Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Carlo Krell

I would like to start off my response with an extremely interesting analogy that came to my mind, as it will, to an extent, clarify my definitions of certain vital terms. Consider the relation of a hunter to his hunting knife. Like most teenagers of the XXI century with their cellphones, he does not view his knife as an object. He considers, however, the knife to be his participant in life. In some senses, if we think about it, the knife may even be treated as a living thing in that it may be named, accorded, respected, beautified, inter alia. The hunter and his knife are like the rider and his horse, with a highly personal and subjective relationship. Yet, when it comes to objectivity, the knife must be treated as an object – at least this is how society defines a knife. Objectively, nothing spiritual of the knife is taken into account; the aesthetics, such as its weight, shape, hardness, and material, is/are what matters most. Now, in the study of humans and not knives, are we supposed to consider beings and their lives as mere objects in order to achieve maximum truth? Before answering the question, I would like to clarify another term that seems to cause me a lot of conflict. The term, most definitely, is “truth”. So what is truth? Well, for the purpose of this essay, I would like to define the swampy mind-blowing word as follows: we seek truth relative to the way we perceive our world.

            Scientists are always seeking “true” findings, albeit in the human sciences or on the natural sciences. Philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn convey that science can never truly be objective because scientific knowledge is simply knowledge of the nature of “objects” as we perceive them, as I have stated before. He argues that perfect objectivity can never be achieved as all scientific methods of inquiry are based on human concepts, tools and patterns. Yet, we can’t confine ourselves to a strict mentality that there is no such thing as objectivity. If we live on a planet in which every thought is human-produced, then we cannot escape from the fact that every thought and human conducted action is solely based on human concepts. Therefore, the objectivity of human sciences lies on our human mindset, and not on nature.

            Hence, do we and should we study human behavior objectively? There are two sides to this answer. On the one hand, as Nicholas Christakis argued in his TEDTalk, our planet is a super organism that needs to be studied objectively, just like a flock of birds migrating south. In order to do this, scientists have developed the scientific method, which tries to approach truth as much as possible. Most human sciences, like psychology, anthropology, economics, and sociology, have adopted this system since it makes all insights “scientifically valid.” Now, with a premature entrance to the second side of the story, the scientific method is primarily based on observation (in most cases qualitative observation, which augments the subjectivity) after a hypothesis has been written. Yet, with regards to my definition of truth, the observation of human behavior was seen through the lenses of another human – wouldn’t this make the observation subjective? In order to minimize this uncertainty, consequently, scientists work on a scientific community, which seeks to “objectivize” all observations. Still, it is not purely objective, right?

            Here we are on the other hand. It is, in my perspective, nearly impossible to think of human behavior as one. Each individual has his/her own traits and characteristics – that is naturally inevitable. Clinically, (take a psychiatrist for instance) professionals need to emotionally attach themselves to the client in order to empathize and offer an emotional remedy.  That is highly subjective. In addition, both the Zimbardo experiment and Nicholas’ TEDTalk evidenced that humans retaliate to certain social situations. On one side, the experiment showed us how one’s power can drastically alter the psychology of another. This, as Zimbardo himself conveyed, is known as the process of degradation. For example, one of the student-guards implied that one of the prisoners could not leave. Subsequently, that same prisoner willingly advised all of his fellow prisoners not to attempt a riot because he succumbed to the guard’s authority. Likewise, as the experiment and leaders like Hitler suggest, power corrupts. Yet, the corruption is different depending on who holds power, and that, once more, is subjective. In the TedTalk, furthermore, Nicholas showed how close relationships lead to increases in the probability that one member of the relationship would gain the trait of the other member. This is known as homophily. When the member gains said trait, his perception of that trait changes. For instance, when a friend of an obese person becomes obese, his/her perspective on acceptable body sizes changes. That, once again, is subjective. Moreover, Nicholas also talked about how people succumb to and emulate those with power, similar to Zimbardo, which indicates that humans subjectively live in their own schemas within a greater social network.

            Nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that experiments such as Zimbardo’s have ethical limitations, which also make them even more subjective because of the emotions attached. We also have to keep in mind that, in some cases, scientists are trying to “invent” a way to their potential “discovery.” This ties back to the debate of whether or not math/science is invented or discovered. If we postulate that some scientists want to reach a desired outcome, then they are “inventing” a “discovery.” Despite the fact that this might be a swamp, it can’t be neglected.

            All in all, as an observer in the alien project, I realized that we can’t observe humans without truly understanding humans. In order to understand humans, we need to understand ourselves, and that, once again, is subjective. So, do we and should we study humans objectively? Well, in some cases we do; but should we? Well that depends on how YOU see it.