Self-realization through the scientific method 2: Validating the Hypothesis

When one has a good understanding of what makes a decent hypothesis, they can carry out the actual process of identifying a problem, coming up with an explanation or solution for it and then testing that idea. The process by which one does this can be described in seven general stages: establishing the problem, preliminary hypothesis, fact finding, explanatory hypothesis, deducing consequences, testing consequences and applying the theory.

1. ESTABLISHING THE PROBLEM is the most obvious step. It starts with the acknowledgment of an unsolved question or undesirable situation that reoccurs. It sounds simple enough, but incorrectly identifying a problem is a very common flaw. General statements are the enemy here. For example, if a subject states, “I don’t like the way I behave around people I don’t know,” it leaves a lot for interpretation. It implies that all statements, mannerisms and attitudes are incorrect. The problem needs to be clearly specified, such as “I don’t like the fact I get nervous or intimidated around people I don’t know.” Clarity of the problem is crucial for a proper hypothesis.
2. PRELIMINARY HYPOTHESIS is the next step. In science research, hypotheses are usually formulated, researched and then refined once again. The more information you have, the more specific the hypothesis can become. In the beginning, usually a somewhat general (but not too general) idea is proposed as a starting point. To follow the example above, a preliminary hypothesis might be something along the lines of, “To determine why I feel nervous or intimidated when in the company of unfamiliar people.”
3. FACT FINDING starts with gathering data and related information for the preliminary hypothesis. Scientists will look at experiments addressing different aspects of the subject that may affect their problem. This is also the point where they discover if their preliminary hypothesis is too general or needs to be restructured all together. Certain patterns emerge during the research that clarifies the issue. For self-realization, this stage would involve thinking back on various events in one’s life that supports or disproves the preliminary hypothesis. The subject may realize that they are perfectly comfortable when meeting people in general public places, such as stores, but will freeze up when in social situations, such as a party. Or the subject may realize they have no problem talking with anyone they have no particular affinity towards. This concludes the problem is not just strangers in general.
4. EXPLANATORY HYPOTHESIS is formulated after the initial fact finding has occurred. The problem is clarified or narrowed down and the hypothesis needs to be adjusted to fit with the newly defined problem. In this case, the hypothesis might be something along the lines of “to determine why I feel nervous or intimidated when meeting certain people in social situations.” If the subject feels comfortable that the fact finding they did was thorough enough, they may proceed to the next stage. However, it might be necessary for further fact finding to be applied once the hypothesis has been adjusted.
5. DEDUCING CONSEQUENCES is where the predictive factor of the hypothesis (mentioned in Part I) enters the equation. If the hypothesis holds true, certain behavior patterns should be identified. In this case, the subject might want to take into consideration the types of people that made them nervous, and when they think such a situation will occur again. This is also when more detailed questions might be applied to the situation, a further examination of the people that spark the awkward reaction. Was there a sense of negativity about them? Did they give off the feeling that they were disinterested when approached? What was the initial reaction the subject had upon encountering them? Let’s say the subject determined they aren’t getting a bad feeling from the people, and most of the time, the people in question were pleasant when they spoke with them. It occurs to the subject that the anxiety happens only when they feel a strong attraction or admiration. The subject will discover the problem was not the unfamiliar person or social situations, but one’s own feelings towards those they encounter. The stages of fact finding, explanatory hypothesis and deducing consequences are often repeated until the subject feels they have resolved the exact nature of the problem.
6. TESTING CONSEQUENCES follows deduction, once the subject has arrived at a hypothesis they feel is accurate. This involves testing the hypothesis in various settings and situations and comparing it to the data gathered prior. If the common variable (people respected or attracted to) holds, then the hypothesis has been proven. Furthermore, during the testing stage, the subject should be able to pinpoint when the behavior first manifested. If the subject can remember a time that they would be able to approach anyone, it is within their best interest to come to terms with the event (or series of events) that resulted in the current pattern they wish to break. For example, the subject may remember being very outgoing as a child, but became withdrawn when someone they liked insulted them or harshly turned them down. This determines the cause of the problem and implies potential courses of action.
7. APPLYING THE THEORY is the point where scientists will orchestrate an experiment to turn their theory into a law. An example would be the eclipse experiment used to validate the Theory of Relativity. Now as self-realization is hardly a science, theory and law become irrelevant. All that is important is what the subject learns about one’s self. This stage can be used to introduce some potential approaches to better manage the problem in question. In scientific research, the solution is usually incorporated with the hypothesis, but in the case of self-realization, the key to solving the problem is identifying what the problem is. Once the subject becomes aware of it, the problem is easier to manage (and sometimes goes away all together). Furthermore, as situations that result in the unwanted behavior often have some variables that make them different from another, one course of action cannot always be applied.

To sum it up, the seven stages of the Scientific Method offer a simplified blueprint of the processes one may wish to pursue in self-analysis. It is easy to make broad assumptions or to become lazy when it comes to details. This results in inaccurate findings or futile attempts to correct behavior patterns that are not fully understood. For proof, just ask any clinical psychologist how many of their patients truly consider what they tell them or have the strength to be honest with themselves. This explains why millions of people shell out big bucks for therapy, and never successfully complete it.