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

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

            Initially, I found the wording of the prompt very intriguing. Words and phrases like “should we”, “own humanity”, “study” and “human behavior” are opened questions with subjective analysis and implied meanings. In determining what constitutes as human behavior, it’s important to focus on the implications of the word “study”. It seems that the question does not simply mean observing human behavior or drawing conclusions regarding human behavior, but studying human behavior. It implies perhaps a greater significance about the human behavior and the use of extensive data or knowledge to reach a formalized opinion. The formality and extensiveness of study implied in the question leads to the area of knowledge of human sciences.

            Of course, human sciences are not all human behavior; human sciences focus on aspects of human behavior. However, the importance of human sciences when dealing with this prompt is the systematic study aspect that is crucial to all fields within human sciences. In a situation when human scientists employ systematic methods to study, observe and express their findings (going into the realm of shared knowledge), what is the role of our own humanity? Where does our “humanness” stand when studying about our own selves?

            Instead of giving a clear cut definition, the TOK textbook explains human sciences as an area of knowledge that takes into account a wide range of disciplines and is characterized by multiple perspectives that shed light on different sides of the human. However, before that it’s important to distinguish a question from the prompt. The prompt asks the extent we should use our own humanity. The question I’d like to mull over is to what extent do we use our humanity. The extent to which humanness is involved in any kind of study really differs based on the area of knowledge and even the different fields within an AoK. With math that is governed by numbers, equations, inputs and outputs, the involvement of human factors is lower compare to that of the arts and human sciences. In human sciences, we are not dealing solely with numbers that exhibit consistent patterns and behaviors. Human scientists are dealing with unique and different humans. Because of this, information are taken directly from humans through interviews, close studies, and observations. However in such processes, language, sense perception are used extensively. There is an element of “personalness”, individuality and loss of clarity in language and even in the very essence of perception, especially seeing. The carpentered world hypothesis suggests that humans have inclinations towards certain orientation as a result of their culture and background. In questionnaires used in psychology, the way a question is phrased can elicit different answers from participants. Even in observation that is used so extensively in anthropology and psychology, what becomes the basis of our observations? In the participant observation method used in anthropology, what should be the mediating point between the observations of the anthropologists and the statements by the observed group themselves? In the film The Gods Must Be Crazy, bushman Xi attempts to reason in his own way the things he perceived. He had thought the goat boy ran off to bring his family, as was perhaps a common thing in Xi’s culture, when in fact the boy went to call the police. Even in the alien len’s activity, there are the limitations of sense perception and observation. The idea of schema controls how we reason and perceive with our senses and language. Humanity, defined as “the quality or state of being human”, is certainly involved starting from the beginning steps of human sciences when the individual relies on his or her schema to record the observation or answer questions in an interview. While the obvious clear answer to the question proposed in this paragraph is a yes, it’s important to realize why. In a “systematic” study, why do we allow for objective factors? Well, there are no other ways to better collect information about humans than to interact with humans and study from them directly despite the complex web of variables.

Despite the largely qualitative aspects in human sciences, there has been more movements towards quantitative data. In fact, social sciences are increasingly relying on mathematics now. We are beginning to quantify human behavior through numbers, visualize our economic activities in terms of supply and demand curves, limit our potential to produce to perhaps arbitrary curvilinear graphs. We are beginning to regulate our studies through more manageable and universally acceptable manners. In economics, such efforts are evident. In psychology the idea of behaviorism fights against the subjectivity of introspective methods and approaches the study of consciousness through science. Similar to science, psychology attempts to gain credibility through huge quantities of observations and interviews. Psychology in fact incorporates neurobiology to explain the science of the brain that affects human sciences. In the case of economics, the simple idea of supply and demand, the sinuous curve of the business cycle that expresses the peaks and troughs of the economy are used extensively in the real world. In fact, all students who learn economics learn to graph and draw diagrams. It seems as if the study of human sciences can sufficiently flourish with no “humanness”. This aspect of the human science increases the universality of the knowledge, enabling knowledges to enter into the shared knowledge world.

The increase in these types of observations seems to suggest that there is a inherent quantitative property in humans, that we can record human behavior in a universally acceptable way. What does this say as quantitative data in the process of gaining knowledge? It has certainly provided us with a common ground for the flow of information, but should this be a groundbreaking, superior method than the subjective humanity approach? Perhaps the increase in this method is just a result of the development of better and more accurate technology, not necessarily indicative of a superior method.

Despite the strength and the solidifying credibility qualitative data adds, the purpose of the human sciences have to be considered as well. Maybe, qualitative aspects of humans are not enough to understand humans. In the textbook, human sciences is described as a combination of story-knowledge and map-knowledge. There is a need for both the personal, individual knowledge, which can then be extrapolated to a wider knowledge, often times expressed qualitatively. In fact even economics, which seems to be the most number-reliant study in human sciences, has its foundation on assumptions. The idea of ceteris paribus, that all things are equal besides the variables being discussed, is highly inapplicable to our world. Schema also comes into play when economists assume that humans will make rational choices that will go with their self-interest. Rational economic choices are different from morally, socially “correct” choices; these assumptions assume that economic wealth is the objective of all actors in economics. Such assumptions are laid down to effectively deal with the wide variables possible. If the purpose of human sciences is to provide a wide applicability, numerical methods may be more effective, but in human behaviors, where so many complexities are involved, it would be needed for a way to deal with the web of variables.

We often run into these webs of variables when we apply human sciences to real life situations. In economics, the theories and assumptions become shaky when faced with human factors. In the real world, the purpose of economics change when in face with politics. Good economics is not necessarily good politics. However, should the US government abandon the solar panel workers just because the US solar panel market is weaker than the Chinese’s market? Shouldn’t the government realize the devastation that displaced workers will experience if there are no protectionists plan to protect these workers? Aren’t the personal involvement and emotional consequences part of human behavior as well? In politics, the purpose is to work towards what is best for its citizens. When studying economics with politics, shouldn’t this humanity and empathy almost imperative? Brene Brown’s TED talk about vulnerability also illustrates the need and power of humanity when studying psychology. Brown initially started off her quest to conquer vulnerability as psychologist and find a remedy to overcome that. She approached the research as any psychologist would, through hundreds of interviews, intense analysis to generate a common factor and with the purpose to “control and predict,” as she said. She lacked a “human” approach to the phenomena. Upon realizing that the way to overcome vulnerability is to embrace it, she was devastated. The irony-like irony was not acceptable to her. This factor, this connection that she had not anticipated could not be understood by her. Or at least in her analytical, answer-demanding view point. She reached out to others and a therapist to find an answer to the phenomena, why some felt less worthy than others. At this point, the research goes beyond qualitative grounds, but real human connection and understanding. She probably had the right answer in front of her, that fighting vulnerability is to embrace it, but that knowledge did not and could not have the significance it later had once she understood as a human. She began to understand the phenomena from the candid, individual responses from people to the question what vulnerability is. There were no numbers, ratings, scales involved. To her, vulnerability was “being turned down”, “asking someone out” and “waiting for the doctor to call back.” Brown demonstrated the power of humanity and how humanity can be used to enhance one’s knowledge to a new, relatable level, employing a way of knowing that I can perhaps label as “human connection.” The best way I can describe this is something that lies within the logical and emotional combination of us humans that is neither entirely qualitative nor quantitative. Brown’s experience is fascinating because it’s representative of perception of a researcher and a non-researcher. Which other method of knowing can we employ that can encompass the complexities of human behavior than humans ourselves? Perhaps humanity is the best way when the purpose is to simply understand human phenomena as a whole, not into broken down aspects, framed by theories or limited by diagrams.

Of course there are limitations to using humanity as a way of knowing. Humanity is perhaps most powerful when it has its applicability, which in turn can also be its fault. If its too universal, its applicability would fail to understand the minority. Who would understand, for example, the gross crimes of criminals? There seems to be a payoff between the depth of humanity involved and the applicability.

All the discussion above goes back to the original idea. Is using our humanness the best way to understand humans? A balance is needed between humanity and other more “objective” knowledge. However, it is important to realize how fundamental humanity is even within the more “objective” human sciences subject. Also, there are degrees of varying humanity involved that changes depending on the purpose behind. Is the purpose wide applicability or focusing on one variable or trying to understand things as a whole? Humanness can come in when we cannot tackle the intricacies of life and human, when we cannot simply quantify our thoughts, and when we simply cannot express ourselves in any other way besides understanding and empathy.