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

Nicholas Reinhart

8/28/14

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

When undergoing an experiment or research project to study human behavior, it is more important to use and involve our humanity in the study, than to withhold it. Despite the issues that were found with the  Stanford Prison experiment, Brene Brown makes the argument that it is necessary to use one’s own humanity why conducting an experiment in the human sciences.  It is a way in which we are able to connect with that society that allows us to study them more intensely and usually with a great understanding.

Brene Brown talk specifically about vulnerability in the TED talk we watched. However vulnerability is a very much a human emotion and cannot be quantified by any kind of measurement or standard. So how do you come to understand vulnerability? Then key, according to Brene Brown, is to connect with people, by interviewing them, and learning who they are and why they feel vulnerable about something at any given time. Using her own humanity allowed her to connect with these people and truly understand, and in the end even quantify, what is and what cause vulnerability. Brene Brown would not have been able to come to the conclusions she had if she had gone into this study withholding her humanity and simply trying to apply the scientific method or some other set of laws designed to explain what is happening within a human. The basic chemistry of what happens within the brain, would not be enough to unlocking the information she wanted.  When Brown was working on her doctorate, one of her research professors told her that "Here's the thing, if you cannot measure it, it does not exist." This statement can easily be applied to a great deal of things, and is true to the extent that you can measure things without a definitive quantitative perspective. Observing something and making note of it as qualitative data does signify measurement. However, there is a great deal, especially within the human mind, that simply can’t be measured or even explained. Instead we must start by forming a connection with the subject of our study and then try to initially further our understanding of it, and then finally try to quantify it in order to pass on the information to others.

The other side of this argument is supported by the results of the Stanford Prison experiment. In this experiment volunteers were either prisoners or guards in a fake prison located in the basement of the psychology building at Stanford. The prisoners were subject to intense mental and mental abuse. The experiment eventually got so out of hand to the point where a guard was going to torture a prisoner as punishment had the entire experiment not been called off. The primary issue, ignoring the clear human rights violations, was that the head of the experiment, Zimbardo, involved himself in it, and even played a role as the warden. By giving himself this direct role in the experiment, Zimbardo began to use his humanity. This lead him to losing sight of not only the purpose of the experiment, but also the critical situation he was entering into. In this instance involving his humanity was a poor choice. The experiment could have yielded better results in a less violent fashion. The aim of the experiment wouldn’t have been lost, and the moral boundaries that were crossed so severely may not have been so. Zimbardo essentially became lost in his own experiment by becoming intensely  connected with the subjects he was originally supposed to be studying.Unlike the case with Brene Brown, it would’ve been more effective to have removed himself from the experiment entirely, and instead have just been an observer.

Another danger one might encounter when involving one’s own humanity is confirmation bias. While involving one’s own humanity in an experiment there is potential to essentially get wrapped up in your own experiment, and then interpret things in a way that is beneficial or supportive of your hypothesis. While withholding one’s humanity, you can keep a neutral point of view, you emotions aren’t effecting the data you are receiving, adding credibility to you research. The issue lies in the fact that often in the human sciences it is necessary to involve one’s own humanity as a way of establishing a connection to someone or something and then being able to understand it. Some issues are simply lack a scientific explanation. Much like a joke. You can’t explain with math or science why a joke is funny, you instead just need to have that experience and understanding to find why that statement or pun is perceived as funny.

In conclusion, Involving our humanity in order to study human behavior ultimately is beneficial to those in the field of human sciences. However in order to maintain credibility it is always important to be careful of confirmation bias and to make sure focus is not lost as in the Stanford Prison experiment.