Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Human Sciences

Please respond to two or more of the following questions.

1. The following anonymous statement is oft quoted, "Under the most rigourously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases." How does this quote affect, inform, or question your views on Human behaviour and the how it is studied? With this quote in mind, can human behaviour be studied using the Scientific Method?

2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.


42 comments:

  1. 4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    Of course it is? Humans are absolutely terrible at recognizing their own behavior and so much of it is reflexive and ingrained in us that most people couldn't communicate why we do things like a certain tone of voice or the way we glance at someone or tilt our head. I'm sure there are things I don't even know we do that we do and subconsciously mean something, in general though I'm aware of body language being something I'm aware I speak but don't understand how. We don't understand ourselves. So while I know we have intentions we think there are and they should be listened to, you have to go past that.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    He's implying we DO understand them. Which is... so wrong the human brain is largely unexplored, unresearched, and un-understood. If we understood our brains, no one would ever have those oh so common "why did I walk in here" or "WHY DID I DO THAT IM SO STUPID" moments. Moreso, we would understand the full extent as well as how to fully correct mental disorders. We do not understand our brains yet. But I don't think that necessarily means we are simple. It'll just take some time before we can get there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.
    Language is extremely key in our understanding and perception of the question given to us; every person approaches a question differently based on certain words or the grammar of the given question. This is vital when polling for statistics, for the results can be skewed if the question is not asked accurately. In statistics, we emphasize the question asked and whether or not it will cause a biased result, especially with controversial topics. The caution is not limited to statistics, and can also be applied for natural sciences as well. Language is important when researching a particular topic; the implications of the study should match with the studies of other scientists and compare easily. The size and distance to objects and complexity of the nature observed are all subjective to how the individual describes it. Furthermore, language is extremely prominent in human sciences, such as psychology; one can understate their own mental state and not receive the correct amount of medical attention. Hence, the influence of language on both natural science and human sciences can change how a study or person is perceived.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    Puzo is implying that we would not be able to understand our brains even if it were simple, for the simplicity would, in turn, make us too dumb to even understand that. Furthermore, Puzo is also implying that it is highly unlikely to truly understand how our brains function by science. In order to understand something, we must be able to exist outside of it. We may be able to understand the basic functions of our body, but the extent of which we truly understand is limited, with scientists always discovering more. Since we cannot step outside of our brains and be separated from it, we will never understand the true meaning and mechanism of the brain that allows us to understand and analyze.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    There are several implications within this claim. In our knowledge now of the human brain, we are vastly behind and most likely will forever be behind in completely understanding our brains. The human brain is a complex organism in which we might never be able to truly understand, because if we were able to completely understand the brain, we would be able to completely understand the actions of all humans, which we will never be able to do. This claim implies that no matter how complex or how simple our brains are, we will never be able to fully understand the workings of our brain and human behavior.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    It is very unreasonable to explain human behavior absent of justification and reason. The human brain is so ridiculously complex in that justification could be false and a lie, or simply someone could truly think they are doing a certain action for a reason but subconsciously they have ulterior motives. However, no matter how unreliable justification is, trying to observe human behavior with no perception of reason is next to impossible because no one is able to fully predict or understand the human mind and all the variables that could affect someone into doing a certain action.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    Puzo is saying that if our brains were less than they are now, then that would affect our intelligence, further limiting our understanding of the human mind. We cannot truly understand ourselves because our brains are more complex than our actual intelligence. True, ideas and occurrences are easier to understand if they are simplified but we cannot simplify the human brain because we cannot remove ourselves from our existence. However ironically, if we could simplify our brains we would be to dumb to understand the reason. Puzo's claim is true and sheds a light on the probability that we will never truly know all there is to know.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    Human behavior and human intention contrast one another yet can not be independent. While we may think human intention dictates our emotions and behavior, our behavior may have more of an effect on our intentions. After all actions speak louder than words. Historically, U.S involvement in many wars on account of peace and democracy may have the good intention to help, yet human behavior dictates the actual outcomes of those certain occupations. However much we wish behavior and intentions could be easily controlled they are not independent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain
    It is indeed reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what they say they do it for. I have noticed that people tend to lie or exaggerate things that they think are a big deal but know others will not find it such. So if someone says they did something because of _____ then that could be a lie or an exaggeration. Of course, often times a human will tell the truth about why they do something, but the times they don't are more valuable to studying humans.

    3. The implications of Marios statement are that a lot of animals are not complex enough to understand their own brains, that humans are simple because we do not understand the entirety of the brain, and that one day we might not be simple.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 2. Language is highly subjective and thus altering language even slightly can have an immense influence on people’s perception. Often times, organizations purposefully write questionnaires in a convoluted way in order to skew results. Using euphemisms or exaggerations can alter someone’s response. For example, when we took a survey in class, more people agreed with the death penalty when it was referred to as capital punishment. Because ‘capital punishment’ sounds less harsh, people answered the question differently. Thus, in the human sciences, language plays a key role in influencing people’s responses. While less intrinsic, in the natural sciences, language still plays a key role. On a science exam, everyone has experienced difficulty answering a question because of the way it was worded. However, in terms of numbers and mathematics within the natural sciences, language does not play a large role. In that sense, one could argue that language is less influential in the natural sciences.

    3. Mario Puzo’s assumption that “if our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them,” assumes that we fully understand the brain now. This is untrue. While scientists know a great deal about the brain, they do not know everything. Much of what they know is based on assumption and our principles of science. However, this could be untrue. Furthermore, we do not intrinsically understand the brain: it is something that must be learned. Most people without a science degree do not know much about the brain as it is. For that reason, Puzo’s claim is not necessarily accurate. In the generalized sense, it is true that we have advanced brains that allows us to be more intelligent that many other species. However, it does not mean that everyone is born understanding the complexity of the brain.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what people claim are their intentions. Why or why not? Explain.
    To begin, no it is not reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviors only based on their intentions. Individuals intentions can be hidden in numerous ways. The brain is so complex that it would be next to impossible to have a completely accurate observation. Human behavior and human intentions are two completely different things, making it extremely hard for people who are interpret it. One's actions can say/mean differently than what one is trying to intend.
    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo’s claim that “if our Brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them”?
    I believe that Mario Puzo is saying that no matter what, we will never be able to fully understand the human brain because of how complex it is. Even if we were to simplify our brain, we still would not be able to understand it, due to “dumbing” ourselves down.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2. Language used in polls and questionnaires is often biased, as the surveys are written by people who have a natural bias, whether aware of it or not. Even if the person is convinced that they are entirely neutral, they will write with a subconscious bias. In summary, to not write with any bias at all is extremely difficult and almost impossible in some cases. Therefore, the results that stem from these polls/surveys will have a bias as well, as the questions made are targeted more towards one group than the other. Yes, there is undoubtedly the same influence in science research. Scientists gather research and consciously/subconsciously gather information that benefits the conclusion they desire rather than what is realistic. I believe that the extent of the influence is attributed to the degree of certainty in these fields. In my perspective, when these sciences, surveys, and experiments are considered, they seem as though they should be exact, non biased, and purely scientific. However, in many cases, this is untrue and the information collected/given is largely biased.

    4. I believe that it is reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of people’s claims/explanations. All human behavior ultimately boils down to each individual’s natural needs and the means they go through to fulfill them. If an accurate representation of a human and a human’s needs were understood beforehand, then I believe it would be entirely reasonable to try and understand what a person was doing without further explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. The following anonymous statement is oft quoted, "Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases." How does this quote affect, inform, or question your views on Human behaviour and the how it is studied? With this quote in mind, can human behaviour be studied using the Scientific Method?

    This quote sheds light on Human behavior, as I do believe that humans are becoming increasingly indolent, and do whatever they feel will keep them from doing the most work. The fact that humans do whatever they please is true to the extent that humans are limited in their surroundings and motivation, which is an interesting topic of human behavioral study. Human behavior could absolutely be studied via the scientific method, though it is very hard given the rules the method provides. The quote itself gives an improbable concept- the perfect variables. Try as we might we could never manage to get everything in the perfect condition at the perfect time- 100% of the time. It isn't impossible, however just very unlikely. We accept error and must face facts as slightly flawed- since perfection is nearly impossible. The scientific method has been used to study human behavior before, and has given satisfactory results.


    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    This quote implies that even if our minds were simple, we still wouldn't understand them. We have very complex brains, and yes, we don't understand much about them. There is the obvious implication that if we were that simple it would be as a result of our simple minds, which control the thoughts we have about our minds. ~Inception moment over~

    ReplyDelete
  11. 3. This quote implies that if human brains were simple, consequently human beings would be too simple and dumb to understand them. In reality we do not know all there is to know about brains, and much of what we know may be false or inaccurate. In reality, there is still a vast amount of information to be learned about brains and the human mind. Since human beings are relatively complex creatures, it is understandable that our brains would also be complicated and not fully understood.

    2. Language is key in how we understand and perceive a question given to us. Everybody perceives statements differently based upon slight grammatical and structural differences in the sentence. Also, even if a statement or question appears to be neutral, it is likely biased and will consequently result in a certain type of response from different people. Scientists acquire information and research that they believe will be beneficial to the conclusion they are trying to prove. Therefore, in obtaining their information, they might be biased in only selecting the information that they believe will help support what they think the conclusion will be.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    The human brain is an incredibly complex organ in our body that plays a greater role than we think. If one really thinks about, our hole perception of the universe comes from this tiny little thing that interprets the information and data. Naturally, something on this scale is going to be complex and intricate. But this complexity exist for a reason, to make us smarter. The human body doesn't keep what it doesn't use. If we don't use a particular muscle, it grows weak and feeble. It is the same with our brain. The more we think, the more complex and stronger it grows. If it was to be made simple, as a sort of reflection, we would become more simple as well.

    2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

    The language used in polls can affect the way we perceive the question that is being asked. For example, if one framed the Iraq war as an attack or a humanist intervention, we would expect different answers to it. It sets the definitions to a question that could make a person more inclined to agree with their side. While some poles are just dishonest (Cnn), many of the makers just forget to leave out their opinions and perspective, which will naturally slant people towards their side, regardless of what they actually believe. Part of this does exist in the sciences, but they are supposed to leave their opinions out of the cold hard facts, so they can be sure the answers they are receiving, are correct. But being supposed to something is quite different than actually doing it. The main impact the type of langue used is the value we associate with it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. The following anonymous statement is oft quoted, "Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases." How does this quote affect, inform, or question your views on Human behavior and how it is studied? With this quote in mind, can human behavior be studied using the Scientific Method?

    This quote just further pushes the idea that humans can be, and are, so selfish at times and just choose do what they please. As humans, a lot of the time we fail to take the other side into consideration when making a choice or fail to see how our actions affect those around us. Instead we just do what we want to. Humans are very self-centered and we always have been. Just take a look at what is going on in the world around us when it comes to climate change. Instead of dealing with it before it is directly in front of us, some people choose to negate it until it is kicking down their door. Humans are so focused on what is best for themselves in the moment and what is right in front of them, that we tend to forget about the consequences and the big picture. This quote says that if all the conditions were controlled, but in life there is no way to control all of those variables. This would make it hard to study Human behavior by using the Scientific Method. It can be done, and it has been done, but it would be harder due to all of the outside influences on why humans react and behave the way that the do.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    Puzo claims that we will never be able to understand how our brain works and why it does the things it does. It is actually quite scary when you think about the fact that you will never understand the thing that controls everything you do and you will never be able to control it. Even today with all of our known information and our technology, there is still so much about our brain that is unknown. As the quote says, even if our brains were simple we still would not be able to understand it. Our brains are so complex that even if they were simple they would still be too complex for us. Personally, I do not think we will ever be able to truly and completely understand how our brain works and why it does what it does just because there are so many variables that come into play.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    I believe that it is reasonable to explain human behavior and human intention independently. Intentions are the motivated behind our actions. One can have great intentions but their behaviors might not correlate. One does not have the ability to predict your intentions but they can observe them through your behavior. There are so many things that we think and do that we do not know we are even doing.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    Mario Puzo is implying that we will never understand the complexity of our brains. If our brains were simple we would not have the ability to understand them because there are always things that we will not understand especially if the thing that allows us to understand them are simple. Our brains will always be more complex than our ability to understand them.


    ReplyDelete

  15. 2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.
    The language used in polls often affects the way that people respond to them. For instance, people might respond to questions about themselves differently depending on the phrasing. Additionally, the number of options or responses often affects the answers people give. If there is not enough of a spectrum or if the words given to respond have multiple interpretations on what they imply it will affect how the person answering sees them. This can happen in the natural science because the natural science often study things that change in response to how they are studied. For example, the way that a scientist may study an animal in the wild can affect the way the animal acts or the observations that the scientist makes. This example is affected because to the way that the human behaves. Natural science can escape these problems at times by studying things without the influence of humans, such as through the use of cameras or other devices. Language in polls, however, does not often affect the natural sciences because the natural sciences does not often use polls. The equivalent for natural science would be lab procedures. Lab procedures need to use precise and straightforward words in order to have different people perform the same task repeatedly with the same results. Often the natural sciences are not seen as being affected by language because they are seen as being outside of the influence of uncertainty, unlike the human science which is often seen as variable or unreliable.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    It is unreasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what people claim are their intentions. Often people do things that seem ridiculous upon first glance but make more sense after hearing their justifications. The justifications or intentions for people's actions are what make up the science of human behavior. To ignore the intentions is to simply focus on the natural sciences side of humanity and just look at why certain muscles do certain things at certain times. To truly look into the complexity that is the human race, one must examine the intentions along with the actions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    The brain is where our thoughts originate from, and if our brains were simple, then we would not be able to form complex thoughts. Also, our brains would be even too simple to form or comprehend any thoughts at all. Humans are intelligent because our brain is capable of creating complex thoughts, react, store memory, etc. Every thought and movement is controlled by the brain, and our brains are what makes us intelligent.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    It is reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions because human behaviour is almost always unpredictable. Most of the time, people do things that are not exactly their original intentions. There are many other factors that attribute to what someone does despite what they say their intentions are, such as their feelings or intuition.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    Mario Puzo is implying that the brain is a reflection of who we are as humans. We know that we have a complicated brain with many different moving parts to acommodate. As humans we need complicated brains to do complicated things and if we had simple brains we would not be able to complete as much and expand our knowledge.

    Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.

    Yes and no. People can claim to be acting one way, but it could be perceived by someone else to have other intentions. Also, someone may lie about their intentions which can make it very difficult to truly understand human behavior. It is always fascinating to try and fully understand the natural behavior of a person, but can be made difficult if someone denies their perceived intention. A counter to this would be to watch multiple people and watch them as they perform similar or unique behaviors.


    ReplyDelete
  18. 1. The implication that this quote is trying to make is that there is no environment controlled enough that you would be able to predict the behavior and reactions of an organism within it. Living things are too complex and adaptable for all possible variables to be accounted for. This, to some extent, aligns with my opinions on human behavior, in that it is too fluid and self-aware to ever be accurately predicted. That said, I think that the implication of controlling all the minutia of an environment, as is stated, is completely the wrong way of looking at human behavior. Because there are too many variables to ever be accounted for, it must be studied holistically, as a product of the ever changing factors involved. If the factors are more generalized, and not so specific as the environmental features listed in the statement, human behavior can be studied using the scientific method. It might be more prudent, however, to study human behavior in the face of other human behavior, instead of as a response to the physical environment. In terms of environment, we do not differ all that much from animals. Our social responses are humankind's unique attribute.

    4. It is reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what people claim are their intentions, to an extent. This is firstly for the rather simple reason that people lie. Proclaimed intentions aren't necessarily trustworthy, especially if a person's character is in question due to previous actions. Additionally, they may not be consciously lying, but rather subconsciously convincing themselves of something that is not true to comfort themselves. In the above cases, where intentions are not true, human behavior can be explained independently of claimed intention. In other cases, such as in anthropological studies, it might be overly complicated to try to decipher some convoluted purpose out of an obscure ritual, and the truth may in fact be closer to the claimed intention. In these cases, studying the behavior independently of the intention simply overcomplicates it and may come to a conclusion which is not entirely accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.
    Language can be used in polls to appeal to certain groups or persuade people to select one option over another, and thus influence its conclusions. Sophisticated vocabulary that only well-educated people can understand is an example of using language to manipulate the polls and appeal to upper social classes that have the time and money for high levels of education. Questions can also written to sway a person one way or another. For example, in a survey about environmental concern, a question might say "Do you care that carbon emissions are endangering animals, destroying ecosystems, causing human health issues, and doing irreparable damage to the planet?" By listing all the negative effects of carbon emissions, the survey steers the participant to answer affirmatively. This influence of conclusions can occur in both the natural sciences and human sciences, as long as humans are taking the surveys. However, the natural sciences often do not directly involve humans or require them to take a survey, where human sciences are based around researching humans that can easily be manipulated by language.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    It is reasonable to explain human behavior independently of their intentions because many behaviors are the result of subconscious or instinct. For example, a person may intend to stay calm and level in a dangerous situation, but their bodies automatically go into flight or fight mode. Another example is when a person may have a difficult day and lashes at the friend attempting to help them. The person does not wish to become angry at a person who is only trying to help, but they project the frustration they experience from other parts of their life. Some behaviors are a direct result of intention, like when a person will rush into a burning building to rescue others even if it is detrimental to their own safety or well being. However, the complexity and unknown depths of peoples' minds and natures allow for studying their behaviors independently of their intentions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2. Language can easily influence the results of polls and questionnaires by persuading the subject to choose a certain answer based on the choice of wording. For example when attempting to figure out how much free time a student has, directly asking “how much free time do you have” would result in only a few hours out of a week because it makes the student think about how much work he/she has. Instead, when asking “how much do you procrastinate” there would be an increase in hours because it makes the student think of the free time he/she spends doing procrastinative activities. The influence of language persists in natural sciences as well such as in written procedures or conclusions for an experiment. If there is any vague wording it can make the experiment fail or make it difficult to understand. In terms of human sciences where scientists primarily document observations and personal accounts, language is more influential because one must write carefully in order to not establish a biased account.

    3. Mario Puzo’s claim that if our brains were simple we would be too simple to understand them implies that the simplicity of our brains would make us too simple to even understand something as simple as our brains. That was a very cyclical sentence, but his statement is pretty straightforward. It gets very existential when one begins to wonder if we will ever fully understand our own bodies because for that to happen, we would have to be smarter than ourselves. If we somehow froze and preserved a human and studied its brain for a really long time, the rest of unfrozen humanity’s brains would develop and be able to understand the complexities of the frozen brain. But since the everyone else’s brains have developed into something even greater, they would not be able to understand how their own brains work. Basically we will never fully understand ourselves and Puzo’s seemingly simple statement was meant to send you into an existential crisis that eventually made you realize that not knowing things is okay.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    I don't think we can explain human Behavior purely based off what someone says their intentions are. I mean people lie and can easily lie about all of their intensions. We can study some of human behavior around people's intensions but its not reasonable to do it on just that but also their reactions towards thing or what they do not do. Many Human actions can occur by instinct or without much thought to their actions in which is can be hard to identify and intention. I think much more must be considered to explain human behavior.
    2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.
    Language can play a big role in the way many human actions occur. The words someone uses while trying to say something can indicate a lot depending on the person. If you're talking with someone they may change their vocabulary to accommodate you, like dumb themselves down so someone can understand or just to use bigger words to sound smarter. Many questionnaires or polls for example can be worded transparently in which you can tell the answer you'll be getting if you select a certain answer. In this way you can get the answer you what or be convinced towards a certain direction.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 2. I think that the conclusions reached would have to be influenced by the languages that they have been translated into. The reason the questionnaire results wouldn't be 100% correct would be that it might not be translated in the correct way. In some languages they do not have specific words for specific meanings and that might create a somewhat invisible barrier from getting absolute correct results. I think it could occur in the natural sciences. The reason I think it could occur is because, if someone were to make every person from every part of the world take the same questionnaire on the natural sciences (only difference would be it would be in a different language) then then the results for it could be incorrect (because of the the mistranslation of words) therefore not getting the "true" answers from the people.

    3. I think that the implications of Mario Puzo's claim implies that we would in a sense, be to "simple" and "boring" to even understand our brain and ourselves on a more deeper level. I think it also implies that although we could understand the concept that is our brain we would not dig deeper to find other things, that we wouldn't ask bigger and bolder questions. We has human kind are very complicated beings so to be "simple'' would not benefit us at all because we would not have invented great things that have come to light since human kind has developed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    Simply if our brains were simplified or less complex then they are we would be incapable of comprehending our brain even though it is more simple. Our brain will always be more complex then we can easily comprehend as complicated thought processes are produced by a complex mechanism. Hence why we can never "simply" understand our brain.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.

    Yes to an extent it is. If we are observing human behavior then it is reasonable to take into consideration more than they say was their intentions. As an observer of behavior you must take into consideration a humans natural aptitude to lie or misguide the observer (intentionally or not) as humans are extremely sensitive to how other percoeve them. Intentions are important to understanding why someone performs the specified action. Yet not knowing their intentions increases the chances that the observer would make more decisive and less biased conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    The implications are that if we weren't as difficulty structured anyone could figure out why we think the way we think or why we do what we do. He’s saying that if our brain was just a brain and could easily be analyzed then our thinking would not fully developed because there are many unexplained things that are still left to discover about ourselves. We aren't simple people we are not structured like a robot because our bodies and minds work in marvellous ways. Which is why we are able to experience too many emotions and change the way we think and mature because our brain works in mysterious ways and allows us to in a way satisfy what we are supposed to feel, want to feel, or do.
    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    It is perfectly reasonable to attempt to think beyond what people seem to feel, if we rely on what they say and on what they seem to feel than many people would get away with many things. Lying detectors would not exist and the word “truth” would probably not exist because we would all assume that everything is true. Being able to go beyond what someone seems to be feeling allows us to learn about human behavior and be able to detect in the future what are lies and what is the truth to be able to detect when someone is trying to get away with something else. These experiences sometimes help save lives and just plainly help you throughout your life.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1. The following anonymous statement is oft quoted, "Under the most rigourously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases." How does this quote affect, inform, or question your views on Human behaviour and the how it is studied? With this quote in mind, can human behaviour be studied using the Scientific Method?
    This quote does support the idea that human behavior can be studied via the scientific method, however I do not think it is very realistic to study human behavior via the scientific method and expect to get specific results based on certain controls and changes in variables. Humans are alive and can consciously think and understand that they are consciously thinking. It makes us an anomaly of sorts because we consciously understand social cues and body language and all sorts of different kinds of signaling that emotionally affect us. Because of this, and because we can reflect on what we are thinking about, there is no way of ever perfectly predicting what human behavior is going to be like. Especially not in the short term. This idea relates back to the nurture vs nature question. If we were to be able to perfectly use the scientific method and be able to predict anything, the only thing that would have to matter is nurture however this is not the case. We are hardwired in a specific way and therefore people in the same exact situations often act differently than others. Nature plays a key role in how humans behave and we are incredibly unpredictable because of our conscious minds.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    This claim is actually incredibly interesting and invokes a lot of thought for me. I think what is important to consider and understand in regards to this quote is the idea I discussed above. Humans have a unique ability to consciously think and be aware that they are consciously thinking. They can reflect on their conscious thoughts, use different ways of knowing to make decisions, and communicate with others about exactly what they are internalizing. If we had simple brains, we would not be able to do all of these things and hence not be able to consciously think at all to the same level that we do today. For this reason we would not be able to reflect on ourselves and therefore would not be able to understand how we work, even if it was much more simple. Some of the most challenging things that humans can do is effective conceptualization and analysis and both of these things are important when understanding our own structure and function. Regardless of how simple our brain's system would be, we would not be able to understand it with these skills. If we traveled along the spectrum, but in the opposite direction, we would be able to understand ourselves much better than we even do now, since we would be more capable of being more conceptual and analytical.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 4) Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    I believe that the intention behind our actions are vital in understanding our behavior. We cannot read minds and therefore must take into account someone's explanations for their actions. I, and our current justice system, believe that motive is essential in determining the severity of a case. We are very emotional beings and often are actions are directly correlated to how we feel and our emotional reactions. There are however ways to trace motive beyond just talking to a suspect or perpetrator. By looking at their interactions, habits, purchases, and daily life we can see if their actions are premeditated or if there is a history of abuse between them and their suspect. If someone is being abused by a partner and then assault the partner is retaliation a jury is much more likely to let them off then they would if the abuser was the one on trial. By looking at their medical history and life we can determine things like that. Ultimately, we are social beings and our main way of communication is through speech and without letting someone speak up for themselves we ignore a huge piece of the story.

    3) What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    I believe this statement is very complex and hard to understand. When Puzo says that our brains are simple, he implies that we are severely limited in what we think and feel. I fully believe that it is futile to wish for simpler brains. While it can be exhausting having to process the outside world and our emotions and it is understandable why people would wish for simplicity, the complexity of our minds, emotions, and interactions are what makes us human. If we were to simplify this, there would be no reason to investigate our minds or do much more for that matter. This complexity and curiosity is what makes us who we are and what motivates us.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    This statement implies that humans are in fact not developed enough mentally to fully understand even the simplest of concepts. It is rumored that humans only use a small percentage of our brains at once leaving a large majority of our brains unused. The remainder of our brain capacity could be used for amazing things but our bodies are incapable of comprehending the possibilities. This statement relates well to the idea of unused brain capacity and space. However, the brain's complexity is what makes us human so a simple brain would be one of boredom.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behavior independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.

    I think that the intentions behind one's behavior is essential in attempting to explain human behavior. While the claimed intentions may be lies or false, it is important to at least take them into consideration while explaining behaviors. Someone's intentions may be unknown at first so asking is essential. However one's intentions may be apparent based on past behaviors with similar instances. Humans are mainly based off social cues so intentions behind behavior are key to truly understanding humans and their patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 5. Meet global corruption's hidden players by Charmian Gooch
    Charmian Gooch states when we imagine corruption it tends to be a minister or despot of a small overseas nation, living in fabulous luxury. Charmian lists a few perfect examples of this behaviour. However, these people cannot operate without support from the rest of the world. Their mansions and art purchases are arranged through global banks, and despots in oil-rich nations must do deals with the largest oil companies.Many corrupt leaders make their profits through anonymous shell companies, which they secretly own. They are commonly used around the world to avoid paying taxes, but can also be used steal massive amounts of money from poor countries. A recent example involved Democratic Republic of Congo selling off state owned mining assets to a shell company, which quickly sold them for massive profits. The people of Congo lost $1.3 billion from these deals – more than twice their education and health budgets combined. Charmian investigated the deal but many of the details are locked away in the shell companies. There’s a view that corruption just happens, and it is impossible to change. But 2/3 of oil & mining companies (by value) are now covered by a transparency standard because groups demanded it. In a globalised world, corruption is a global business that needs solutions right here.

    6. David Melson: The antidote to Apathy
    Often it is said people are too stupid, selfish, or lazy to care about local politics. Dave proposes the opposite view: that people do care but there are barriers put in their way to prevent action. These barriers are: City Hall,Public Spaces, Media,Heroisme, Political parties, Charitable status and Elections. Melson goes into depth about each of these factors and what they contribute. I personally did not enjoy this talk hence the short review. I do not recommend this one.
    7. Marco Tempest: A cyber-magic card trick….Marco introduces artificial reality glasses then shows us some card tricks from his point of view. He spins a fun tale as he deals the deck and reveals cards corresponding to the story he tells. As this happens, special effects explode from the cards and the computer voice acts as a foil – revealing probabilities and talking back to him. For a short ted talk, it was very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Blog Responses:
    2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

    Language in polls is easily manipulated to gather data that one needs in order to show favor in what he or she wants to prove. Language may offer insight into bias and in doing so may also elicit biased responses by the wording of a question. This to an extent may occur naturally in science research but language can definitely have an influence in what answered are collected in polls. This may not lead to certainty but rather correlation which is not proof of causation.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    This wording of this phrase implies that we already understand the full extent of the human brain. I do not agree with this statement because psychology and the human sciences are far for totally explored. If this was true that we did understand our brains, then we may be able to correct many mental illnesses which often is not the case. We are able to diagnose illnesses but yet even then these diagnosis may be wrong as well.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1. Human behaviour is a facet of science that may be studied extensively in order to create models or postulates regarding how we define this science, yet there will always be the error of the individuality of the human condition. For the average Joe, a consistent parameter of causes and affects will most likely be followed due to the human nature, however individuality will prevail and cause fluctuations in consistency of behaviour. As long as this is recognized, human behaviour may be continued to be studied and will be endlessly growing in scientific knowledge. The Scientific Method may be used to study human behavior, but the results attained may be varyingly different from one subject to another—yet this will still yield new knowledge to add to the bank of the mysterious human behaviour.

    3. Mario Puzo’s claim is the claim to fame the human race may hold onto as the reason we have developed into the dominant species on our planet. The differentiation between us and other animals is our ability to form complex thoughts, including reason and emotions. We are able to assess others, as well as ourselves, and recognize the limit of our understanding we have reached in certain fields of science. In a sense, Puzo is glorifying our ability to think—for all we know, we could be ignorant little ants to some super intelligence in space right now watching our meager steps in civilization that we consider triumphant leaps.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1. This quote affects the way I view the study of Human Behavior by making me question the ways in which it is studied. If it is only studied under the right conditions than the information is not complete and bias in a sense. Also what exactly are the perfect conditions, I believe the conditions in which an organism thrives is different for every one. Also it is unnatural for an organism to function under rigorously controlled conditions, in what natural real world case is that ever plausible. Human Behavior, as predictable as it can be, can also be extremely unpredictable. There are so many factors that go into it and what makes a person behave the way they do. It also ties in with nature vs nurture.

    2. The language in polls, questionnaires, and surveys can most definitely affect the way one answers them. One can word a question where it is just ambiguous enough for the answer to be manipulated. Certain wording can also lead to misinterpretation causing one to answer something they may not actually mean. Although I am not sure whether this same sphere of influence extends to natural science research. Polls can be misleading if the correct pool isn't surveyed or if there is any sort of bias. That could then affect the scientific conclusion that is made from this poll or questionnaire. So to some extent there is an affect on natural science research but only in a specific methodology of study. I think it mostly attributes to the degree of social status around it because now a days many people do things for the reward or the social stigma it will bring them and that ideology is what drives many people forward.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1. I do not think that human behavior can be studied properly using the Scientific Method. We are designed to do what we want and what is most comfortable to how we prefer living. Controlled conditions will not rely on the organism doing whatever it pleases, it must adapt and make changes to those conditions. If a person wanted to go swimming, but the water was controlled to turn ice cold, that person would no longer want to swim in that pool most likely, even though it wishes to. Human behavior must mainly be studied by visual observations and data collected from uncontrolled environments.

    4. This is a reasonable claim because not all of mankind has the same intentions, whether positive or negative. People do not always behave the way they intend to whether being deceitful or simply dealing with a change in circumstances. Human behavior should always be studied from an outside source and information should not come from the organism being observed due to bias. People often do not realize the way they are acting and in fact may believe to be performing a completely different behavior than described.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 3. I think that this quote makes absolutely perfect sense. Because if our brains weren't complex at all and super simple well let's face it, we'd all be pretty dumb and won't be able to study our brain because we're too stupid. And once we did eventually get to studying the human brain, it wouldn't be all that exciting so it wouldn't matter

    4. Yes I think it is reasonable to attempt to explain people's behavior and what and what aren't their intentions. But it would be nothing more than an attempt because you can never really know exactly why someone does something because you're not that person and you never will be. Boom. Perfect answer

    ReplyDelete
  34. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?
    Puzo is claiming that if human brains were simple, we would not be able to understand the brain. The interpretation of this quote hinges on the word “simple”. Human brains could be currently considered simple, by definition of simple somehow outside of human subjectivity. There is a vast body of unanswered questions about the human brain, and this claim may imply we might never answer them, or may not even be asking the right questions. The counter to this pessimistic view is that human brains are considered complex (according to the human brain), and the complexity we are attempting to tackle is to be expected.

    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.

    It is unreasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour outside of what people claim are their intentions. Intentions can explain what is seemingly inexplicable. If a person was to study modern America, and had no idea why people participated in seemingly pointless and dangerous things like skydiving, they would draw different conclusions from someone who actually asked the skydivers. Outdated medical practices, for example, are ridiculous without the context of intention. Human behaviour is impossible to separate from intention, because to attempt to explain behaviour is often to assign an intention. Even if the intentions a person states are wrong, they are still a facet of what influences their behaviour or a behaviour in itself. Although it is difficult to include, intention is something that should be included in the study of human behaviour in the interest of more accurate conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.
    The language used in polls can affect the answer of the question because the questions used before a specific question can curve a person to answer the second question in a general way this would cause the data to look a specific way. This involves science research as well because the amount of information given to the person in the experiment can cause them to think a certain way rather than actually experience it for themselves. The brain can easily be manipulated to think a certain way when given information.

    3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    The implications of Mario Puzo's claim about the human brain being complicated is to show that we can never just automatically know something. We must learn through our own experiences to learn things about your brain personally.If we already knew everything about our brains what would a person do, They can look farther into each little piece of the brain that they actually already know about. With more advanced technology we will keep gaining information and evolving on the information that we find out from research.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 2. When it comes to making polls or anything of that kind, wording really can do anything. If you want specific results from a survey, you can word any question in any way that will essentially trick anyone into marking the box that you want them to mark. This can be seen in the government too. Some of the proposed new amendments in the constitution were so convoluted and crazily worded that a group of experts had to get together and spend a couple of hours deciphering them in order to figure out what would happen if they were to be passed. Its this type of manipulation that can seriously harm a society, even if everyone that voted for it, had the best intentions in mind at the time. The same thing can be done with new sciences. If you spend your time ignoring some results of your tests while looking for the one result that supports your point, you are changing the outcome for your own benefit, which can also harm society as a whole.

    3. I think its rather simple, before definitions at least. For now, just imagine you look at the sentence, it makes sense. If you are stupid, than how would you have the smarts to understand what a brain is. Mario is trying to imply that because we have the ability to comprehend and decipher the meaning and origin of the brain, we automatically have a complex brain. But then you come to the definition of simple. Sometime in the future, we might have robots so smart that it makes our brain look incredibly simple. At that point, our brain (considered simple) would still be complex enough to understand what it is, thus contradicting marios statement. So, for now, Mario does seem to be correct in his statement, and it makes sense logically. Sometime in the distant future, this will no longer be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Human Sciences

    1. “Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases.” This quote applies to humans(the organism) in which share this characteristic. Unlike other subspecies and animals in the animal kingdom; humans are the only animals to completely change their surroundings in order to fit their desires. These environments are the cities we live in today. Other animals such as beavers, and apes will share certain traits to humans such as building dams or create tools for their needs, but not to the same extent as humans. We as humans are not satisfied if there is a pothole in the road, so we do anything to fix that little error on the road. Do we need to remodel certain places in order to change the way they look? We do this because we want to, not because we need to. This is what separates us from other animals such as beavers or chimps who do create these works for their desires, but they do not care about aesthetic or look of their tools. Human behavior is an interesting thing that while one can attempt to study human behavior, we always end up studying an enigma of science.


    3. “If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them.” At any point in the human mind, the brain is an enigma in and out of itself, especially in understanding why we dream what we dream or think what we think. What the quote states is that no matter how much we think we know about our mind, we are stuck. As humans make progress, more questions arise, and more confusion comes to studying this phenomena of life. Thus we as a human species are stuck in one spot, and have not even come close to understanding these mysteries.
    We can never truly make exponential progress in the human sciences, specifically the human mind, and ideas such as dreams, deja vu, and memory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1. The following anonymous statement is oft quoted, "Under the most rigourously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, humidity, and other variables, the organism will do exactly as it pleases." How does this quote affect, inform, or question your views on Human behaviour and the how it is studied? With this quote in mind, can human behaviour be studied using the Scientific Method?

    I completely agree with this quote, even in the human behavior it occurs. I believe that in circumstances in which it is life or death, or in such cases that the conditions of living is not comfortable, humans will react in a way that pleases themselves in order to get themselves further and live longer. We also have adapted to world in such ways that we are able to live in very humid areas as well as freezing cold areas, which many organisms and animals are not able to do. For example, polar bears cannot go from the Antarctic to the Sahara desert in one day and be able to adapt to their climates. I think that humans are very advanced in these ways. I believe that humans however, cannot be studied very well using the scientific method because of this, we are able to do what we please when we please.

    2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

    Immediately after reading this question I thought of the word bias. I took Statistics last year, and one of the main things we focused on while taking and looking at surveys was how they were written. How to avoid using bias in your survey in order to not have a swayed answer in how you wrote your questions. So, my answer to this is yes, the way language is dudes in polls are certainly influence the conclusions of these polls. However, I am not sure if this pertains to the sciences. But in general, any poll can be influenced by the use of words.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

    It is nearly impossible to be unbiased. Even in surveys used to collect and prove information, the surveys are still created to prove something and often the researchers want a specific result. While they can try and use neutral language, they are still human and their biases are bound to show through. In order to combat this, researchers can use double blind surveys to avoid biases. This is where neither the researchers nor the subjects know what the possible results of the test will prove. I believe that this bias does take away from the validity of the results but that the tests are still necessary and we should work to make them less biased.
    4. Is it reasonable to attempt to explain human behaviour independently of what people claim are their intentions? Why, or why not? Explain.
    I don't think it is. Unless someone is a sociopath, there is no way to examine their actions independently of their intentions. An action without motivation is meaningless and as humans, we are motivated by mainly by survival. In modern day society, survival is nearly guaranteed and so it begs the question as to what motivates us to do both good and bad. I think that the emotions connected to survival still motivate us and we are therefore run by a need to eat, sleep safely, and reproduce. I believe that we must look at why a person is doing something and if it is malintentioned or if it is a way to survive because our emotions beyond survival are what make us who we are.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 1. The anonymous statement does not affect, inform, or question my views on human behavior and how it is studied because it is taken out of context. However, I do recognize the significance of controlling conditions in a humans life in order to more closely study other conditions. In biology, all of the conditions that are not being tested are deemed confounding, and therefore must be controlled for. In human behavior, this may include the control of certain stimuli, controlled communication, etc and then the altering of one condition. According to the scientific method, the results of the changing of one condition will allow a legitimate conclusion to be reached because the changing condition must be the cause for the change. In this way, human behavior can be studied using the scientific method. The finite pool of worry addresses this problem, and we see that the problems of our everyday lives causes humans to behave in ways that are not environmentally conscious, but since immediate worries are not controlled the pool of worry is full of more immediate danger.

    2. The language used in polls, questionnaires, and other information gathering devices influence the conclusions reached by effecting the response as a result of bias. A poll can be bias if the language favors one response or another. In fact, most polls today are biased and it becomes difficult to separate personal thought from the designing of a sampling poll. Also, bias occurs in natural science research in many ways, such as in the collection of data, interpretation of results, etc. The extent of the bias does not relate to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively because language affects those sciences differently. In most cases, bias comes in the form of influential quantitative uncertainty. In human sciences, bias comes in the form of unconscious influential uncertainty, which affects the perception of data rather than the actual data itself as it does in natural science. The value or social status associated with the bias in human sciences and natural sciences change in the same direction as a reaction to the differences in bais.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Question 1: It doesn’t exactly inform my views as I’ve never heard it before, but it does address the fundamental nature of the scientific process for all its disciplines. In order for any conclusion to be deemed justified it must be repeatable, not just once but on numerous occasions. In the case of human sciences the difficulty is that there are simply so many more variables to be adjusted than is possible. So justifications must be drawn under a principle of repetitive testing/polling to find trends in the data. A single subject moving in a box will reveal nothing, several hundred thousand repetitions may very well do so.

    Question 3: It seems less of a claim and more an offhand remark, which could be quite true, however what does simple mean? The definition of that term is crucial to understanding what is simple, a fly’s brain isn’t simple and yet a fly doesn’t have the cognizance to understand its brain either. However that concept raises an interesting question, are our brains even capable of understanding completely how a brain works?

    ReplyDelete
  42. 3. What are the implications of Mario Puzo's claim that "If our brains were simple, we would be too simple to understand them."?

    -This bring up the interesting idea that our own brains may possibly be too "simple" to understand how they operate and function. However, what exactly is meant by the word simple I am unsure of. However, since we are complex beings full of emotion and passion, our brains reflect this in essence, since they are not simple at all. I think perhaps this is the message that Mario was alluding to. If we did have very simple brains, we would most likely not even be aware of our own existence and purpose.

    2. How might the language used in polls, questionnaires and other information-gathering devices of this sort influence the conclusions reached? If there is an influence, does it, or a similar one, occur in natural science research? Does the extent of the influence relate to the degree of certainty attributed to the natural sciences and the human sciences respectively, or to the social status or value associated with each.

    -The language used in polls, questionnaires, and other information gathering methods can certainly be used to persuade voters or simply bias them. The wording of a question can be used to favor one candidate over another, or so that the reader interprets the question in an unjustified manner. As human beings, we are easily influenced by language ad the way things are said or presented to us. Something as simple as the wording of a phrase can influence some people to be biased.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.