I think it is very important--at least it was to me--that if you are going to teach people to make observations, you should show that something wonderful can come from them. I learned then what science was about. It was patience. If you looked, and you watched, and you paid attention, you got a great reward from it (although possible not every time). As a result, when I became a more mature man, I would painstakingly, hour after hour, for years, work on problems--sometimes many years, sometimes shorter times--many of them failing, lots of stuff going into the wastebasket; but every once in a while there was the gold of a new understanding that I had learned to expect when I was a kid, the result of observation. For I did not learn that observation was not worthwhile.

Wonderful things can come from watching the world patiently.

But you do not have to be a scientist to experience this sort of satisfaction. Nor do you have to make a profession of science to develop scientific attitudes, which will make you a better and a happier citizen. Research in the broadest sense is more a habit of mind and a method of approach to problems than a specific technique. Certainly there is nothing esoteric about it (as I hope this book has demonstrated about clinical psychological research, at least). You can develop this sort of attitude about anything you do, and have more fun doing it. (You may run into difficulties if you try it on your job too suddenly,—remember the story of the physicist trying to be a salesman.) It is not always easy. You must be free, first, free to observe and free to follow where your observations lead you, even if it means discarding some cherished beliefs. You must be patient. You must learn to wait until enough evidence is in. You must be willing to start at the beginning and do things all over again. Above all, you must be willing to see that you can be wrong, even if that means that your most cherished rival is right.

The gardener who adds some preparation to part of his soil and watches to see how the results compare with a plot that has not had the preparation is doing research. The more systematically he does this and the more careful his records, the better the results he is likely to get. The housewife who experiments with a recipe until she gets the finished product just right is doing research.

Is it worth the bother? That is up to you. But it has advantages you may not have thought of. I have said that you must have a measure of freedom to take a scientific attitude at all. It is also true that the more you take it the more freedom you will have. Freedom breeds freedom. Nothing else does.

Why let scientists have all the enjoyment?