Rachel Block 5 -- Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

I believe that as humans we try our hardest to study human behaviour objectively but it does not work that well and depending on what is being studied sometimes we should not study our behaviour objectively. There is a slight paradox that occurs when we try and objectively study human behaviour. If we simply observe a population we think it would be fine, however, at some point since we have areas of higher order thinking, the people being studied realize that they are being studied, this causes them to change their behaviour and the experiment is no longer valid because none of the behaviours are raw.

There are different ways we try to study human behaviour objectively. On theory is to simply study a culture from afar while not interacting with them at all. This leads to the problem of the people realizing they are being studies, and trying to guess what the person is looking for and giving that to them. Another way is to try and study people without others knowing about it ie. hidden cameras. This causes lots of privacy issues, and even if you do put hidden cameras there is still a chance of people finding them and once again acting how they think the researchers wants them too. So as you can see in order to study human behaviour objectively the people being studies can not know otherwise they change their behaviour, but if researchers try something more discreet it usually violates human privacy.

However there are other problems when people attempt to not be objective. They try to be a part of the behaviour they are studying in order to not look at it objectively but this does not always work. In the example of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the leader of the research decided to play a part in the experiment. The experiment was to put 18 males in a fake prison, 9 as prisoners and 9 as wardens. When the research leader decided to take part in the experiment, he gave himself the role of the prison superintendent as throughout the experiment slowly realized that he was losing sight of the scientific aspects of the experiment and became one with his role. When during the experiment a colleague came and asked him about the scientific aspects about the research, he became frustrated and angry at him for distracting him from his job as a prison superintendent. He was no longer and researcher but lost himself. When we try to become less objective in our research of human behaviour, we tend to get over involved. So instead of studying human behaviour we become a part of it. This easily messes with the outcome of the experiments.

That was an example of what can happen if you become part of an experiment, the other known way to try and study human behaviour is by taking part in a culture. In this case, instead of observing human behaviour from afar, the observer takes part in the culture around them, they live with different families and do everything as though that was what they grew up with. Of course, there is a problem with this technique. When someone takes part in a culture, it is them same idea as having a visitor over at your house for a visit, and what do we do with visitors? We change. We always try to impress others and make ourselves look better when others are around.  When someone takes part in another culture the people around them will try and, like us, make themselves look better. For example, if in a normal situation people in a village go have a nap around lunch time, that is what they do, however, if they have a guest, they will obviously try and stay up instead so as to not be impolite. The when the observer comes to write his findings, they will say that all the people in the village are in the square at lunchtime instead of napping because they changed their behaviour.

So, after looking at all these different ideas, if we should, and if we do study human behaviour it obviously has to different sides. When asking if we do study human behaviour, the ‘technical’ answer is no. We study what we think is natural behaviour but there is always going to be some form of bias of altered data because people will always try to conform to what they think the observer wants to see. So we do try to study it but it does not really work the way we want it to. The other part of the question asks if we should and I think in specific cases it make work but you need to look at the big picture. You can study human behaviour and look at patterns but each and every human is different, even if you study one person and look at cultures you can never make assumptions about anything. We can study human behaviour but it might not always be useful.

Julia Ribeiro
Block 5

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Even when we choose to talk about objectivity, we are biased. Without even knowing it, bias will always interfere with our studies, with our opinions, and what we know. Objectivity is never 100% objective due to our paradigms, our knowledge issues, and our perception. All that simultaneously are in the back of our minds taking us captive and preventing for us to shut down all our emotions and expand our paradigms. 
So do we study human behavior objectively? No. We will NEVER study human behavior objectively. We are humans - we've had past experiences, and emotions that can't be completely null because they shape the way we know. That was the easy question. That hard question to answer is the "should". 
There would be pros and cons to studying human behavior objectively. Studying human behavior would mean to get a big, ampler view on things, which has its benefits. Benefits such as knowing the finality of things, knowing (or thinking you do) all the facts, knowing the "two sides to the story", and jumping to conclusions yourself. Drawing naked, new conclusions can be good, because new means paradigm shift. But at the same time, drawing conclusions can have many drawbacks. Drawing conclusions without "stepping in the pond and getting dirty" could mean that you only think you understand the human behavior when in truth you don't. 
How can you KNOW a certain human behavior/culture if you choose to never experience that human behavior/culture? Your conclusions could be wrong, could be completely off and you wouldn't even know it. Without going through the experiences yourself, how can you ever form a proper opinion of that experience? You can't. It's like telling someone who just lost a parent, how "you know how their feeling" when both your parents are still alive. You can think you understand the pain they're going through, and you can empathize, but you don't REALLY understand. The little details that "are the trees that make up the giant forest" are un-known, and so far inexistent. So then.. do you really have a forest?

Do we and should we study human behaviour objectively?

Do we and should we study human behaviour objectively?

Many consider the use of the scientific method, the most rational way of testing a hypothesis.  The answer to this question depends on what the word behaviour means. Science is seen by most as a study of external objects, and an observation can only be made by the study of external human behavior when talking scientifically. The more abstract parts; psychological, cultural, are in that sense, disregarded, since the testing should be ‘objective’.

There is a massive debate of whether the study of human behaviour should be considered objective or not. Previously, many scientists argued that science should only be considered science when dealing with the natural, physical world. Those scientists (let’s call them type 1) insist that anything outside that is not to be considered science because science is empirical. Then, there are the scientists (type 2) who argue otherwise, and take on a different view on what experience should be all about. To type 2 scientists; where the hypothesis came from doesn’t matter, as long as there is a method to testing the hypothesis. In other words, as long is it possible to show valid arguments and tests to prove the hypothesis, it should be considered science.

In order for something to be considered objective, it should be rational, coherent, and impartial. What is seen as objective when studying the human behaviour is something more abstract than what type 1 scientists perceive to be, since there is a boundary their paradigms do not allow them to cross. The data collected in order to analyze the human behaviour includes values, personality, beliefs, feelings, and more. However, the same feelings and expressions are not the same to the observer than it is the person experiencing them. On that sense, the data collected should not allow one to make a proper conclusion. Yet, in the case of type 1 scientist, what they cannot see as ‘objective’ and don’t consider it actual data, may also leave wholes in their analysis and evaluation. One cannot deny the existence of such data, since society functions only with it; with reactions, emotional connection, language, and human relationships. Although it is not visible, it is present in our daily lives and should be taken into account. What comes into question is the liability the study contains in the process of reaching an answer to the question posed.

 Take the example of the study of psychological experience. When studying the human psychological behaviour and testing, it is extremely hard to keep the impartiality, due to the fact the observer is human, and is technically studying his own “intellect”. In order to give a more concrete example, let’s take a look at the Stanford Prison and Stanley Milgram experiment. As explained in the Stanley Milgram experiment, humans adapt to different situations they are exposed to. In the case of the Stanford Prison, volunteers were randomly assigned the role of prisoner or guard. The experiment reached chaos and had to be stopped within 6 days, even though the intent was to last for two weeks. In the Milgram experiment, some “teachers” went so far to the point they could have killed the “learners”.

There is questioning in relation to the objectivity of such tests and in the case of the Prison experiment, the concrete data collected were videos collected by cameras placed within the prison. Professor Philip Zimbardo, which was seen as the prison director by both guards and prisoners, was also one of the scientists leading the experiments. That is where impartiality was not maintained. In the Milgram experiment, the ‘data’ collected was also somewhat compromised (since the only one they had were the volts). The data collected by both experiments is considered by most, a non-scientific experiment.

Although scientists like type 1’s cannot understand it objectively, when analyzing the human behaviour based on the two experiments, the conclusion is in fact, accurate. Zimbardo said the objective was to see what happened when he “put people in a good place”. Milgram’s was also about the different situations one is exposed. For the purposes of the investigation, both could be considered ‘data’.  However, how can observers truly understand the person’s emotions and feelings for example if it is not “plotted”? Because of this, it is easy to underestimate type 2 scientists; and it also because of this there is a certain level of dependency created between the two.  If we were to consider science to be entirely empirical, then physics would also not be considered science, as it is a balance between what we can see as an object and cannot. Numbers do not indicate an experiment’s objectivity, so although some experiments on the human behaviour may lose their focus at times, it does reach a conclusion based on any finding of the human behaviour.

Human Sciences And Natural Sciences

McKenna Kiiskila

Block 5

The way I perceive it, the human sciences are more like natural sciences rather than history. I believe this based on the definition of human sciences, the study and interpretation of the experiences, activities, constructs, and artifacts associated with human beings. The study of the human sciences attempts to expand and enlighten the human being's knowledge of his or her existence, its interrelationship with other species and systems, and the development of artifacts to perpetuate the human expression and thought. This is clearly stating that studying humans is the same as studying human relations with what is around them which I see as other species and systems. What makes up the perception and reality of a human being? Their surrounding.

The role of the observer and observed in the natural sciences is just like what it is in the human sciences. For example, in the natural sciences Charles Darwin studies evolution in species as Anthropologists study humans in certain populations. Study of the growth and change in these species or populations; the same type of research just different subjects. When talking about the role of the observed, I think the material that stood out most to me was of the Zimbardo documentary when talking about the studies of Stanley Milgram on how people responded to authority.  This was called the “Milgram Experiment” and volunteers were told that they were taking part in scientific research to improve memory. This was done to understand how events like the Holocaust could occur. There was a teacher and a leaner that was separated by a screen. The teacher would ask a series of questions and when the learner got a question wrong there was an administered electric shock to the learner. It was shown that 2/3 of the volunteers were ready to administer fatal electrical shocks from what they perceived to be a figure of authority – “the man in the white coat.” All it took was for the so-called scientist to say, “the experiment requires you to continue please go on.” This was a very disturbing finding for the American people because it showed that what seemed to be a group of civil Americans, were capable of doing what the German Nazi’s did during the Holocaust.

This can be seen in the sciences with animals, for example. When a population encounters a predator they adapt to blend in with their surroundings to survive – in other words, survival of the fittest. Charles Darwin’s idea of evolution in species shares similarities with the human race. An example is the finches he meticulously studied did on the Galapagos Islands how their beak sizes differed to reach food in different terrain.

There are also many ethical limitations in natural sciences as there are in natural sciences. This can be seen in the Stanford Prison Experiment when Zimbardo lost sight of what was reality and what was just his role at the prison. A similar example in the natural sciences is use of experimentation and prediction in regards to both quantitative and qualitative data in the area of chemistry. The study of both qualitative and quantitative data is of dire importance because of the way humans operate. Qualitative, when looking at the change in quality of things like school systems or health conditions. Quantitative, when looking at the change of numbers as in population as a whole or the number of disease stricken persons in a population. This is similar to the natural sciences because both quality and quantity is measured.

As it was said multiple times in my economics class last semester, “You have to look at the world assuming two fundamental assumptions; one, people have unlimited wants and two, there are limited inputs.” I think this relates to both the human and natural sciences because it is referring to how humans develop by using the resources they have. This idea will reveal patterns and trends in human development by showing how humans adapt overtime to changes in economy, for example. This is where the challenges of using experimental method/ prediction come into play because with a natural science like astronomy there are many uncertainties and when measuring and predicting in the human sciences.

I do not believe that the human and natural sciences are identical through and through, in fact there are many juxtaposing elements between the two. But I think if you look at the big picture and the way the two are studied there are many similarities. I think that the way we perceive our surroundings is what makes up our reality and our surroundings is what the natural sciences are.

W.C- 766