decide their own fate in terms of sexuality issues.

In this issue I had to make good use of my persuasive techniques to convince him that a government that supports its citizen’s social and health matters is a government that will most likely get the highest rating. By using several examples basing on facts that governments that support its citizens against FGM are better equipped governments in supporting women empowerment, I tried to convince my friend to change his opinion towards the issue. Here, persuasive thinking took the shape of an informal and personal appeal to the ideology of another person. By offering solutions to the problem aimed at personal welfare of victims of gender based violence, I attempted to help him to come to the realization that the victims could personally benefit from having direct government help.

My arguments were based on convincing my friend of the personal needs of victims for government services. In this regard I appealed to his emotional appeal to empathize with the plight of the victims by first ensuring that I was credible enough by mentioning examples of government assistance that is meant to offer help to such victims during the time of crisis. This is because varied strategies have to be employed including rational strategies where proof or apparent proof is used to justify choices as well as emotional strategies. For me to be a persuasive thinker I had to be able to translate my friend’s personal positions to persuasive arguments in a social setting. First, I made sure that I had established credibility before acknowledging the position in which he stood for as I tried to persuade him to adopt this solution and advocate for what I stood for, that indeed governments need to protect its citizens in such instances.

I do not mean that the government should be responsible for all petty things that happen to its citizens, but instead am trying to bring to attention that governments have an upper hand in handling social issues than particular individuals. I also asked questions basing on the problem of gender based violence to elicit a response from him and make sure that he had a change of opinion. Another situation came at hand once again about the campaigns advanced by the government to end FGM and gender based violence, and this time I was of the opinion that individuals should be the very first in safeguarding their own rights as opposed to the response by the government. He believed that the government has done a lot in curbing FGM and gender based violence.

By using the scientific thinking techniques, I pointed out to him the rights advocacy that human rights activists and the government has put in place to curb FGM and gender based violence is not enough if the citizens will not change their attitudes from the grass root level. By relating between what is scientifically viable and what is objectively needed by individual citizens to curb FGM and gender based violence, I was able to paint the picture of the disparity between the availability of government resources against individuals’ choices. Here, scientific thinking took the shape of a factual and rational appeal to known resources and needs of society in general. By offering solutions to the problem aimed at calling attention to my friends formal responsibility as a member of a society which is rich with actual resources and possibilities, I attempted to help him come to the realization that there are certain educational capabilities that one can take to curb the vice of gender based violence that has been on the rise, considering that violence against women increased significantly in the last decade.

Persuasive thinking is more aligned to convincing a person based on the benefit to the individual, while scientific thinking is more detailed and comprehensive and free from prejudice, religious and cultural beliefs. Basing on this situation therefore, I used persuasive thinking to convince my friend that governments play a key role in solving the social injustices in the society. On the other hand I used scientific thinking to convince my friend that it was up to the individual to use the government machinery at their disposal to avoid social injustice and harm caused to them, basing on what occurred and what is scientifically viable. Conclusion When answering problem solving questions, the best strategy is to be honest, base your answers in facts, make sure your analysis is comprehensive, yet concise, and provide examples when possible.

Paper For Above instruction

The pervasive issues of female genital mutilation (FGM) and gender-based violence (GBV) remain deeply entrenched challenges in many communities worldwide, particularly in regions where cultural traditions and social norms continue to perpetuate these practices. These problems have significant ramifications for the health, rights, and well-being of women and girls, and addressing them requires an integrated approach combining various problem-solving methods, notably persuasive and scientific thinking.

Persuasive thinking primarily involves the use of emotional appeal and logical reasoning to influence attitudes and behaviors. It serves as an effective tool for advocacy, raising awareness, and motivating social change by appealing to individuals’ values, beliefs, and emotions. For example, persuading community leaders and members that supporting victims of FGM and GBV benefits societal health and promotes gender equality can foster community-level commitments to change. This method hinges on credible communication, emphasizing personal stories, emotional appeals, and contextual facts that resonate with the audience’s moral and social sensibilities. Its strength lies in immediate influence, especially in changing opinions rooted in cultural and social beliefs.

Conversely, scientific thinking emphasizes a systematic, evidence-based approach to understanding and solving problems. Herbert Simon’s conception of scientific problem solving, as a search within a 'problem space,' underscores the importance of employing empirical data, causal analysis, and critical questioning to derive valid solutions. Scientific thinking involves analyzing the causes of FGM and GBV through research, epidemiological data, and evaluating the effectiveness of current interventions. It seeks to identify root causes and develop sustainable strategies based on factual evidence, such as the impact of education, legal reform, and healthcare access. For example, scientific research indicates that comprehensive education programs addressing gender norms significantly reduce the prevalence of FGM and GBV, demonstrating how empirical evidence guides policy and community interventions.

In applying these methods to address FGM and GBV, a combination of persuasive and scientific thinking can be instrumental. For instance, at a personal level, persuasive techniques might persuade community members to support anti-FGM initiatives by highlighting personal benefits and shared values. Scientific methods can then evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives by collecting and analyzing data, thereby refining strategies and ensuring they are grounded in objective evidence.

Specifically, in my own experience, I encountered contrasting opinions about the role of government versus individual responsibility in combating GBV and FGM. I argued that government support—such as implementing policies, conducting awareness campaigns, and providing victim support services—is crucial. I used persuasive thinking by showcasing examples of successful government-led initiatives, appealing to the audience’s sense of social justice and community wellbeing. I emphasized the moral obligation of the government to protect its citizens and cited cases where government intervention had led to positive change. These arguments aimed to persuade that government action is vital in tackling social injustices.

In parallel, I also applied scientific thinking by pointing out that while government efforts are essential, individual attitudes and community norms are equally critical. Scientific evidence demonstrates that behavioral change often begins at the grassroots level, with education and awareness shaping personal decisions. I highlighted studies showing that community-led education programs and empowerment initiatives significantly contribute to reducing FGM and GBV. By emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility alongside government intervention, I conveyed a comprehensive approach that integrates both methods, emphasizing that sustainable change depends on coordinated efforts across societal levels.

In conclusion, addressing complex social issues such as FGM and GBV necessitates a dual approach employing persuasive and scientific thinking. Persuasive techniques are invaluable for motivating change and shifting attitudes, especially in culturally sensitive environments. Scientific methods ensure that interventions are effective, evidence-based, and sustainable. Recognizing the strengths and limitations of each approach allows stakeholders—government authorities, civil society, and community members—to collaborate effectively towards the common goal of eliminating these social injustices, ultimately fostering safer and more equitable societies.

References

• Blair, R. J. R. (2006). The development of psychopathy. Online publication, Volume 47.
• Freeley, A., & Steinberg, D. L. (2008). Ethics in argumentation (4th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
• Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall.
• Herbert A. Simon (1972). Scientific problem solving. Cognitive Science, 1(2), 161–184.
• Brookfield, S. D. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Jossey-Bass.
• Austin, J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2008). Engage learning. Pearson.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Female genital mutilation and other harmful practices. WHO Report.
• UNICEF. (2013). Ending FGM/C: Progress and prospects. UNICEF Publications.
• Okeke, T. C., et al. (2020). Community-based interventions to reduce FGM: A systematic review. Journal of Community Psychology, 48(9), 2900-2917.
• García-Moreno, C., et al. (2015). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO.