To what extent can we use humanity to study human behavior?

Joachim Dos Santos

TOK – Ms. Hunt

Blog Post – Summative

08/27/14

To what extent can we use humanity to study human behavior?

To start this off, humanity must be defined. “Humanity” is, according to the Oxford Dictionary, the quality or state of being human as well as having characteristics that only belong to human beings such as empathy for instance. Humanity is the apex of our evolution; as humans, we are the most advanced species on Earth – we have the ability to escape extinction.  Humanity is the future of this planet. Now, to what extent can we use that idea of our own humanity to ultimately study what we see as human behavior? Being human, we have a range and diverse set of behaviors that we tend to exhibit. Often, they are influenced by major factors such as culture, emotions, values, and persuasion.

While studying human behavior a question arises given that human sciences usually take on board a whole lot more baggage than the natural sciences: What methods can we ultimately use to make the study of human behavior accurate? Well, to an extent, we can use our own personal humanity. To examine and respond to this claim, lets first take examples from early colonization for instance. In the early 16^th century, discovery of the world was every European nation’s prime ambition. Now you might be wondering, what does this have to do with studying human behavior? Well, during the age of colonization, various ethnic groups often known as “natives” were observed. Throughout this process, information about the specific species, which were essentially humans, would be recorded as if they were animalistic figures. This plays an important role when studying the role of using our own humanity to study human behavior, due to the fact that if today we were to do such an experiment it would be indisputably unethical. However, the question remains – knowing that this way of experimenting would not function, could human behavior study in other ways, while still using our own humanity as a tool? Well, shifting to a more recent milieu, research professor Brené Brown discussed and examined the matter at hand. She has dedicated the ten past years to study psychological traits such as vulnerability, courage, authenticity, and shame. Brown recently took part of a TedTalk, which is entitled, Brené Brown: The power of vulnerability. The basic idea of her presentation is to demonstrate the question above – that to an extent, it is practical to use humanity to study humans and their behavior. Brown essentially used her own humanity to understand the causes of vulnerability. One could argue that if Brown had been completely objective to her studies, she would have not reached the same conclusions. In fact, the results might have been quite diversified.

Sigmuund Freud is an interesting figure to study and examine especially when dealing with human behavior and existence. Known as the founding father of psychoanalysis, Freud used in fact his own humanity to study other’s behavior. He primarily believed that human behavior was motivated by two motor instincts: the life and death instincts. Based on the Freudian Theory, the life instincts are those related to the basic needs for survival, pleasure and reproduction. Included in this realm is everything related to food, shelter, and love. Freud also suggests that all humans have an unconscious yearning for death, which are more commonly known as Freud’s death instincts. One example of this is self-destructive behavior. These conclusions were simply reached by observing and examining the behavior of several individuals, while keeping in mind his own humanity.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s epistolary novel “La Nausée” revolves around the idea of subjectivity and how it can be used to study human existence.  Subjectivity is, in essence, how our judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings. This of course directly correlates with the question at hand. Throughout his novel, Sartre considers subjectivity as a key thesis of existentialism – humans make themselves what they are: “subjectivity is a dignity of human beings, not something that degrades us”. Man exists, defining himself, and only afterwards does he define others. Hence, “If existentialism conceives a man indefinable, it is only because he is nothing” (Sartre). Throughout “La Nausée”, the existentialist author wants to display the unconditional importance of subjectivity and how it is crucial to studying human existence. There is however, a danger of using subjectivity and that is, confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is based on the idea that we have the tendency to seek out and ultimately trust information that could potentially confirm what we believe/want to believe. This poses a threat as it can strike first in the selection of what information to access, or whether to even access any outside information whatsoever. In terms of the human sciences, this will be an issue. To study one’s behavior, it is necessary to involve our own humanity, establishing a connection with what/who you’re studying. Therefore, to assert accuracy of the results, confirmation bias must be avoided, as it will flaw the experiment, especially as a human scientist.

Having studied all these different factors, we can ultimately deduce that using subjectivity and our own behavior is crucial to understanding human behavior. Through Brené Brown’s TedTalk, The Freudian Theory, and Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist philosophy, we can come to the conclusion that subjectivity is in fact, a positive element in the human sciences. However, for this to perfectly work dangers such as confirmation bias and attaining objectivity must be avoided. Failure to do so will lead in flawed conclusions and will be detrimental in the credibility of a human scientist. 

Word Count: 928