Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

Do we and should we study human behavior objectively?

We humans, are pretty similar to each other, but every different human being, each individual, can vary in many different ways from one to the other that we cannot study the human behavior objectively. The main focus of science is to make a generalization of some sort but you can't do that with humans because actions vary and so does each ones personality. There isn't and can't be a law that applies to us (humans) all because we are all unique individuals. I personally do not like the word unique but it does fit into this case, even for perfect, identical twins. They can be physically very similar to each other, but their personality can be very different as well as their beliefs. There are different genders, men and women and many different sexual orientations so we can't make distinctions. Small distinctions can't be small upon humans but there can be made to a larger scale of humans. As read in “The social sciences” packet, it can be that social science is not fully developed yet, maybe it is at the bottom of their youth and that it has still a lot to grow and learn and that maybe in a few years or so, extremely accurate predictions can be made, but not now.

In social sciences there is no constant, just as it needs for science because the objects in this case the humans and they are always moving and in constant change so there is nothing that you can compare it with. There is no way to measure social data with numbers just as you do with natural sciences. You can't find a way to measure someone’s love for the other or how deep does one respect the other. No way of measuring that. In science you need to have all of your variables labeled and controlled and you have to make sure you are doing the right things because you want to have the results that you predicted in your hypothesis. In social science, you don't have those variables that you need in order to complete a lab.

Objectively means without influence by emotions or personal prejudices and it’s based on observable phenomena; presented factually. Most of its definitions will surround this idea that it is based on facts and not on emotions. You can study humans objectively but also subjectively, it really depends on what you are looking for and what is the purpose of your experiment. In order to understand and test the human behavior you can’t simply ignore one. Both can add to each other in order to make a more defined answer. A great example is Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment that we’ve seen in class. What seemed to be an experiment, we could see that something a lot more than what was expected came out of it. Every human in the experiment got very into the experiment forgetting they were basically just playing a role play. Some “actors” were not allowed out of the experiment which made them even more mad because they were actually being trapped as prisoners. This altered their emotions and the way that they saw things inside the “prison”. Here for example, we can’t simply observe, we have to take in consideration their emotions too; they were also going through a lot of stress under that situation.

There is no commandment that we can compare every human into, which means that to study the human behavior we can’t only observe and act as if they were all the same, going to the same things and also feeling the same. Everyone is different from another person even if they are identical twins.  We have to make a mixture, depending on the case of both subjective and objective because when we are testing something we want to make sure we will get the right answers and by mixing both of them, knowing when to use them because in some cases both is required but not in all, so that we can have a more accurate and precise answer. 

Yes.

Yes. Yes it is. It is definitely possible to live a "good" life in a "corrupt" society. The reason I put quotation marks around the words 'good' and 'corrupt' is that they can mean different things to different people in different places. It is extremely important to define these terms before attempting to answer the posed question, as looking at the words using different definitions can easily change one's answer to the question. From this point on, we will consider a good life to be one where you don't hurt anyone else for your own benefits, thus keeping a clean conscience. A corrupt society would be one where there are people who do harm others for their own benefits. The question becomes whether or not it is possible to be self-regulating 'good' people even when you are surrounded by some people who are 'bad'. An important thing to note about the question is that it is NOT asking for whether or not we SHOULD live a good life in a corrupt society. If this was the case, then we would simply be arguing about which philosopher has the best ideas or notions of being 'good' (basically ethics). A utilitarian, for example, would say that according to our definition of 'good', it is definitely not possible to live a good life because everyone should do what makes you happy in the end, including harming others if necessary. Instead, the question asks us to simply see if it is possible. To answer this, we can look at examples from history and even some present day scenarios.

Take the workplace, for example. You see a colleague sabotaging a fellow worker just to get a promotion, and you immediately think to yourself that it's wrong (based on our definition of 'good') , as your colleague hurt someone else for their own benefit. Every day, you see more and more of this happening (a little bit of a stretch, I admit, but let's go with it for argument's sake), and you realize you have been left behind while your coworkers have all been promoted or have received better jobs elsewhere. In your attempt to lead a 'good' life, you have given up financial success, and possibly other things that come with having a high level job. So if looking at the question considering a good life to include success, then no, it is not necessarily possible. But is it still possible? Yes. You can still get by in life without financial success. Granted, it won't be very fancy, but you can still live. I think that's where the catch of the question is. Of course it is possible to live a good life in a corrupt society. You just might not anywhere.

By looking at history, we can see that it is definitely possible to live without harming others. Some people have valued the Silver Rule (basically what our definition of a good life is) for centuries, and their survival is proof that it is indeed possible. Confucius himself lived a good life, although we do not know whether or not it was in a corrupt society. It can be assumed that it probably was, though, because human nature tends to be what we would define as 'bad'. According to Hobbes, humans tend to (and should) do whatever they can to survive, including harming others if need be. Therefore, it can be assumed that Confucius lived a good life even when surrounded by people who did not always follow the Silver Rule. This shows that it is, indeed, possible. However, it brings us back to the point of whether or not it is feasible. Although Confucius lived out his days and gained fame, was his life hindered in any way by being good? The answer to this, I'm afraid, we will never know.

I don't think it is feasible to lead a good life in a corrupt society. In today's mindset of capitalism and competitiveness (at least in the cultures I have experienced), it would be impossible to refuse any advantages. Even if some decisions harm others, they might need to be taken for someone to achieve financial and social success. Of course, this is only a problem if the society values competition and comparing success (like ours). In any other type of culture, it wouldn't matter because people wouldn't care if others were gaining unfair advantages through exploitation. So, is it feasible to lead a good life in today's corrupt society? Probably not. But is it possible? Definitely.

WC = 751

Is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society?

If by a “good life” it is defined that you feel satisfied with what you have, then I do believe it is possible to live a good life. Nonetheless, this said satisfaction doesn’t have to be a constant emotion rather, if you have a way to find inner peace or something to look forward to, then I think it is indeed a possibility. For instance, if even after a long day of work you’re happy that you get to see your family, then that can be classified as a “good life.” However, is it ethical to live a “good life” when your happiness brings misery to others?

In one of my biology classes, I remember that Amaral had mentioned how in order for you to have food on your plate, there’s someone hungry. That makes me wonder: can we truly be happy knowing that people are suffering in order to fulfill our satisfaction? Just now I was making an arts and craft bracelet and all I could think about was how horrible it must be for the underpaid workers in Asia to do this for a “living.” This also relates to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs because the way I see it is that the in between chunks of the pyramid (safety, love/belonging, esteem), which comprises a lot of society, neglect those in the physiological aspect of the pyramid, which is the base and the grand majority of people. In other words, there seems to be a trend that as we (the middle chunk) try to move towards self-actualization, the ultimate goal for a “good life,” we forget about those inferior to us. For instance, I only thought about those poor under waged workers when I was put in situation that slightly resembled (only the manual work, the environment I was in was completely different). If it weren’t for that, I would continue not acknowledging their existence. So is the saying, “ignorance is bliss” valid because we’re trying to reach the so-called ultimate goal of self-actualization (corresponds to a “good life”), according to Maslow?

On the flip side to this, there are mundane people who have been able to live a really happy life as seen with Mark Boyle who has been living without money since November 2008. Although he found a solution for him to live a good life that doesn’t harm the environment in our corrupt society, by using resources such as beeswax (for lighting) and cuttlefish bone (for a toothbrush) – for instance, he doesn’t think it’s a panacea because if everyone lived like this it would be “a catastrophe.” I do think that what helped him follow this path was his ability to not cling to things, as seen with the Buddhist teachings. And maybe this ambition and desire for things does end up corrupting us, as can be seen with the corruption in the governments where politicians only want more and more. But even so, just this one example already shows how it is indeed possible to live a good life in our corrupt society.

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