There are two ways to look at it:
1) If you think of "human behavior" meaning the behavior of all humans, worldwide, over a span of 50 years, then yes, we can do excellent statistics. Things like IQ tests have proven to do an excellent job of detecting & predicting certain human behaviors. In other words, any person with an IQ of 130 on the Raven's Matrices Test, when presented with pattern recognition & prediction visual puzzles, will accomplish them with relative speed and ease. That's a highly-verifiable prediction.
2) You can do the same for an individual, but the process would be lengthier. Just obtaining the proper sample size is the hard part, but Speech & Language Specialists (SLS) do it all the time! An SLS, working with a child over three to five years, can predict almost perfectly the extent to which a child can use a sound capably in the child's next utterance. A Psychologist, similarly, in working with an individual over years, could predict with near-100% accuracy the person's behavior in a limited situation.
The problem is, that the behaviors that concern society the most...the new man moving into a small town, the reaction of one-ethnicity neighbors to a new-ethnicity family moving into the neighborhood, criminal behaviors & recidivism..are so complex, that we have almost no way to predict those, and those are the ones that really matter to us, as a group.
In that sense, then, No.
2007-08-15 07:56:26
·
answer #1
·
answered by embroidery fan 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Sure, if we knew all the variables. There is some predictability but more in the way of analysis. Look at the Guassian distribution for an interesting statistical concept. Human behavior is not that erratic. If it were then we wouldn't have doctors, socialists, psychologists, anthropologists and such because everyone would be so different in their makeup. We do have a human nature that we analyze and use to predict our behavior.
Another good mathematical example of apply mathematics to human behavior. It's the myth of the random flipped coin that wants to be heads after so many tails. If it's truly random then casinos know this is a perfect game to take our money because even though we think a black might be more likely after 3 reds it is not. But why do we think so? Because in every other situation such predicting helps us. Like expecting rain after a long dry spell. Expecting dry weather after a long rain.
2007-08-08 14:42:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
What??
No, Mathematics can never be used to predict human behavior.
Mathematics is Great!! but can/will not ever be able to tell that. Behavior of a human is way to unpredictable. For example, high school drama, you are a sophomore and you are a little butt hole kid. The next year, you get new friends you change totally just over the summer. there is no telling what is going to happen.
2007-08-08 13:59:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Mathematics can't be used to predict the behaviour of an individual with 100% certainty. Collection of statistics and manipulation of those statistics to give the best possible information can be used to give predictions of the most likely behaviours.
As a simplistic example, if I have a group of 100 people aged between 70 and 80, and I know that 20% of the population in that age group smokes, then I can predict that there will be 20 smokers in my group. But I can't tell you which 20 they will be. I also can't be certain that there will be exactly 20, just that its most likely that there will be that many.
2007-08-08 14:03:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tim N 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think we might discover the rules of human behavior if we could really comprehend the complexity behind it. But even then, every individual would introduce some peculiarity that would complicate the complexity further. So we may be able to reduce the universe to maths, to reassure ourselves - but I don't think we'll ever do the same for human behavior. Thankfully! But it's sad, the way we behave, isn't it. Including our compulsion to control, which inspires our urge to analyze and predict - and invent religions, and politics, and so much more, "good" and "bad". That's us, folks!
2007-08-08 14:30:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
differential summational analysis of primes progressing from 1-d to 2-d to 3-d revolves around the core dynamic of personality based non temporal evolution of a circumstance into truths.
the manifold in 2-d math would be an ellipse of foci of 10 and 1 w/ 7 as distance in b/w and it's impacted by a circle of diameter x where prime series x is the force required to merge the circle w/ the ellipse.
this, when taken into 3-d w/ 3 ellipses and the graphing method being the spiraling outwards of the unpotentiated vibration-- you get 75 different tensors relating the entire spectrum of human personality.
your question, if answered fully through physical proof of the dimensional progression of primes, can ultimately lead mankind into a rediculous new age of highly advanced technological anarchy.
2007-08-08 13:59:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by gekim784l 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The key word is "predict."
Mathematics has so far only been able to "postdict"--that is, it can only describe human behavior after-the-fact. No model or theory of human behavior even suggests that it can predict human behavior ahead of time.
2007-08-08 14:39:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. Mathematics is just a tool and handmaid that serves the study of human behavior in order that the study may attain its objective.
2007-08-12 23:02:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jun Agruda 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
If you find interest in this field i sugest a course in college statistica as a final goal i was suprised how accurate you can calculate the probabilities. So I'd say it's possible, you may like watching the T.V. show Numbers.
2007-08-13 23:44:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hypothetically, yes, practically, no.
A computer in a different plane of existence that knew the position of every molecule in the universe and knew everything about physics could tell you everything about the past and future.
2007-08-08 19:28:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Benjamin H. 2
·
1⤊
0⤋