Humans Are Not Objective

Annie Groth

TOK II--Hunt

22 August 2013

Prompt: Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

The connotation that comes with the word “human” usually derives other words such as “unique,” “intelligent,” and “complex.” Though it is admirable that us humans have come so far in the food chain, along with great development comes great complexity. To try to objectively observe even a single person is already a huge challenge. Perhaps that is why people pay such huge amounts of money for psychotherapy—we can’t even figure out ourselves. So the question asked here is actually two: do we study humans objectively and should we do it? Answering those questions might just be as intricate as actually studying a human.

To begin with the first question, it is hard to affirm entirely that we already do study humans objectively if humans are the ones who observe humans. This knowledge issue can actually be more complicated then it seems. Because perception is the main form of gathering knowledge in the human sciences, it is hard to say then that we do study humans objectively. Each person’s perception already comes with certain biases. That is why certain human sciences, such as anthropology, are often not given the value they should because others question how much of an anthropologists observations are not tainted by their own backgrounds. However, it would not be practical for such a science to be very objective and not perceptive. An anthropologist would observe in a very scientific manner what people did, when in fact what the people might be doing could have a nonobjective, sentimental value. For example, a funeral could be observed as simply a body being placed in a wooden box then placed below the ground, but an anthropologist’s job is to discover that this action is a like a ritual that has to do with religion, choice and culture. Though then the objective observations might be more excused from bias, a subjective approach can provide it with a deeper understanding of reality.

The more complex question though is should we study humans objectively. One of the main associations of objectivity is with the area of knowledge of science and its scientific method. However, in order to have an experiment that follows the scientific method there must be an isolation and quantification of variables. If humans were to be one of these variables though there would be a huge difficulty in quantifying them. This is evident in now outdated claims such as that first-borns are more successful and all males have a hidden sexual desire to conquer their mothers. How could these claims be scientifically and objectively identified? Is there even a way to measure sexual attraction, especially at younger ages? Because many subjective claims on humans have been made without proof, we should try to observe the human sciences more objectively. However, the idea that humans and their characteristics are too complex to quantify indicates studying them objectively would not be of much value.

Besides the fact people themselves are hard to quantify the reactions they may have is even harder to objectively work with. There could be numerous reasons to why someone would act the way they would. An example of this can be seen in Stanley Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment. In this experiment Milgram, a Yale psychologist, tried to determine how far people would be willing to shock others because an authority figure (in this case a scientist) asked them to. The shocked person was an actor and of course unharmed but the observed subject who controlled the shocks was not aware of that. Milgram discovered 65% of people put in this situation “shocked” the other person to the maximum danger level. Because the experiment was so successful, Milgram created variations of it. That is when several variables that were not taken into account in the experiment started to become apparent. In all cases willingness to shock decreased such as when the shocked person was holding the shocker’s hand, the experiment was done in a less laboratory-like room, and even when the scientist was not wearing a lab coat. Because humans are affected by so many different variables they might not even be aware of, trying to isolate just two of those variables to objectively observe a human would not be realistic. Because of this in a sense, objectively observing a human would not be possible or accurate, yet another reason why subjectivity would be better in this case.

If humans are as complex as we give ourselves credit to be than we should not try to objectively simplify human nature and behavior. Subjectivity can actually provide a more accurate view for human scientists, such as anthropologists, than an objective approach would be able to determine. Also, how exactly would we objectively quantify human behavior? Is it possible to categorize humans easily? Not at all. And finally, humans are not a constant variable. Their reactions to their surroundings can depend on anything from their moods to the way others are dressed.  Humans and human sciences are more complex than an entirely objective view could ever explain, that is why using subjectivity to study them is still very necessary.