Do we and should we study human behavior objectively? 

The key word in this question is objectivity. It is asking if we study human behavior without bias, without opinion, without assumptions, etc. But, a more answerable question, and a good place to start, would be “do we strive to study human behavior objectively?” The answer is, for the most part, yes. We have witnessed, as human beings, the objectivity of the natural sciences and their precision. This precision has allowed for tremendous technological advancements. Thus, it seems we, as humans, are seeking to apply this objectivity to other sciences (the human sciences). There might be some disagreement with this statement. There are surely a good amount of human scientists that are not working towards objectivity. But, for those who are, will objectifying these sciences work the same as it has for the natural sciences? Is it even possible to wholly objectify the human sciences? To what extent is it already objectified? These last questions much more interesting to tackle.

In psychology the MRI has allowed tremendous advancement in that field and has also objectified it further. Out of the human sciences psychology’s mainstream research may very well be the most objective.The MRI technology helps researches in this field map out active portions of the brain in response to stimuli, thus collecting objective data. But is it purely objective? The answer is no. Besides the overwhelming challenge of diminishing the number of independent variables, psychologists often have to, on some level, interpret the results in order for them to be of any use in society (how is knowing that one part of the brain lights up over another in an MRI going to advance human knowledge in any major way and be applicable to solve human problems). Such interpretations can be extremely subjective as depending on the researcher’s or interpreter’s perception (beliefs, upbringing, cultural background, institution he or she works for, personal goals, etc.) their conclusion can vary widely. Nevertheless, the MRI is allowing psychology to come closer to the standard that the natural sciences have set. Psychology may soon be considered an exact science. But what does this really mean? Well, while objectivity is something these sciences (natural sciences) achieve to a larger extend than other studies, every once in awhile subjectivity slips through, and this happens mostly when qualitative data must be collected by humans. While describing the movement of an animal one naturalist or biologist might use different words and come to different conclusions about the motives behind said animal’s actions depending on their past experiences, who they are, how they were brought up, their emotional state at the time. It all comes down to perception.

So, is it even possible to study the human sciences objectively? It seems like qualitative data is near impossible to avoid in these studies, but there is some objectivity. For example, human sciences (e.g., literature, philosophy, archeology, economy) deploy a range of methods which vary in the “subjectivity to objectivity” spectrum. These may be interviews, mathematical modeling, carbon dating, questionnaires, narrative analysis, and conceptual analysis. Some of these allow for collecting objective data. In archeology, for example, carbon data aids in the study of artifacts found in the ground. This data allows for statistical analysis. Similarly, in economy mathematical models are often used, the problem is, depending on the researcher’s biases, the model can be set up differently. An economist may have as a goal to understand the impact that a 1% price increase in raw wool produced in Argentina, may have in Italian households. Literature may be an example of the difficulties of being objective. In literature may employ linguistic or narrative analysis, which is not quantitative friendly. Philosophy may be at the end of the spectrum, as it is impossible to track rationality. For this reason, conceptual analysis is used. In other words, all of the above examples demonstrate that researchers modify their methods according to what they believe suits best what they are trying to study. This is to say that sometimes objectivity is not viable, and in these cases we should not strive for objectivity. Opinions are often an important part of growth in any area of knowledge. In conclusion, research in the human sciences (and in other fields) should be dealt with as a TOK essay, with the argument built over premises that are stated as clearly as the common language of the discipline allows for (since each discipline has its own predefined terms). Both objective knowledge and interpretation (however, bias it may be) of that knowledge are important in any field.