Many things with science have to deal with psychology.
How does a scientist approach a new problem?
How does a scientist react to data that does not match what he hoped to see?
Here is a situation about "positive attitudes." Dr. K was the doctor who assisted the surgeon, (Dr. A or Alpha). Dr K said, "We will see you in a week."
I said that I had enough pain medications for one week. "Good, we'll get you more meds in one week."
Then Dr A said, "The patient's xray looks so good, he can go for two weeks until Oct. 11 fo the next appointment."
Positie attitudes all around
Patient
Dr. A
Dr. K
"Great, see you in two weeks"
The positive aura of the good news blinded me, the patient, from the data that "my pain medication will last 7 days, not 14 days"
When I called the next day to ask for a presecription, the rules say, "If you are a patient in Dr. A's private office, then you can get medications and prescriptions from the clinic's office. If you are an out patient at the hospital, then you are in the "out patient clinic" and you must request the prescriptions at the clinic."
Aha. If I call in a request after leaving the clinic, I have to hope that the doctor can call in Tylenol 3, which is the most advanced level of pain relief that he can offer when he is not in the public hospital's clinic.
If I had requested pain medication yesterday when I was in the clinic, then I would have been able possibly to get the percocet (heavier pain relief) that I had previously been receiving the past 6 days.
Oh well.
The more we know about how humans react under stress or under the aura of positive information, the more we can adjust and ask the question, "What have I overlooked?" That question itself has some assumptions that often block out data. I've noticed that if I ask "what have I overlooked?" when I'm in the grocery store line at the cash register, I get different data than if I take time to walk the store and ask, "what did I forget from the cleaning aisle? What did I forget from veggies and dairy?" Visual input can help.
