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.