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

Rafaela Sabó

In order to evaluate whether or not we should use our own humanity to study human behavior, we first need to have a good notion of what types of things, ideas, ways of thinking, etc. categorize themselves as our own humanity. It is also important to categorize the purpose of each behavioral study, whether it be personal or informational, and assess the values and limitations of objectivity and subjectivity in investigating humans, and which approach could be more effective in specific areas of human behavioral studies.

There are many different approaches to studying human behavior, such as through experiments, questionnaires, or data collection through observation, but studying human behavior does not necessarily mean that the observer is trying to gather information to prove a theory; after all, not only human scientists study humans. This is where personal and informational studies differ. As curious beings, we are constantly studying human behavior through observation. Though you may not immediately associate it to behavioral studies, when you watch someone as they pass you in the hallway and make an observation, or even judge the way they walk or dress, or even a phrase they said, you are observing their behavior and describing it just as a human scientist would. The only difference is that you are not observing them in order to test a hypothesis, you are, however, doing so based on what you think is right and wrong, and ultimately based on your own humanity. To you, wearing sweatpants may be inappropriate and tacky because at home you learned that those were “stay-at-home” clothes, but through past experience, the person wearing them may have learned that those are the most effective pants to keep you warm and comfortable during the winter. In this instance, both persons’ individual humanities influenced their personal outfit choices and the way they reacted toward each other’s. Now, what exactly is our own humanity? Our humanities are reflections of how our experiences have shaped our ways of thinking and seeing the world. Ultimately, they are our schemas, or the knowledge we use when entering a situation. This knowledge is highly subjective, for it is directly affected by how we were raised, our socioeconomic status, our emotion, the education we received, our customs and culture, our religion, and even our language, among other things. What is difficult to realize, however, is that the degree of subjectivity with which we observe things in both personal and informational studies can be very limiting when used for studying someone’s behavior.

Our personal outlook on the world is affected by hundreds of factors that affect our perception, or our way of interpreting what is around us. Language, for example, has a huge impact on our perception because each language determines how we live our lives. The English language runs on the metaphor that “time is money”, now while this may seem like a miniscule statement, it actually dictates part of how we live because extending from that one metaphor comes phrases that we live by: “waste of my time” or “I’m running on borrowed time”. These phrases make us inclined to believe that everything must be done efficiently and with a purpose, but is that to say that all societies run that way? No, which is why our own humanities can be so limiting. How can we rely solely on our humanities if it sets up our thinking in a particular manner, making it the only way we really know how to observe something? We can, but we should not. We should use our schemas effectively in human behavioral studies. While for personal studies it may not really matter, though it may make you judge someone unfairly, when trying to prove a theory about human behavior, using your schema effectively plays a huge factor in the reliability of your study, because then any other human scientist will be able to reach the same results as you did.

The human sciences are an extremely complex area of knowledge that rely heavily on assumptions and interpretations of patterns in the various areas of study, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics, all of which study human behavior, though each in different contexts. Human scientists in each field use their own humanities in individual ways to give their data more credibility. Looking at things very objectively, the human sciences can be considered less reliable that the natural sciences, because the natural sciences are very objective and their evidence very concrete, while the human sciences are quite the opposite. This however, cannot be considered completely true, for the human sciences, like the natural sciences, use the scientific method, so they approach truth just as much as the natural sciences. Philosopher Thomas Kuhn also states that science can never truly be objective because scientific knowledge is simply knowledge of the nature of objects, as we perceive them, therefore conveying that both sciences are limited. In human sciences, however, no evidence or results from human behavioral studies can ever be 100% concrete because it is impossible to take into consideration all aspects of someone’s humanity to explain why they are acting the way they are. In psychology, even though nowadays we have functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that measures brain activity by detecting changes in blood flow, no technology available is able to tell scientists if the person’s behavior is being affected by their morals, a past experience they had, or any other number of factors that could affect them. This makes the data collected a lot harder to interpret objectively because the scientist must make assumptions and educated inferences to come to a conclusion. This, however, does not mean that the human sciences are less valid than the natural sciences; it is just a means of justifying the scientists’ use of their own humanity. In the Stanford Prison Study, for example, the prisoners often conformed to their roles and did as they were told by any of the prison guards. The psychologist behind the study, Philip Zimbardo, took note of this pattern and drew conclusions from his observations, but he cannot be completely sure of why the prisoners acted this way. In this case, Zimbardo had to use his own humanity to try to explain why the volunteers were acting in such manners; he had to apply the knowledge he already had about hierarchy and inferiority to make generalizations about human behavior. Though the study cannot be deemed 100% accurate, it is still considered to be a major study that demonstrates the obedience of people and the power of authority.

All in all, it is appropriate to use our own humanity to study human behavior for personal studies in most situations because each person has different morals, so no one can tell them when it is or is not appropriate to judge someone. For informational studies (meaning studies conducted by human scientists in order to prove a theory), however, our humanity should only be used to a certain extent. As seen through the Alien Lens activity, when you observe a society strictly objectively, you often misinterpret everything, leading to inconclusive information. You can’t disregard humanity, not yours, and not anyone else’s, which is why you must use your humanity effectively. In order to get conclusive data from your studies you must try to use your own humanity to understand everyone else’s, but must use it only to a certain extent so your personal bias does not interfere with your observations. What this means is that you should not use your humanity to judge people based off what you think is normal or abnormal, but should use the knowledge you already have to make assumptions that you can adapt to the culture that is being observed. So, for example, if you were studying the Karen Hill Tribe of Thailand, rather than simply label their customs, such as wearing neck rings, abnormal, you would use your humanity to try to understand its significance. Of course not only our humanity will be able to explain its significance; we must still use the various types of approaches to draw conclusions. Together with other approaches, personal humanities can help human scientists in their field of work, but only when used without letting their judgment interfere with the results.

Word count: 1375