Do we and should we study human behaviour objectively?

Leonardo Savoy

Do we and should we study human behaviour objectively?

            Throughout the entire human legacy, humans have been trying to study their society and how they react to certain situations. This analysis is usually done through objective lenses, meaning that analysis is based off facts, is measurable and observable. But how do we know this? Well, simply look at several experiments performed in the past century, the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Experiment. Both are based off objective research, as there was a hypothesis to be tested and it was performed to draw conclusions. However, when it comes to whether we should study human behaviour objectively, I believe that we should, since it seems to be the most effective and most reliable way to study human behaviour. It would not be reliable to study human behaviour based off subject resources, meaning: assumptions, personal options and beliefs.

            Therefore, let’s start by talking about why we should use objective research in order to study human behaviour. In order to prove the challenges of objective research and the effectiveness of it, let’s use the Stanford Prison Experiment. In this experiment, students looking for a summer job were randomly assigned a position of either an inmate or a guard. By doing this, the experiment was attempting to test the psychology of a prison environment and how people react in different positions. Even though the plan of this experiment was to last for two weeks, it was stopped with only six days of experiment. But why is that? What was only a fake prison turned out to seem like a real one. First of all, the inmates started to rebel against the guards. One of them had a mental breakdown and had to be released due to such situation. But the inmates were not the only ones to have mental changes. The fake guards started to act and think like real ones, mainly the leader of this experiment, Phillip Zimbardo. He decided to be a guard, the chief guard. Through this, he would be able to feel and understand the experiment without the need of other sources for information.  Dr. Zimbardo reported that he suffered great mental changes, losing control of his actions, and acting as a real guard. With this experiment and several others, it was observed that one can’t simply set up an objective experiment and let things roll. Predictions made in the beginning of the experiment can turn out completely different, as seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment. A human is not a machine, and therefore suffers radical psychological and emotional changes if he/she is exposed to such tests, which makes it unethical to examine humans as if they were objects. Therefore, even though it is much more effective to examine human behavior objectively, it is unethical to do this through the methods effectuated before. Stanley Milgram describes a great reason for why we should do this, as he states "The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." This explains why we should study humans objectively, as humans adapt to different situations they are exposed to.

            However, do we and should we study human behaviour effectively? As seen in several tests, such as the Milgram Obedience Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment, we attempt to study human behaviour objectively quite often. We do this since it is observed that it is one of the most effective ways of analysing humans. As Stanley Milgram explains, the human social psychology does not adapt with the kind of man, it adapts in different kind of situations they are exposed to. Therefore, as this kind of research is the most effective method of researching human behaviour, we should continue to use it. Nevertheless, it is also seen that there are several negative aspects of this kind of research. To a certain extent, it is proven to be unethical to research humans so radically, since we are not machines and we suffer several mental changes. This still leaves us with the question of whether we should study human behaviour effectively, since there are so many counterclaims for this question.

I've spent some time reading through your posts. I'm impressed by your level of thought and the degree to which you synthesized your own ideas and what we covered in class. You connected the dots in interesting and fresh ways. Nice work.

 The only area of weakness I'm seeing in most posts is a lack of integration of last year's work into the work you're doing now. While everyone's writing and thinking seem on track, and your formation of new ToK concepts is excellent, I can't help but wonder why I'm not seeing more depth of understanding about the ways in which perception and language inform our understanding of the world. I see a lot of you referencing emotion, perhaps because you talked about that at the end of last year, and most of you are being careful not to be stereotypical about contrasting it with logic, since we know the ways emotion and reason interact are complex, so I think you've got that down. But you all know so much about language and perception that I'm wondering why these aren't  there. Is it because you don't see how it might relate to the human sciences discussion or because you just prefer to spend your words on other topics? Also, remember everyone, you don't need to make your point in broad strokes. We all know that the natural sciences aren't perfectly objective. In order to make your point about human sciences reaching less certainty than natural sciences it's important that you don't overstate the objectivity the natural sciences have. The mark of a good ToK student is the ability to make a good argument while still tolerating ambiguity. So watch out for black and white thinking.

And finally, don't forget to define your terms and concepts. If you are going to answer a question about subjectivity and objectivity, for example, you've got to say what definitions of those words you're going to use. The best way to do this is to gather all the possible definitions of the words that there could be, all the denotations and the connotations, and then decide what meaning or meanings of the words best fit the context of the prompt as it's been asked. Sometimes a short discussion of the definitions is warranted as part of you processing the question and sometimes it's better to just give a definition and get into the meat of your paper. You'll have to decide if semantics is part of the challenge of your question. Sometimes that's part of the fun. If it is, don't be afraid of going to the swamp of definitions. If you are going to use a dictionary definition, examiners get kind of mad if you only defer to a dictionary. So begin with a dictionary definition if you want, but then fill it out by saying whether it either it is or isn't the whole story. Most of you answering the objective/ subjective question would have saved yourselves some headaches if you would have taken the time to figure out for yourselves and for your reader what those words even mean.

In any case, I'm really pleased with your progress and was happy to spend an afternoon inside your brains. I just wish I didn't have to grade them now. But that's another discussion.

"Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?" Nicole Vladimirschi

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

First of all, it is important to define the terms “objective” and “subjective.” Objective, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is defined as “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.” In other words, it is the reality conceived without the knowers’ perception, a reality that does not require any communication to validate the happening.  Objective is empirically proven with facts and measurable observations. Subjective knowledge, however, is the opposite, where if it is not communicated with someone else, the “truth” is trapped inside the mind, a personal interpretation of perception mixed with emotion, defining something as true. By following these definitions, one can come to two conclusions: the first being that we do not study human behavior objectively, and the second is that we should.

Human behavior is not studied objectively, mainly because the man is the subject and the student, the observed and/or the observer. How can someone make an impartial observation on something he/she takes part of? For instance, the Hawthorne Effect states that bias coming from the presence of scientists affects the outcome of the experiment entirely, whether a society adapts for the scientists’ experiment consciously or unconsciously. Sometimes experiments in human sciences don’t necessarily require an interaction between the scientist and his/her subject(s). Even then, simply having expectations about an outcome can influence people’s observations. This fact, consequently, entirely contradicts subjectivity, since it would require a hypothesis and quantitative evidence to be proven. Having these expectations can influence the final product since people are programmed to find patterns in situations, to “sort chaos”. Every person has a different perception and method to evaluate and sort his/her own chaos, which brings more subjectivity to the outcome.

The second evidence of the lack of objectivity in the study of human behavior is found when comparing human sciences to natural sciences. Something is labeled as truth in the human sciences after a series of experiments have been accomplished and repeated, and all other possibilities have been unproved (in terms of quantitative data). In the human sciences, an experiment can’t ever be replicated exactly as the original. The scientist can label variables, but can one really measure and control society? What about people’s willingness to buy? How about success, is it measurable? Concepts in human sciences are often vague because if they weren’t, they would generalize all humans into one category.  Human sciences have a wide variety of methodology to collect their data, such as surveys, observation, written records or old artifacts. All of these methods rely heavily on observation. For example, when conducting a survey, what or who determines the scope of the people being surveyed? How can the sample size be truly random? What about the bias coming from the questioner? Also, in experimentation, as was stated above, the observed often wants to please the observer, therefore responding to their expectations. Additionally, to further complicate the relativity of results, there are highly complex ethical issues involved in most experiments. For example, both the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment raise very controversial questions about their respective validities. Is putting another human being through suffering, physical or emotional, whether they are willing or not, valid in the name of science? Can ethics overpower the possibility of any discovery? These are questions that involve even more subjectivity since every person has his/her own opinion and thoughts on ethical issues.

Even though we don’t study human behavior objectively, the reason why we should is largely due to the aims that the human sciences have. If one were to categorize the goal at large of all human sciences, the list would be somewhat along the lines of: knowledge about human behavior and humans’ interaction in society, understand what are the influencing factors, explain (make?) patterns, describe the reasoning behind decision making, and possibly predict behaviors through patterns. In order to achieve a concrete answer to all of the above, the human scientists should reach a conclusion based on facts and empirical evidence. The methodology isn’t as error-proof as those in the Natural Sciences, which is why those conclusions are usually more respected.

One thing that is very important to keep in mind is that people, especially scientists work around an unbreakable paradigm where quantitative is considered more valuable and accurate than qualitative data. If that weren’t the case, than the Human Sciences would thrive with documents exploring different observations and different experiments, and variables wouldn’t even play a role in that. I don’t know which is better in terms of discovering and attaining knowledge, but I was raised on the belief that quantitative data gives you the answer, while qualitative data completes the less important odds and ends. With that being the case, my inclination is obviously one that will lead to more quantitative ideas, which, in this case, is that we should study human behavior objectively, rather than subjectively.

Are the human sciences more like the natural sciences or more like history?

Are the human sciences more like the natural sciences or more like history?

Human sciences are more like natural sciences even though it utilizes history as an instrument in some of its practices. When talking about science, an example could be math, where there is a process to solving an equation or even discovering one. What approximates human sciences and natural sciences is their methodology, procedures, rules, while history is just an additional factor that may help while predicting. However, what might interfere in a sociological experiment is the scientist’s involvement or bias on the subject, what might lead him to interpret the experiments differently. An example is the Stanford experiment, at a certain point one of the main researchers got so involved in the experiment that he could no longer be just an observer, which could affect the outcome negatively due to its connection. Nevertheless, some sociologists say that its impossible to do experiments with humans without having an ideology, Marxism for example, however coming in a situation where the person will have to make conclusions about the data but they already have a certain view towards that situation makes its assessment restricted. Now looking at the activity we did in class with the alpha and beta groups. I was the one being observed, so for me my behavior and alpha’s behavior was somewhat based on instinct that reflects how I approach and deal with things in my day to day. However, we only noticed everything we had done and how we reacted after we discussed with everyone in class what had just happened. Annie and Ms. Hunt as the observers had a totally different interpretation and could deduce and understand our actions differently, yet we just acted on it without really thinking it through. At a point, we forgot what categorized the beta group and we were just ourselves, greedy. We just saw the effect of what we had done after we stopped and saw how we were each divided by barriers of chairs and tables trying to protect our possessions. If I was the observer, I might have interpreted some other way, so my outcome again might have been different. Still, we could have been much more extreme with our actions if we new no one was observing us. If we were being tested on something and we new there is was a person judging us on what we did, our reaction and the turn out might be different, more controlled and well thought. Due to the fact that, people don’t like to be analyzed, criticized and judged.

Philosophy, religion and science are forms of understanding the world. So, when it comes down to physics (which is part of sciences), if there is a hypotheses that says for example that everything liquid turns solid and everything sold turns into gas depending on the condensation or the boiling point, the person is making a universal affirmation. However, this was a hypothesis but if the person goes through procedures and tests it out, it becomes a fact, a rule. While in history, there are always some uncertainties, contradictions and bias, where it can hardly be found in natural sciences. But, when it comes down to sociology (part of human sciences) its method is to try to understand how society works and to forecast what might happen or certain behaviors. This is a prediction based on patterns seen by specific groups. When it comes to large groups of people, the prediction might be harder due to a large scale of diversity, making it tougher to have common factors to it.

Overall, the involvement of humans in experiments might affect its outcome; nevertheless the methods used make human sciences much more like natural sciences then history. Even though history is constantly used in areas of human sciences such as anthropology. 

Sorry, another one on "Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?"

                   

Currently, the human sciences aims to imitate the natural sciences in its approach to study – through an external objective position searching for universal laws independent of human individuality and subjectivity. But in a field that is founded over the rickety ground of subjective, emotional and personal factors, which make up the infamous “human unpredictability” – is this even possible?

                  Well, we definitely try to make it so. Harvard’s Project Implicit is an example of a very objective set of experiments used to explore one of the giants of subjectivity: group bias. In their different experiments, the programmed software analyzes time taken to assort pictures of one discrete group to certain words, the accuracy of the assortment, the answers to a series of multiple-choice questions – data that essentially turns into numbers in a formula that then reveals to you that deep inside, you hate overweight people. Objectively, the science is quite flawless: the independent and dependent variables are defined, the method is reproducible, and the data robust. But do I really hate fat people? Could such an objective test reveal something so deeply subjective about myself with such confidence? The test had me first associate images of overweight silhouettes to “negative” words, and later asked me to switch from this method of assortment to one where I had to associate the silhouettes with positive words. A machine would have little trouble making this transition, but the test failed to recognize the subjective nature of humans, missing the fact that we may be influenced by the order in which we are presented information. By overlooking our subjective factors, such an objective experiment can yield faulty results. Do not assume that human science chooses to be ignorant of human subjectivity, however. Economics, like all other human sciences, stare over the chaos of human unpredictability and subjectivity and must face it. To cope with this chaos, economics actually translates and generalizes this subjectivity into cold, hard objective assumptions: “people are rational maximizers,” “people’s wants are unlimited,” or “people makes choices dependent on future consequences.” All these assumptions seem safe to make, have actually worked almost flawlessly in the field, and truthfully, even the natural sciences make assumptions – the ideal gas law assumes spherical atoms, in mechanics we assume elastic collisions, in most of our physics problems we ignore the effect of relativity. But how do we compare the error in objective generalizations made to cope with subjectivity in the human sciences and the error in generalizations made in the natural sciences? We saw exactly how drastically the behavior of each individual in our class differed from one another when we were asked to abuse the picture of a loved one. Is generalizing such a diverse group of people the same as generalizing how we consider atoms? Are the consequences of doing so of the same magnitude in scientific research?

                  Given all the implications with an objective approach to understand human nature, we should ask ourselves, should we look at human behavior in a purely objective way? The alien anthropologist activity gave a good insight into this question. By looking into human life, ignoring any past experience or emotions I have, I reached completely absurd conclusions about our species however logical they may have been from my objective observations. Emotion and subjectivity are tools in such cases. By considering my own experiences, I am able to deduce that humans are not swimming in pools to undergo osmosis, but for the subjective reason that they enjoy being in the water. Instead of starting from the ground up when trying to reach conclusions objectively, we may use what we already know from our own experiences as an aid. We must be wary, however, as there is a threshold to this idea. Humans try to relate to others – and other things, even – very often, and although in our daily lives we can assume someone jumping up and down is happy, an anthropologist observing a foreign culture must be careful not to. If an anthropologist allows his personal experience influence his thoughts on why a culture is the way it is, he is under danger of applying his own culture to understand another. In other words, the subjective knowledge we carry is not compatible with all other cultures or individuals. This personal bias, and subsequently confirmation bias, is only one example of how an emotional involvement in study may harm scientific results. Through active participation of an anthropologist in a study for a subjective experience, the researcher is not only more prone to directly interfere with the study due to subjective reasons, such as teaching the studied culture to raise a fire above to ground to avoid burns – consequently altering the development and culture of the society – but also in the manner that the presence of the researcher may alter the behavior of the studied.

                  Weighing the benefits and hindrances of the purely objective or excessively subjective study of human behavior, it is clear that a balance must be found between the two methods. Having organized these thoughts on both, a more appropriate question to answer next would be “to what extent should human study be objective or subjective,” as everything must come in good balance.

Human Sciences Tug-of-War: Is It More Like Natural Sciences or History?

Renata Sayão

Block 5 TOK

Ms. Hunt

Aug. 23, 2013

Are the human sciences more like the natural sciences or more like history?

            Although in technical terms, the human sciences do not encompass history, to a large extent the validation of a most human science knowledge claim relies on historical evidence and reference. After hours of thinking and researching and sorting data into categories, I’ve come to this simple conclusion: the human sciences try to follow the paradigm that is applied in the natural sciences but nonetheless are still more like history because their subjects are conscientious animals.

            Let’s take the TED Talk by William Ury on “the walk from ‘no’ to ‘yes’” to begin. Ury is a writer and mediator who works to resolve and study conflicts throughout the world. He’s an unofficial sociologist and anthropologist. He begins by explaining, in a very scientific term, that humans are reaction-machines, and that they cannot get an outside view of the conflict they are facing because they have already reacted. This is a knowledge claim based significantly on psychology and the study of human behavior, and can be tested using the methods and established rules that the natural sciences laid out. A little later, however, he begins to talk about conflicts in the Middle East, and references Abraham, the first man to walk across this territory. He discusses how Abraham is a symbolic “third side” that reminds us [humankind and Middle-Eastern tribes] that we’re part of an extended family. In addition, he discusses that when angry or lost in the world, walking is the key to getting back in focus for humans. These proposals are heavily based on historical analysis, following the “make a justified claim that is testable” of the natural sciences but having at their cores historical evidence and reference because that is how they get their data samples and examples. Since it is very difficult to “remind humans that we’re part of an extended family” in a scientific and methodic way, it is only through history that it is justifiable.

            In addition, an article published in 2008 in the freakonomics website on the “Economics of Happiness” is, as the title clearly depicted, an economic report. Journalist and economist Justin Wolfers noted the trend in graphs comparing GDP and overall wellbeing in a spam of 60 years, from 1950 to 2010. He concluded that the income-well-being relationship “has appeared just about as strongly in surveys probing happiness as in surveys asking about life satisfaction”. The relationship between income and happiness is about as strong today as it was in the very first surveys, which were taken sixty years ago, hence concluding his point that there is and has always been a direct correlation between income and well-being in humans. Now… how did he come to that conclusion so fast? He used historical data and analyzed, with the paradigm of a scientist (looking for patterns and trends), that there was a correlation between the two sets of surveys. There is no natural-sciences-method that could prove this correlation to be true in a laboratory or through an experiment. It is with data originating from history that one is able to prove his or her point. Had anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists not observed from history general trends and behaviors, they would not be able to ever come to a “justified true belief” through a scientific lenses and would not be able to call themselves social scientists.

            One last example that clearly distinguishes human sciences as an area of study more like history is Brené Brown’s TED Talk on “the power of vulnerability”. She says in the beginning of the talk that she likes to put human chaos into boxes, to observe patterns, observe if her observations are correct, and sort human society into organized information matrices. This is, to an enormous extent, a natural sciences paradigm, because again these scientists are trying to find patterns and behaviors that can be tested by other scholars and proven correct. However, she claims that when she gathered interviews and her qualitative data (which is very obviously a historical approach to society), she noticed that some aspects of human behavior can only be proven by interacting with people not by testing them or changing their environment or building experiments to prove the point. Similarly, historians take different perspectives on one event or situation and must build their arguments and explain their logic with these perspectives. Both areas of knowledge work strongly with qualitative data and put pieces of human society and behavior together with such scattered mediums of data. Meanwhile, in the natural sciences knowledge claims can only be justified if it can be observed and tested with the same results, and does not include qualitative data or different sorts of data.

            All in all, after going through some of the studies published by human scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the area of study is very closely connected to history. Again, the studies appeal to the patterns and testable information that is encouraged by the natural scientist community, however they almost always go back for data in historical evidence and records. Some observations are made through peering into history, looking at the evolution of our species and our civilizations, and such data could not be considered 100% valid and testable and acceptable in a natural sciences community.