However, one critical advanced skill I learned was not to trust that intuition too much. That is: a machine is brought in for repairs; symptoms are provided; I think "aha, it sounds like a motherboard problem". Certainly, when going through diagnostic procedures, I should then be on the lookout for confirming evidence. But one of the most serious errors a technician might make in this situation is not being sufficiently thorough in checking the other possibilities for what might be wrong.

Very true. Confirmation bias and not looking hard enough for a diagnosis is a big issue in medicine, too. I'm not sure if there's a difference between health care practitioners who were originally logic-dominant thinkers or originally intuition-dominant thinkers, or whether both struggle and have to learn the other skill anyway.

A difference is that when you're working, you have time to be as slow, thoughtful, and deliberate as you want when figuring out a problem. Obviously it's better to reason things through as well as noticing intuitions, but System 2 (roughly, explicit reasoning) is slow and effortful and puts a heavy load on working memory, and System 1 (roughly, intuitions) is fast and doesn't fill up working memory. My younger self wanted to reason though everything logically–and as a result, because nursing is a profession where you're always working under time constraints, I was always a step behind everyone else, always took longer to get started at the beginning of the day, always stayed an hour past the end of a shift to finish charting. I don't think this is because I'm a "slow" thinker–I finish written exams in half the time that it takes most of the other nursing students. Also, in my experience having a load on working memory increases confirmation bias–I don't know if this has been studied, although it wouldn't be a hard study to do. I'm more curious about things that don't make sense now.

And note that the bulwark against making such errors is to have a rigorous diagnostic procedure, follow it, and get into the habit of reasoning about the situation explicitly (bouncing ideas off another person helps with this). In other words: a logic-based approach.

Modern medicine makes use of checklists a lot. I think this is awesome. I don't need any urging to use them; I was making personal checklists on my work sheet way before I knew this was already a thing. And "if in doubt, ask someone else to come have a look" is pretty universal too. Also not something I need urging to do.

I don't know that I'd describe it as feeling like my brain's being hijacked, but only because it seems logically questionable; "hijacked" implies there's some agent that is the hijacker.

I don't literally mean that. It's just what it feels like.

I have, on occasion, said things in anger that led to escalation of conflict, but I don't think I've regretted saying them, since I was in the right, and felt that I was both correct and morally entitled to my comments.

Even when this is the case, I don't find that anger helps me get what I want. Then again, being agreeable, a lot of what I want is "not to be in conflict anymore." Also, I think some people kind of enjoy the powerful feeling that anger gives them. Whereas I find the feeling of anger aversive.