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

Lucile Simon

TOK

Block 1- Hunt

August 28^th, 2014

TOK Blog Post

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

            “Humaneness”: quirky word used to define what humanity is. It is also “the characteristics that belong uniquely to human beings”. “A particular area of study that relates to human behavior and society” says the Merriam-Webster about human sciences. Various, if not all, sociocultural aspects of the human species are studied within that subject area. At first glance, it contains a strange aspect: humans studying humans. Based on the pre-defined concept that human science is the study of human behavior, should our humaneness not be a key component to collecting data about the sociocultural aspect of our species? The truth is, there is no black or white answer to this question. The use of humanity in human sciences stands on a spectrum. Certain areas of the human sciences will require it more than others. In certain cases there will be benefits while others will cause problems. Thus, although our humanity may impede the study of human behavior in terms of factual information, non-biased attitudes and evaluation; it is a key to the way humans think and behave and is essential to grasp an understanding of human behavior.

            Studying human behavior using can be approached in several manners. The first one I would like to consider is the way that the absence of humaneness within human sciences can move research forward. Objectivity is significant to the various methods scientists use, such as observation or experiments. Why? Because as humans study each other, they must constantly consider the fact that the information they are recording should be based on a “blank slate” point of view. This signifies that if a European is going to be observing an African tribe, he cannot base his observation on European culture criteria. Instead of studying human behavior, that person will be categorizing it in relation to their own culture. Consequently, humanity can limit objectivity in certain cases. For example, economics could do without it. Indeed, their conclusions contain flaws in regards to the fact that certain outliers – like humans dying because they are working for the market– are sometimes ignored for the purpose of logic. Another way in which absence of humanity could benefit to the human sciences is this notion that there would be an absence of empathy. While empathy can be seen as a positive factor in many cases, the lack of it in studying economics or anthropology would help reach more objective conclusions, unclouded by the connections we make with others. One of the struggles in anthropology is not using your background to observe new cultures, so the fact we can empathize – understand based on things we know and feel – exists as a restriction.

            I now want to assess the limits of using our humanity, and even how we do not necessarily need it. Humaneness can allow for too much subjectivity, when it should be regulated. Conscious or not, subjectivity is a flaw to studying human behavior because our personal opinions and feelings can intrude the mindset with which we approach different aspects of our society. Take the confirmation bias hypothesis for example. According to this concept, humans have a tendency to look for or interpret information so that their argument is confirmed. Basically, we look for what will make our opinion right. In fact, the effect of the confirmation bias will be more prominent in emotionally charged situations or for deeply lodged beliefs. For example, it is unlikely that a die-hard catholic will be an anthropologist (unless they have a good understanding of cultural relativism) because their strong beliefs about their religion will impede their openness and ability to observe other cultures with radically different beliefs. Subjectivity and bias are also issues when it comes to psychology. For instance, consider Zimbardo’s experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment. The purpose was to study the psychological effect of becoming a guard or a prisoner. The experiment was intended to last for 14 days but only ended up lasting 6 days because of the proportions it took. Zimbardo lost control over the experiment and involved himself too deeply. His humanity, what makes him human, made him forget the experimental aspect of the study and his purpose. On another note, as F. Diane Barth beautifully phrases it in her article “Empathy, understanding and mirror neurons”: “Although I do understand what anger and a lot of other feelings feel like, what I really understand is what they feel like to me”. She condenses the limitation of empathy, subjectivity and bias in one sentence. Because really she is right, when someone talks to me I will only grasp a partial understanding of what he or she is feeling, simply because I only know what their feeling are like based on my personal knowledge and experience. Our humaneness in this situation hinders the study of human sciences, because a psychologist may not always be able to objectively make observations.

            While humanity has the potential to be a negative influence when studying human comportment, I want to jump to the other side of the spectrum. I find it important to assess how and why the characteristics that only belong to us, the human species, are actually necessary to human sciences. If it were a robot studying humans, it would never understand the complexity of the human emotions or mind because robots lack human characteristics. They lack emotions and traits such as empathy, kindness, bias or greed. Similarly, aliens –not that I have met any- would not be capable of understanding why humans act the way they do. In reference to the alien lens activity done in TOK class, I felt that –ignoring what I knew of humans – the conclusions I reached as I made my observations were so off and the behavior so misinterpreted that I reached the conclusion other species would not be capable of studying humans. For example, an alien who sees a human sitting on a chair, it may think “What on ___ (insert extrasolar planet name here) is this animal doing? He is sitting on top of another!” Although human scientists have to acknowledge that some facts and conclusions are subject to human subjectivity, emotions and thinking, it is true that because we are humans we understand humans better than any other species on or away from Earth. One of the methods in observing the way humans comport themselves is observation. While observation is the first step towards studying almost any type of subject matter really, it remains limited in the manner in which it leads to conclusions. Without appropriate background, faulty conclusions can be made. In the case of human sciences in relation to perception knowledge, humanity is the beginning of an appropriate background. By having a general sense of how humans are, it is easier to make hypothesis about what they do. Although I am no kind of human scientist, I am able to sometimes get an idea of how people feel or why they acted in a specific way towards something or someone. My human-way-of-thinking is what set me on the right track, regardless of how many times I have to take out rocks or obstacles. Based on this explanation, humanity is a key to the door of understanding human behavior.

            Let’s go back to the spectrum for a minute. I mentioned in the introduction that certain subcategories of human sciences require more humanity than others. The areas I chose to be relevant to this point are economics and psychology. So, let’s explore the different perspectives that these can offer. For an economist, it might be convenient to exclude humanity out of the equation when observing patterns and determining concepts. Because economics come from a much more material point of view, humanity is not as needed as in other areas of human sciences. However, economists also have a hard time with what is known as Ceteris Paribus. This terms refers to the idea that when a situation is considered, an economist will assume that every other factor except the one being studied will not change. This means that the human side of economy – a human science let us not forget– are not always taken into account. This is a major setback in studying human behavior because it is almost as if it was taken out of the equation. In an article written by F. Diane Barth for Psychology today, she mentions that when someone is sad, happy, or frustrated, our mirror neurons are triggered, and they are what enables us to feel what the other is feeling –more or less. As previously mentioned, they are only making us feel what we would experience if we were that person. So basically, mirror neurons are bothersome. They are tricky and can lead to faulty conclusions if we are unaware of our own bias and subjectivity.  

            Our humaneness is a key element to the way humans think and behave, it is essential to grasp an understanding of why and how humans comport themselves. Although it can obstruct certain aspects of the human sciences and the way they are studied; I believe it important to remember that it can be regulated, that human scientists are aware their humanity can be a hindrance and that it stands on a spectrum. Not all human sciences will be thwarted from reaching conclusions and producing data. Thus, because it is a key element, it is what enables us to understand each other, humanity should be used in human sciences with regulation based on what field is being studied.

Word: 1576