To what extent should we use our own humanity to study human behavior?

There’s a thin line between subjectivity and objectivity during evaluations. When performing experiments, studies, surveys, or any type of test such that results could be affected by any factor, objectivity is the element that will help keep an exploration in control. However, the second that subjectivity or even bias interferes, the results could change and the whole theory could be affected since the experiment is no longer based on concrete facts and observations. 

In the Natural Sciences, a lot of the knowledge was built based on hypotheses that were proven to work after being tested more than once, making it objective. Furthermore, all of the map knowledge created in that Area of Knowledge was established after years of trials that always resulted in the same conclusion. However, the Human Sciences deal with a completely different situation given that it works with humans and every individual is unique with different reactions, emotions, thought processes, and so on. The vital aspect of the Natural Sciences is that every trial that is repeated, for example in chemistry, turns out the same way. In contrast, given the differences amongst people, the trials in Human Sciences will always vary.

Although there is this contrast between the Sciences, one can't forget the exceptions. There are cases in the Natural Sciences where something can’t be tested repeatedly or have a certain conclusion like astronomy where some experiments might not be possible due to limitations. With that said, there is more certainty in that Area of Knowledge given the established map knowledge and guidelines there are within that subject. When studying humans, generalizations are not always clear or possible given the distinct human cultures, personalities, and identities. Thus, it is an Area of Knowledge with more gaps and ambiguities. 

Apart from that, there is a difference between a human studying an object or a chemical reaction, for example, and a human studying another human. The latter includes the possibility of people feeling insulted or watched and thus, it is a very sensitive situation. Not only that, but the most important aspect is that when humans are studying other humans, one’s perspective can become subjective and biased. That is where the question arises: can humanity itself study humanity or will our own perceptions and experiences interfere with results that are meant to be objective? 

My interpretation of the word “humanity” in this question is the act of being a human or simply “the human race”. One of the problems with humanity studying humanity is that ways of knowing such as emotion and terms such as “confirmation bias” come into play. Humans have been able to train doctors–such as therapists and anthropologists–in a way that allows them to have a complete objective view in their jobs given the fact they are present in our daily lives. Thus, there is map knowledge in the Human Sciences that allow a doctor to create a full diagnosis without applying his or her own emotions; there’s also plenty of medical research that establishes concrete rules when it comes to certain diseases, conditions, or patterns in our brains. However, to what extent are these diagnoses and results always used objectively when problems such as personal experiences could easily interfere? 

Confirmation Bias is a key term in this Area of Knowledge. Experiments performed in the 1960’s proved that people are biased towards their own beliefs. For example, if I have a hypothesis that the sky is blue, the study concluded that I would have a tendency to research evidence that is most likely going to confirm my initial thesis. In other words, humans have a tendency to try to confirm their own bias rather than exploring both sides of a problem. This is a dilemma in the Human Sciences because someone might perform a diagnosis based on one conclusion before even considering other alternatives. The fact that this person didn’t explore the other side shows how their own bias and opinion helped them reach a conclusion faster, rather than an objective thought process. 

Apart from that, one’s past experiences can interfere with an experiment: if a person had a negative experience with a medicine, they are less likely to recommend it to someone else even though it might actually be the correct path for them. For example, a dermatologist might prescribe a treatment for me that she knows worked with her daughter. Although the thought of being cared for like a daughter pleases the patient, just because it worked for one doesn’t mean it will work for the other. The same idea is if the doctor doesn’t prescribe something because she knows it didn’t work for her daughter, however, it could have worked for that patient. That is the main difference between trying treatments on a chemical experiment or on a human. The latter can result in so many outcomes. This example shows how easy it is to cross the line between bias and unbiased in this Area of Knowledge when the correct method should be to base our thoughts on established rules.

This is where map knowledge and story knowledge come into play. Map knowledge generalizes proven facts and establishes certain laws within a subject, thus objective. On the other hand, story knowledge is based on personal and individual cases that are not always generalizable, thus completely subjective. In the Natural Sciences, the most common method is map knowledge allowing a focused and objective result. However, in the Human Sciences, most of the experiments and studies performed result in different answers given the distinctions between people in society and thus there are collections of stories. However, given that there is extant map knowledge in the Human Sciences that is based on patterns, it is possible to have a clear thought process. As long as conclusions are based on the map knowledge and not on subjectivity, humans could study other humans.

The last element that interferes in the Humans Sciences is emotion. If a person is emotionally sensitive or is going through a tough time, their opinions and overall feelings can interfere with their performance. Emotion can hinder your thought process and your ability to make rational decisions because it disturbs your reasoning. For this same reason doctors aren’t allowed to perform surgery on relatives or people they feel connected to; just like it is hard to give someone recommendations if you are emotionally attached in the situation. With this said, if humans study humans, emotion could interfere with the evaluation process. An anthropologist, or psychologist, or any other type of doctor could become affected by people’s stories and people’s problems, which is why psychologists have therapists for themselves: sometimes it becomes too much to handle and you could become emotionally attached. Because of this risk, rules within each profession have been created that establish a barrier between a patient and a doctor so that there isn’t a deep connection that becomes subjective. Thus, when humans study humans, they have to be very careful to look at everything as objects and experiments and not as people who have feelings. 

By focusing on map knowledge and not story knowledge and by making sure one is completely objective rather than cross the line by becoming emotionally involved, a human is able to study another human. However, it is very easy for someone to become influenced and emotionally sensitive by another person’s story and thus become subjective in a situation. In that case, I don’t think its correct for a human to study a human because it is no longer based on facts, but feelings, which might not always be reliable given that feelings can hinder our reasoning. Saying that, there are humans who have a greater ability to separate emotions from a professional and objective rationality by following an established map knowledge of the Human Sciences and created a logical evaluation.

Another reason to why it is hard to answer such a controversial question is because there are currently so many people who have a profession in the Human Sciences who have been able to make it work. Hence, our generation is used to having humans analyze humans and we grew up knowing that there are established patterns and conditions, which help form a diagnosis. However, I can imagine why it would be such a controversial topic before it began given that people would probably be insulted and offended by their evaluations and the idea of being generalized or even analyzed. I completely understand the people who were skeptic and afraid of Freud’s studies when he began to work with psychoanalysis. At the time, it was something new and it was also very strange to have a human study another human. Who gave him the right or the power to study others? What makes him correct? However, since my generation grew up with these ideas as normal, from my point of view it is completely acceptable. Thus, I think that it is possible for humans to study other humans as long as they follow a rigid map knowledge and act completely objective. 

Word count: 1506