Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

         Objectivity is the state of something being considered true. Objectivity lacks any sort of bias or outside influence, independent of individual feelings and interpretations. Human behavior, on the other hand, is largely composed of subjectivity and the unconscious influence of past experience. Basically, can an objective science like biology, with concrete answers, accurately study the minds of subjective people? Is it even possible to measure the unpredictable conscious mind?

         So to formulate an answer we must analyze whether we DO study human behavior objectively. Unfortunately--in this context--human beings are largely emotional individuals. We tend to use our emotions to guide our decisions, whether it is unconsciously or if we feel that the other options are against our beliefs. Throughout life we have a generally limited perspective of the outside, and we end up fueling our decisions with previously known ideas or values. We fail, therefore, to see the actions and behaviors objectively. This is what they call confirmation bias, where we use predetermined notions to conclude something that may or may not be logically true. It is our intuition to use our own schemas to observe something, which is different from everyone else's. The mind is unpredictable in the sense that what we observe may not be what is ACTUALLY happening. However, will we ever know what is actually happening? This relates back to our reason unit--how much of a role does perception play in limiting us from knowing true knowledge?

         The alien activity done in class was certainly an example of how challenging it is to avoid the influence of emotion. By taking a participant role (role of the observed) when looking at human behavior, I found myself unconsciously associating what I observed with my own conventions. It was hard to read supposedly 'extraterrestrial' body language when I already knew what they meant, for example. I could not find myself observing those around me objectively, nor making predictions without thinking of my own experiences and being biased. In separate cases, I tried to use the scientific method and found myself with further limitations. By trying to make an unaffected prediction, without any influence from my life, I ended up unconsciously using my logical thinking. I saw those humans around me (my friends) as people that I trusted, because that would be logical, given how much we stayed together--that is not what an alien would believe when first seeing them. Furthermore, some things I heard were being held in greater weights than other things, such as the "search of death" idea in my observations. They changed the general view completely and resulted in rather incorrect thoughts (that humans try to die everyday). This often happens with anthropologists who try to study unknown behavior and end up believing one minor thing is key in that culture.

         Furthermore, the Hawthorne effect is a big contributor to the weaknesses of studying humanity. The idea suggests that when the observed knows they are being observed, their behavior changes because they feel that they should try to meet the observer's "goal", or expected results. Human beings have free will and are self-conscious of their actions, causing observation to be subjective. How does the observer know that they are observing the actual behaviors of individuals, or if they are studying a shift in behavior due to a changing environment? It relates to the Stanford Prison Experiment as seen in class. The individuals representing guards turned towards abuse and dominance in just a few days, while the prisoners began to show signs of depression and anxiety. One of Zimbardo's conclusions was how strongly situation can play a role in human behavior. It showed how our surrounding has an effect on our behaviors, like knowing that you are taking part in a serious mind study. This makes it harder to make conclusions on human behavior when there are so many different cultures and country situations.

         Some may argue that there might be ways to avoid these experimental limitations in social sciences. Analyzing human activities using quantitative data is one way, such as through inventories, electro-chemical tests or mathematical calculations. By finding outcomes this way, there is a shift from what is predicted because there could be repeating patterns in brain activity of different people (everyone feels sad looking at something, for example). As in natural sciences, the search for trends in an experiment is essential to coming up with a result, such as in the scientific method. When a scientist finds the same pattern over and over, there is evidence that the particular trend is the result. However, psychologists and anthropologists cannot be certain that humans act the same way all the time, because observation is an issue. Finally, this relates back to the second question--should we study human behavior objectively? Well, there are so many limitations associated with it that trying to eliminate them all for an objective view would end up causing other issues. Take the nature vs nurture debate--there are possible explanations to both sides of it, but it is almost impossible to conclude it with the current theories. We change all the time, and we are all very distinct. We all make knowledge claims according to our values and personal beliefs. Therefore, why try to establish a concrete theory to explain our actions if there is an infinite number of distinct behaviors out there?