Veterans of the armed forces in most instances have the responsibility to identify, assess and define problems and then come up intelligible decisions to them. These solutions to the problems are often made with a constrained resource and time, sensitive, unlikely, ambiguous, and often fierce environment. An ordinary person may have the advantage of a good environment that is not violent and subject the mind to pressure in the same dimension as an armed officer. Not all problems an ordinary person encounters have solutions, but they have to be solved anyway (Robertson, 2016). In fact, several problems that come the way of military professionals at the operational stage are almost not resolvable in the real situation. This paper compares the cognitive problem solving process between veterans of the armed forces and an ordinary everyday person. It also expounds on whether the military instills various ways to solve problems or everyone is part of the same problem solving process.
In most times, a problem can be &recognized through an observable and quantifiable activity. In other times, there is a cognitive detachment whereby the realities observed are not consistent with whatever is always believed (Zsambok & Klein, 2014). It is also a challenge for most veterans of the armed forces who have goals or objectives and are very incognizant of how to attain it, or there are challenges, recognizable and unrecognizable, that hinder proper decisions to be made.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are several distinct kinds of problems that an army officer is exposed to which are different from that of an ordinary person. For instance, there are logical challenges intended to evaluate or test a person’s mental acuity. The military officers may be faced with logical problems (Zsambok & Klein, 2014). In addition, there are algorithmic challenges. Conventionally put in the context of the mathematical field, algorithmic problems are tackled through the utilization of a fixed, well-constrained, and inflexible process. Planning and movement of the military people, logistical toleration, port quantity, firing remedies, and ammunition spending rates are all instances of this kind of problem (Sternberg & Frensch, 2014). An algorithmic solution is perfectly suitable for military achievement. This section of the equation, the creation of devices, is the simple part of decision-making. The challenging question, the complex question and one where the algorithmic method is inadequate, is whether it is what we want.
The cognitive problem that the military people face may not have an ideal solution as what others go through. The ideal mission does not happen since there are many changes that exist around any military officer. In fact, some problems occur at the most unexpected time, which implies that one may not be prepared for a situation (Robertson, 2016). For instance, the raiding of Osama bin Laden in 2011 posed many cognitive problems on the soldiers as they were dealing with the situation. The mission was the greatest- a most involvedly organized – unique operations mission in history, but most things went wrong. One helicopter smashed into the Abbottabad environment that eventually caused all team members that were boarding it to readjust and overpower, to plan a new solution to an unforeseen problem (Zsambok & Klein, 2014). They quickly had to think of a remedial move that would not be suspected and lead them to victory.
The military instills various ways to solve problems, and not everyone is part of the problem solving process. There is the army problem solving model as well as the rapid decision-making and harmonizing attempts. The commanders utilize these two systems to deal with any problems that require their attention. Both systems need a lot of time to be fully implemented (Sternberg & Frensch, 2014). Commanders utilize army problem solving approaches when the problem is the urgent issue and time is a minor factor. When considering a shorter time to solve a problem, the military used rapid decision making and synchronization process.
While a military officer is faced with an issue, he uses the preferred system. Each system is procedural in its implementation. This is like when a person is dealing with his normal situation, as a step-by-step process may not be necessary. The steps considered to solve a problem should begin by gathering information and developing appropriate criteria to it (Zsambok & Klein, 2014). When the problem has not been diagnosed properly, it may not be possible to deal with it rightly. An ordinary person also has an obligation of diagnosing a problem before deciding how to go about it, even if occurred unexpectedly.
Cognitive problem solving of issues in a military environment require a mental process. Specifically, army problem solving is analytical, and some situations require experience and awareness before they are dealt with. On the other hand, an ordinary may also be faced with a serious challenge that he even does have a clue on how to solve it (Sternberg & Frensch, 2014). Therefore, it depends on the types of problems that one is faced. However, a military officer is faced with many challenges that need quick, appropriate decisions almost every time.
In conclusion, military staffs or normal persons may not escape situations that require urgent solution. Each group should be quick to come up with a problem solving a problem to counter the challenge. With much exposure, military officers develop more proficient ways of dealing with situations as some problems keep on repeating themselves.
References
Robertson, S. I. (2016). Problem solving: perspectives from cognition and neuroscience . Psychology Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (2014). Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms . Psychology Press.
Zsambok, C. E., & Klein, G. (Eds.). (2014). Naturalistic decision making . Psychology Press.
