To what extent should we
use our own humanity to study human behaviour?
The moment I read the question, one question came
across my mind: isn’t it impossible to study human behaviour if we don’t relate
it to ourselves? The reason is because I believe that whatever kind of
behaviour we are studying, will either be familiar or peculiar to us. However,
it also depends on what “humanity” means. Since there is the humanity that
indicates the humankind - that is, the human beings in general - and the
humanity for humanness as in, the human qualities and how human we are, the way
we use it to study the human behaviour can differ to a great extent. Also, does
“our own humanity” mean the individual’s or the group’s as a whole? This too,
can also affect the answer to the question as backgrounds and experiences of
the individual must be taken in account.
When we think of behavioural studies, we picture both
in group level and individual level. Because the study of human behaviours are
categorized as human sciences, it is methodological. If human sciences were to
be described with the metaphors of maps and stories, they can be map-knowledge
due to the fact that behaviours can be generalized and seen as an overview of
human behaviours, and also story-knowledge as they can pinpoint and study a
specific behaviour. However, human sciences are not necessarily the same as
natural sciences. They both share the word “science,” so researches are
inevitably conducted but the main difference is that human sciences mainly
consist of qualitative research whereas natural sciences consist of both the
qualitative and the quantitative research. The qualitative research includes
methods such as interviews and observations. These methods may lower the
accuracy of the results and lead to low reliability and even low validity
because it is unavoidably subjective.
So what does it mean to be subjective? According to
Dictionary.com, the first and most general definition is “existing in the mind;
belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed
to objective).” Given that subjectivity is something that “belongs to the
thinking subject,” we can argue that qualitative research belongs to the
thinking subject. Then comes the question: how accurate is the mind when
considering a thinking subject? In my view, and probably in others too, the
degree of the accuracy is never going to be identifiable as the mind will
always be biased. Confirmation bias is one of the biggest concepts that
explains how we all interpret information differently and accordingly to our
own beliefs. We have the tendency to try to comprehend facts and events in a
way that makes sense to us. The reason why we all perceive differently is because
we each have different experiences and stand in different positions in the
society. Hence, what can happen is one’s opinion will not always correspond to
another person’s opinion which can result in a clash between the two.
If humanity means both the humankind and the human
qualities, the answer of the question as to whether we should use our humanity
or not when studying human behaviours, can vary depending on which meaning is
used. If it is the humankind, we would perhaps use our own because after
all, we are studying the behaviours of our humankind. If it is the human
quality, I would say we could and we couldn’t depending on the behaviour that
we are focusing on. Also, if it is each of our own, then it is less likely that
we should use it because our own beliefs and hypotheses may not always be
reliable. On the other hand, if it is “ours” as a group, it could and maybe
should be used since the theories and hypotheses have been made with an
agreement prior to the studies.
One of the many areas in the human sciences is
psychology. Psychology is widely known as the study of behaviours that come
from the biological, cognitive, and sociocultural levels. The methods include
interviews, observations, and experiments. Because psychology focuses on the
behaviour of humans, it is an essential field in order to discover unrecognized
facts and patterns. However, researchers aren’t computers or robots; they must
always be aware of any biases and limitations when performing a research. Some
past experiments have demonstrated that human nature can interfere with the
research and produce unwanted and unethical results. One famous experiment
conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo, called the Stanford Prison Experiment, led to
disastrous and gruesome results and scarring memories for the participants.
This was primarily caused by Zimbardo’s lack of care and morbid curiosities
which is a quality that can be found in human beings. Another experiment that
was performed by Martin Orne demonstrated that demand characteristics -- when
participants act differently knowing that they are being observed -- may take
part in the interference in psychological studies as well.
Additionally, I believe that there will always be
limitations, such as in the interpretation of data, that could affect the
results of a study. The fundamental behaviours of humans cannot always be
recognized. This can be due to the fact that it is easier for our attention to
go to unfamiliar behaviours, or the familiar behaviours might unintentionally
be ignored. Consequently, the data can be inaccurate without the researcher
knowing which brings us back to the matter of reliability and validity. As I
practiced observing human behaviour by looking through the lens of an alien, I
had noticed that it is hardly possible to unlink myself with other people. I
would always compare their behaviours with mine, and probably have ignored a
lot of behaviours that seemed normal to me. The notes I have recorded, mustn’t
have been reliable nor valid because I knew I had made interpretations my own
way based on my viewpoint and beliefs. I had realized that once these beliefs
are shaped and formed, others will no longer be logical, and it is almost
impossible to change them into another unless they make more sense.
In conclusion, without our own
humanity, I think it would not be possible to study human behaviour. For all in
all, whether it is our own or our groups’, I believe that we always interpret
behaviours comparing with our own, either consciously or unconsciously.
However, the danger of using our own humanity is that it can almost always be
biased. I don’t think that the bias will ever diminish, and studying human
behaviour without humanity is unlikely to succeed, so there will always be both
sides to every attempt. Nevertheless, in my view, despite that using our own
humanity is risky in terms of bias, it is also a great way to study human
behaviour if bias and limitations are fully taken into consideration.
Word Count: 1120
Good work, Misaki. There is a lot happening in this response, and I appreciate the way you've structured your paragraphs to control the complexity of your claims. You show that you're willing to take on three or four definitions at the same time, and you manage it well. So, I think your overall structure is good, and that your reasoning is holding the pieces together. If you want to rewrite or know what you should work on next, it's the material within the paragraphs that you can make into tighter, more elaborated, more accurate "ToK units." In terms of accuracy, consider your claim that the human sciences use only qualitative research. What about the experiments that researchers in psychology do? Are you not willing to call that quantitative? What about your IA? Isn't that quantitative. If you have a reason for not considering experimentation in psychology as "real" experiments, then provide the reasoning for the claim. I think there may be good justification for that claim, but it's a very strong claim that needs to be explained and argued. The reader won't know if you're being sloppy about terms or if you actually believe that there's no quantitative research in the human sciences. So, that's what I mean by accuracy. What I mean by "elaborated" is that your paragraphs do not go far enough in terms of fully explaining the claim, giving an example to illustrate, and then weighing the explanation and tying it all back to the question. When you bring up confirmation bias, for example, where is the example that illustrates this? You can't argue that confirmation bias might be at work without showing us how and why it enters the research process of the human scientist. And since you're talking about natural sciences, isn't confirmation bias a problem for them too? And by "tighter" I mean that each paragraph should have a clear purpose ( I think it's there in each intro sentence) and stay focused on that purpose until the end of the paragraph. Then at the end of the paragraph you need to tie it back to the question so we can see the progress that you've made by considering that approach. I'm telling you all of this because I think your definitions and reasoning are excellent, and I want you to develop paragraphs that exploit the excellent critical thinking that you've done on the question.
ReplyDelete