Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

The general aim of science is to study concepts objectively. Whether or not we do is a dilemma. Human behavior is an elusive study because of all the variables that come into play. What I have learned in class has shown me that time and time again that human behavior is difficult to trace and follow because of human consciousness and its intentions. Many examples have been brought up of the complications of attempting to remain objective in the study of human behavior, and it has led me to believe that even though we should study humans objectively and we do try, we can never be too objective and always diminish results due to our subjectivity.

            The past few assignments we have done in class have shown the difficulties of the study. The first one, which seemed mysterious as first, required us, or me in specific, to write down 20 rules of human behavior/ human nature. From the start I knew this would be likely impossible for me to obtain without corrupting the rules by what I find is a rule of human nature or human behavior. What intrigued me, though, is how the rules of human behavior are constructed. When I was writing down my rules in the library, a small child ran past me dragging her backpack on the floor and picking up the dust of the library along with it. The mother was pacing behind her and exclaimed to her daughter, “Put your backpack on, it’s called a backpack for a reason.”. It had led me to believe the variability of human rules for so many concepts. Some rules of our nature are defined in what they are called, such as “backpack”. It is called that because it is a pack we are meant to wear on our backs. It forced me to believe that this branch of human nature is only marginal to the other possibilities, such as the expressions we use to express behaviors, such as “boys will be boys”. This is when my first clue and belief that studying human behavior objectively has too much variability and is very difficult to do.

An experiment we briefly reviewed in class showed us how even the highest level of professionalism can be corrupted by subjectivity when studying human behavior. The experiment was based on the concept of the behavior of individuals when put in a prison environment. The head of the experiment, Professor Zimbardo of Stanford University and head of the Psychology department aimed to track the behavior of the specimens (the captives and the security guards as well) objectively but failed due to the variability of the human consciousness. On the second day of the experiment, Zimbardo was obliged to release one of the subjects due to mental tantrum. Through fear brought by rumor of the released subject, Zimbardo displaced the group of subjects to another location and waited in the hallway until the arrival. From that point on, Professor Zimbardo, a figure of high professionalism, had lost the objectivity of studying the behavior as a psychologist but had made the experience subjective in an attempt to maintain and keep the state of the prison. This portrayed how even the highest degree of professionalism in the area of study cannot be kept intact from the temptations of subjectivity. There were specific things Zimbardo was searching for in the study, and he lost his objective point of view trying to maintain the experiment.

A class assignment that required us to send a report in the lens of an alien (to create an inquiry in which our observations are oblivious to all human habits, culture, activities and other components of the every day life) portrayed my personal experience of the difficulties of studying human behavior objectively. When I attempted to write down my “creative” observations, I always felt compelled to write down the details I would pay attention to regularly. This is beneficial in finding what I would consider important to me, but also corruptive because I would leave out details which would be vital for actual research purposes. It was hard to keep an objective point of view because the entire experience was from a subjective point of view. This reminded me that no matter how we record human behavior, we always get caught up in what we think is important to us because of all the variables that come into play of our consciousness.

Objectivity can be an aim but cannot be a mode of study. It is beyond our control. Like Alexander Chase has said, “Psychiatry’s chief contribution to philosophy is the discovery that the toilet is the seat of the soul.”, simply shows the variability of human behavior when trying to study it.