Sentences with phrase «other individuals think»

Other individuals think about hiring a career coach when they know they need a different career direction.

Advantages Allows students to think for themselves without being influenced by others Individual thoughts can then be shared in large group Disadvantages Can be used only for short period of time

Not exact matches

He thinks his entrepreneurial experience differentiates him from other funds run by individuals who come from finance, rather than an operational backgrounds.

«This was a meticulously documented indictment, and certainly in the case of one of the individuals I think it opens the door to other matters and it emphasizes why the rule of law is so important, and that even includes the president,» said Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat.

The result of sharing awesomeness with others «is a community of individuals - people appreciating each other for their individuality... which is something I think we all need during these times of severe communal drought,» he concludes.

Leader - Chivée is one of the individuals I was fortunate enough to interview for a series on the year ahead, Big Ideas for 2018, where I asked a number of my favorite award - winning marketing experts, authors, and other thought leaders — as well as some of Firebrand Group's own digital strategy and branding experts — to recommend one «Big Idea» that companies can take advantage of to get ahead in 2018.

Individuals that others look up to are always thinking of others and looking for ways to positively influence and contribute.

«Other than that, I'd say the most important thing is that these individuals are creative, that they're innovative and that they're entrepreneurial in their thinking.»

The problems facing us, many of them are global, like rogue nuclear states, like climate change, and other forms of environmental threats, like terrorists, like maximizing global wealth and prosperity, and none of these are going to be solved if we think of the international arena as one of each nation striving for its individual greatness.

Finnegan is one of the individuals I was fortunate enough to interview for a series on the year ahead, Big Ideas for 2018, in which I asked a number of my favorite award - winning marketing experts, authors, and other thought leaders — as well as some of Firebrand Group's own digital strategy and branding experts — to recommend one «Big Idea» that companies can leverage to get ahead in 2018.

It's efficiencies like these that make Rose think he and the 100,000 other individuals who compose Canada's plastics business — 400 of whom work at Layfield — are effecting real change in a sector not always known for boasting high levels of innovation.

Even if you're only mildly at fault and think the other person should shoulder most of the responsibility, admitting that you're imperfect and could be partially to blame can help the other individual (s) be less defensive.

The companies that market 702 (j) plans want you to think of a 702 (j) account the same way you think about other retirement plans, such 401 (k) plans, 457s, individual retirement accounts, 403 (b) plans and thrift savings plans.

In studying the stories of these individuals and other thought leaders and influencers, what I've found interesting is that in many cases the way they found their purpose and voice, and their biggest successes, wasn't the result of a well - thought - out strategy; it was by simply responding to demand.

In other words, if you really want to ensure a collaborative environment, you need to think about putting incentives in place that reward team outcomes — instead of just individual performance.

If individuals aren't sure that they'll give or get something actionable or if they even think they'll be multitasking (checking email, working on other things) during the meeting, give them the chance to not come — and do something more productive.

You don't think too much about your current state of affairs or your competitors because in the end you'll still be individuals in the Valley and working with each other, more likely than not.

The only goal that matters is to get your messages in front of highly influential people (think digital multipliers and megaphones) who are tightly connected to significant (and fairly sizeable) niches of active and desirable individuals whose actions and attitudes they can directly influence (amplification) and whose behaviors as consumers, voters, or other cohort members you are looking to change and channel into actual results.

Instead of buying into the «Moses myth» — venerating a small cluster of genius individuals with the power to part waters — companies can tap on design thinking to systematically build a bridge, according to University of Virginia Darden School of Business professor Jeanne Liedtka, «It's not one or the other — you can do both.»

Twitter is where celebrities, politicians and countless other individuals broadcast their thoughts in 140 - character messages.

I think this stage, more than others, is very dependent on the individual investor.

In addition to the uses identified elsewhere in this Privacy Policy, we may use your Personal Information to: (a) improve your browsing experience by personalizing the Websites and to improve the Subscription Services; (b) send information to you which we think may be of interest to you by post, email, or other means; (c) send you marketing communications relating to our business or the businesses of carefully - selected third parties which we think may be of interest to you, and (d) provide other companies with statistical information about our users — but this information will not be used to identify any individual user.

The Roundtable's goal is to provide a forum for thought leadership, where industry professional have the opportunity to enhance their knowledge and skills and to network with other individuals committed to advancing the industry with the highest ethical standards.

It does not mean settling for what's second best because a group of people, the majority of which are not willing to make the ultimate sacrifice of putting themselves in harm's way for others, are thinking about themselves as individuals and putting that ahead of the majority best interests.

A blood cell is an individual entinity, it can be trasplanted and survive, every cell that exists is an individual, therefore all that is, is adaptable to the needs of its environment, not the other way around.I think Stephen needs to look even deeper into himself and find the partical that he is.

I don't think an individual has to face their own death, other than their death of perspective and the way they see things.

Others think of it as libertarian mainly in the moral sense: pivoting solely on the ego of the individual (as in the thought of Ayn Rand), her pleasures, her contentment, her will - to - power.

The Enlightenment belief that logical thinking and education alone, without any consideration of other factors apart from ignorance such as the survival instinct and clinical cognitive dysfunction in the formation of behavior patterns, can solve all of our individual and social ills is the fundamental heresy of the Enlightenment philosophy.

As an atheist who believes in «Choice» (I dislike the idea of abortion but see the need for people to be able to opt for it) and polygamy (marriage should be for any number of consenting adults regardless of gender) and believes that the idea of draconian anti-gun measures is anathema as it takes away an individual's right to live the way he wants to live, I think that if believing in a deity makes a person treat other people nicer then we should leave that person and his beliefs alone.

The poll basically breaks white Americans down into three categories: white people who believe they face discrimination and have personally experienced it (NPR spoke with an individual who fell into this category, although he struggled to think of specific examples for some reason); white people who believe they face discrimination but have not personally experienced it (NPR also spoke with a man who fell into this group, who hastened to say he believed other racial and ethnic groups faced discrimination as well), and white people who don't believe they face any discrimination at all.

Some groups tell their members what to think and other groups are receptive to individual thought.

The person who freely plays with loved ones (whether people or things) is prone to engage in very individual, spontaneous actions which might be thought foolish or risky in other contexts.

Now the distinctions between «superior to actuality» and «superior even to possibility,» or between «superior to other possible individuals» and to «other possible states of oneself» (as an individual identical in spite of changes or alternate possible states), or again, between «superior in all,» «in some,» or «in no» respects of value — these distinctions are urged upon us by universal experience and common - sense modes of thought.

1 Hartshorne is clearly right about this (CSPM 39), although, in thinking about the distinction, one must keep in mind what Hartshorne himself insists on elsewhere in replying to Paul Tillich's unqualified denial that God is a being — namely, that God's uniqueness «must consist precisely in being both reality as such and an individual reality, insofar comparable to other individuals» (A Natural Theology for Our Time [LaSalle.

Our human tendency is to think of justice as «getting even,» as one small boy strikes another and the other strikes back, or as a supposedly mature individual or nation thinks it must give back to enemies either the treatment received or something more severe.

Yet here is the profound difficulty: In every other case I can think of involving two individuals whose rights conflict, none is resolved by legalizing the death of one party.

Kierkegaard defends himself against the apparently Pelagian implications of this thought by stressing that even though each individual sins through his own disobedience (sin is not a category of necessity), nevertheless, in this act of disobedience he reveals his solidarity with Adam and Eve and all other persons in history, who together make up the collective human race which, in Adam, stands guilty before God.

It could not be further from the kind of thinking that, oriented to the salvation of the individual soul, wants to lock up the «I» in its own special realm, denying both its obligation to others and its claim on others.

I'm not against visionary thinking for individuals, businesses, and other organizations.

Whitehead's view of the nature of reality offers a new way of thinking about «things,» and suggest that reality is not composed of things but of self - creative events, individual units, having both physical and mental aspects, and being internally related to each other.

«Christian thought,» he says, «discovered the kernel of the concept of the person» and in doing so «describes something other and infinitely more than the mere idea of the «individual.»»

In other words we in the West are too centered on how to get our individual churches to grow, primarily through attractional means, rather than seriously considering how to think as a cross-cultural missionary focused on reaching those who have no interest in attending our church functions.

In a church nearby the primary teacher was not the senior pastor — at first I thought it strange, but then I realized that the senior pastor had simply recognized a gifted individual and choose to leverage their abilities, while focusing on other aspects of the ministry.

The problem is that organized religion is as much political animal as any other human convention involving more than 2 people, and spiritual, thinking individuals are intelligent enough to know that churches / mosques / community reprogramming centers actually have very little to do with what one actually believes...

Individual schools of therapy would also benefit by encountering Whitehead's cosmology, even if no thought or attention is given to connections with other schools.

While he maintains that every life and life - form contribute in some way to the Divine life, he also claims that our individual capacity for rational thought and moral sensitivity allows humans to contribute more to God than any other creatures.

This protects you from the «attack» of the Other, you think... but if you ask me, it brings up enough negative energy in you to have a spiritual breakdown, like Job, and to side only with people, who hold to Scripture, blindly - in other words, to side with those who have not learned to trust that thinking for themselves, as individuals, is a good tOther, you think... but if you ask me, it brings up enough negative energy in you to have a spiritual breakdown, like Job, and to side only with people, who hold to Scripture, blindly - in other words, to side with those who have not learned to trust that thinking for themselves, as individuals, is a good tother words, to side with those who have not learned to trust that thinking for themselves, as individuals, is a good thing.

While he maintains that every life and life form contributes in some way to the Divine life, he also claims that our individual capacity for rational thought allows humans to contribute more to God than other creatures.

In the static pattern of thinking, for two terms to have each an objective meaning, they must refer to two distinct individuals or realities, not to one and the same individual, for in this second case only one term is objective, and the other is metaphorical or subjective.

Or, to put it in other terms, the boundary between the ancient world and the modern is to be traced, not in the Aegean or the middle Mediterranean, but in the pages of the Old Testament, where we find revealed attainments in the realms of thought, facility in literary expression, profound religious insights, and standards of individual and social ethics, all of which are intimately of the modern world because, indeed, they have been of the vital motivating forces which made our world of the human spirit.