Question: To what extent should we use our own humanity to study human behavior?
As
I began brainstorming ideas for my response to the question, my first instinct
was to gather definitions to the terms “humanity” and “human behavior.” Little
did I know that this necessary procedure on most of my papers was in fact a
habit humans create to study human behavior. Definitions create boundaries and
limitations. Most often these limitations are seen as beneficial since they
establish a common ground for every individual to follow obediently according
to society. What does it even mean to cross boundaries or refute limitations?
Consequently, my first attempt to answer this question was quite frustrating.
Our difficulty separating emotion from the rest of our ways of knowing often
makes us unreliably and not objective. To some extent, our emotional attachment
to some “truths” leads us to believe on the confirmation bias, thus, unable us
to create multiple perspectives. For example, some citizens argue that our
criminal system is based on this form of gathering knowledge called induction. However,
our emotion intelligence is vital because of our self-consciousness. Arguably,
reason and emotion are the two most developed assets that humans posses. Our
emotionally system can be developed in the manner which we develop our emotion,
our physical reaction to the emotion and our emotionally reaction to the
emotion. The definition of human behavior is “the range of behaviors exhibited
by humans that are influenced by culture, values, ethics, emotions, persuasion
and genetics but some are acceptable, and some outside acceptable limits.”
Consequently, human’s understanding of emotion is important to observe human
behavior. Yet, the most striking part of the definition was the reference to
boundaries and limitations. This measurement of socially acceptance in society
has been integrated in our culture.
Independent of our origin or cultural background, each constitutes of a
group form a method to evaluate individuals and categorize them. This discovery
was made by my use of own personal instincts based on my humanity to study human
behaviors; therefore, it does bring value. In an objective point of view, the
alien activity showed the insignificance of our actions. Therefore, the study
of human behavior should have human qualities involved with it because it adds
meaning value.
On
the other hand, the study of humanity, which is the human race, or the “fact of
being a human” is threatened by our human behavior. While stumbling upon this
article in the New York Times, I immediately knew that it would fit in with the
question, “to what extent should we use our own humanity to study human
behavior?” The opinion article, what does
it mean to throw like a girl written by Eric Anthamatten criticizes the
stereotypes associated with women meeting men’s standards in sports. The two
distinctive ways of knowing used in this article are perception and language. The
question proposed by the author is: but why is it that her gender is the
“anomaly” that makes her talent media worthy? The dissertation of this question
was broken down into two categories: the physical aspect and the cultural
aspect. According to our perception, ability to be aware of our surroundings,
we concluded that the act of throwing is aggressive, thus, should not be
associated with the feminine culture. Since humanity is observed through human
performances and they are based on certain standards depending on gender, age
or even ethnicity. These bases, similar to definitions, create a platform that
we can measure how much we deviate from the standard or if we are capable of
fitting in with the norm. Moreover, we are not only capable of evaluating
ourselves, but also comparing the actions of others. Anthamatten claims “women
learn how to live in a patriarchal space as they are “physically handicapped.”
There is a certain exaggeration to this statement, however, women live in the
norms based on a patriarchal society but are not entirely deprived of
opportunities. Based on the definition
of handicapped as “having a condition that markedly restricts one’s ability to
function physically, mentally or socially,” women are not restricted.
Therefore, if the language of this statement seems invalid since the premises
do not support the claim, this is not the explanation of stereotypes regarding
women.
The
expression, “you throw like a girl,” is an insult to the majority of young
boys. Behind this common insult, studies show that girls tend to focus
more on the hand and forearm on their body instead of using the rest of the
body or space to execute the throw. Therefore, it is clearly not a measure of
strength but the utilization the entire body and space. However, this small
examples greater a bigger conflict as “the space that surrounds in our
imagination and ensure that we are not free to move beyond.” Consequently, a
common phrase like that has become part of our culture and habit that
distinguishes the standards of a proper girl’s throw. If the roles were
reversed, would a young boy that pitches a 70-mile-per-hour fastball be on the
cover of Sports Illustrated and several major television networks? The game
that revealed the young talented child was the most-watched Little League game
in ESPN; yet, it was not popular due to the impressive achievements of the
child, but because of her gender. Therefore, the question returns of whether
the achievement was profound based on her gender that made her media worthy?
Women tend to be restricted of the mind and will. Connecting with the
importance of using our human instincts and vices to understand human behavior
is flawed during this case. We fail to recognize an extraordinary triumph of
the athlete, instead, emphasize her gender and peculiarity based on women’s
standards. Another important concept in
the field of economy is the Hawthrone Effect. The subject of matter, people, are
using perception to their advantage, thus, the use of humanity is not gathering
the realistic human behavior. The Hawthorne Effect happens when humans change
their behavior when they know that they are being observed. This happens when
people are seeking for evidence to justify the answer in which they believe
in. By simplifying the results, it is not an accurate depiction
of reality or makes your claim reliable. Annathamatten also analyzes the
language used to describe athletes as “inhuman or the animal—“freak,”
“beast,”—more so when it comes to black athletes. Further, athletes become an
object of capital.” Ceasing to be individuals, athletes are broken down into
stats.
The implication of accepting one
definition as it was introduced in the first paragraph forces a person to
become part of only one group. In reality, our world is interconnected and
people belong into several groups, even if they are not aware it. After the
much debate results of the World Cup, Brazilians targeted their reputation as
the country of soccer. Several writers opposed the idea and suggested embracing
the identity of a “stray dog” by lacking any bound ties to a specific category,
such as soccer, and becoming part of several areas of expertise. We do not have
to be categorized based on our beliefs, looks or actions, instead, we can have
multiple connections and this complicates generalizations. The difficulty in
this human science is because we are always observing based on our previous
knowledge. Humans are never objective because of other factors based on our
ways of knowledge that prevents this from happening. In this human science, it
can corrupt the overall data since you can't control all of other factors. It
neglects outliers and you can't generalize. If you cannot generalize, you don't
have knowledge because you lack data. Multiple perspectives are not
acknowledged.
Avoiding using our ways of
knowing when observing human behavior is challenging and improbable. For
example, Brene Brown struggled to act against her emotions and concentrate solemnly
on her objective: to study human behavior. Did the results occur according to
her previous experience or knowledge? The story knowledge that was gathered
based on people’s use of humanity to try to understand their social behavior
seemed more valuable then the “alienist perspective” of purely objectifying.
Since meaning is only presented by the use of our own humanity towards our
actions, we must not isolate it when researching. Definitions must be flexible
as languages progress over time adapting to the evolving human behavior.
Word Count: 1,375
Nabila, nice work! Yours is the most original of all the responses I've read. You have found you own way to approach the question- through the idea of selection and framing--and that allows you to explore the really interesting example you found. You have plenty of ideas and write as if the question matters. These strengths make for a fascinating response. There are, however, a few things that you need to do to make your post more successful: 1) Although you have a sense of voice, your ideas are not expressed clearly because you lack audience awareness. You'll need to edit every sentence (read aloud!) so that what it actually says to a reader is what you actually mean. This is a slow process, but trust me--when you're done you'll be so happy you did it. The trick is to match a strong writing voice to a strong sense of what the reader is actually hearing you say; that's what will take you into the top category, into "compelling." And second, you need to use more of the concepts and terms from ToK, more specifically from the human sciences in your response. You have talked about how we "view" other humans, and have gone into a lot of interesting detail about that, but are "viewing" and even "judging" others' behaviors the same thing as "the study" of human behavior? You've got to find a way to bring your whole discussion into the fold of the human sciences.
ReplyDelete