Friday, April 29, 2016

Problems in human sciences

Oxford Dictionaries defines human as "relating to or characteristic of humankind". Then, it defines humankind as "Human beings considered collectively". This is a nice illustration of the first and main issue with using science on humans, which is that the term "human" is still not clearly defined and still changes. Of course, you can define "human" in that they belong to the Homo Sapiens species, however, it should not be ignored that even this was not accepted a couple of centuries ago.
Closely related to this is the issue that we still aren't entirely clear on what makes up a human - the composition of a human. Biology and its several subgenres are trying to figure that out, the smaller parts being left to chemistry. However, there are always new discoveries in the field. One previously thought part of the human is crossed out, it's replaced by another one. And let us not forget of the grand frienemy of science: religion. Naturally, the parts of humans that cannot yet be explained are attributed to the One Above, or the Soul.
Another limit that science just can't quite overcome is perspective. As the phrase goes, "one man's trash is another man's treasure". Someone with middle-class income in one country might be considered wealthy in another or borderline under-privileged in a third. Death for the hunted means life for the hunter. 
As everyone knows, everyone is different and special and beautiful in their own way and whatnot, which creates yet another problem for science. Because the aim of science is to create laws applicable to everyone and everything (such as gravity, everyone has gravity), this is made harder by the special sunflowers of this world, who get offended if they have something in common with someone else, or by those who advocate the difference. Of course it must be recognized that it's true that people, groups of people, and cultures are different in one way or another, but it should also be highlighted that on a grand scale of things (if we look from far enough), the differences are really minor and we actually have much more in common (there was this small German guy with a funny voice and a strange moustache once, who really wanted to emphasize the difference his nation had with others).
The last main problem in human science I will mention now is ethics. Science uses experiments. Experiments hurt their participants. Ethics try to intervene at these points and not let people hurt other people. They created very strict guidelines. Then someone discovered that if we can't hurt people but we have to experiment, we could hurt animals. And this is the story of how animal experiments were created. Of course they also have their own guidelines, but they aren't that strict. And besides, the media doesn't give animals as much attention anyways. Consequently, not as many people care about animals. And therefore, animals are harmed much more in the experiments than humans. But luckily, we have animal rights groups now. They will help. Hopefully.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Status Quo Bias

People generally do not like change or prefer to do nothing.
This leads to decision that guarantee that things will remain the same or change as little as possible.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it"
At least subconsciously we assume that another choice is inferior or would make things worse.

Examples:
  • We like to stick to routines, political parties, favorite meals in restaurants, etc
  • US still does not have universal healthcare, although big majorities support the idea, and when the Obama Administration started to act in that direction, ca half of all Americans now disapprove of the idea
  • When offered a cheaper insurance company people still chose there previous one
  • Same happened with retirement plans (both were real-life experiments in Pennsylvania, 1190)

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Knowledge Questions

Good country index:
How do we choose which aspects of ranking something to take into account?
To what extent can we rely on numerical data?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "good"?
To what extent are human decisions reliable?
How can we decide which data to include in results?
Click here for the website

Bad historian:
To what extent should a person's own cultural background be considered a flaw in their view of history?

Happiness:Purpose (Human Science Article):
To what extent can a mental state be measured?
How can we distinguish an accurate definition of "happy"?
To what extent are scientific instruments reliable?

Friday, April 8, 2016

Was the TED Talk with Philip Zimbardo good?

NO

  • The slides had way too much text
  • Because he was talking way too fast
  • He did not explain the relevant studies thoroughly
  • He did not make any pauses so that we can process the information
  • He did not let the audience think when he paused questions
  • He does not go into detail about the emotional scarring (the reason the experiment stopped)
  • He gave too much raw data / unexplained information
  • It lacks ecological validity:
    • The participants knew they were taking part in an experiment
    • The prisoners knew that the prison guards were also participants
    • It was a relatively small sample (only a dozen per group)
    • Only male participants
    • Only from a particular area --› particular cultural background
    • Only from a particular age group
    • Participants were paid, so they had some incentive to stay