"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.