Rosenhan noted that psychiatric labels are powerful and that normal behaviors were overlooked or misinterpreted by psychiatrists and hospital staff in his experiment. For example, I was not sleeping well initially, which the staff considered evidence consistent with my disorder. Later, though, I discovered that the thermostat in my room was set above 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and when it was properly adjusted, my sleep improved. Of course, a lowered temperature was confounded with delayed drug onset (the explanation favored by my psychiatrist), and at that point I decided that “good patients” do not point out the design flaws common in applied research. At the end of my second week as a “good patient,” many staff commented that my behavior had improved. A blood sample was needed to confirm that my drug was at a “therapeutic” dosage. Unexpectedly, though, my dosage was “subtherapeutic.” Given this news, my psychiatrist concluded that because the drug was responsible for improvement, the dosage needed to be increased for additional improvement. As a “good patient,” I again resisted the urge to point out the obvious alternative interpretation or possible ceiling effects.