Are people basically the same or is each person a unique individual?

Question

In scientific methodology, randomization is used to put people into groups for experiments on human behavior. The underlying assumption: human beings have finite, discretely definable characteristics, and when placed into a larger group, differences between individuals cancel out so that we can confidently take the average of the group and analyze it like it represents a real averaged person. A larger group supposedly creates larger accuracy. However, if this approach ignores that each person's unique qualities affect the specific variable under investigation, our results are skewed to this average person we created through calculations but who doesn't really exist. If these results are skewed then what science tells us about human behavior is also skewed.

countess almasy: I guess you've never heard of a case study or Skinners ABA design, which are both methods applicable to individuals instead of groups. Studies that involve groups ignore individuality by statistical methods that require averaging each group. That's a decision done to make a general (or average) statement about human behavior, and the tendency is to OVER generalize it, particularly in the media.

cavassi: This is my point! You said: "Experimentally, we would usually assume the the degree of variability in the experimental group would be the same as in the control group." It's a BASIC ASSUMPTION that variability "equals out."

Answer 1

true but we do have alot of similarities.many of these group studies are only somewhat accurate.americans do like to have numbers though.we like concrete evidence even if its wrong at least we have a number.

Answer 2

The responses of every person examined or tested is eventually made into a number and the addition and subtraction of these numbers and the mathematical manipulations performed on them through statistics are truly amazing. I have always been fascinated by how through these manipulations skewed numbers are eventually narrowed down to a specific number. Often the averages are not as important as the standard deviations, or measures of variability. Measures of variability will account for the degree of skewness. Experimentally, we would usually assume the the degree of variability in the experimental group would be the same as in the control group. If not, that tells us something also. That is why scientific experiemnts should be read carefully and also why good research leads to further research.

Answer 3

Interesting and relatively sophisticated line of reasoning, but no cigar.

First, the same basic techniques are used for other areas.

Second, when there are traits known to effect the thing being studied, scientists will do random sampling within each group.

As you suggest, the idea of using randomizing is so that, overall, over many studies and tests, choosing groups randomly is the best way we know of ensuring that whatever things that we don't know effect the result, will show up in all the groups more or less equally.

It's not that difference between individuals cancel out, as though they don't exist, it's that the RESULTS from each individual gets canceled out in the RESULTS. (Not exactly the same thing; they aren't pretending differences don't exist.)

Yes, one has to be careful in using averages. The first thing any GOOD statistician does is look at the data in a graph.

If the data don't look "good" then they don't use the simplest methods. For instance, if there are data points far away from the rest, you don't simply pretend they aren't there. You have to use sophisticated methods (which I know absolutely nothing about).

Unfortunately, a lot of people are analyzing data without taking that first step seriously enough.

People who know what they're talking about don't talk about "the average person" (in fact, this is a tip-off that the person doesn't know what they're talking about), but says "on average, people" and more often "on average, people who yada....".

As you say, there is no such thing as "the average x" -- but people vary.

There's one other point to consider, and that's the results. Statistical methods (even if they sound like they're based on wacky ideas) have proven themselves sound, as often as expected (that is, when the work is sound, you will still get the occasional wacky result, just because of sampling, but that's why they replicate, so over a lot of similar studies, you get an accurate result most of the time).

These methods have been used on people's behavior, and physically, and on plants and animals, and chemical samples, and in agriculture, and in just about every area where data are gathered.

When I clicked your question, I thought it was bogus and silly -- "Yeah, DUH! much?"

...

Until I read your Details.

Hope my babbling made sense. I spent some years involved in statistics education (on the edges, so to speak), which is where I learned the stuff I said (or tried to say) above.

Thanks for the fun question!

Answer 4

All observational science is skewed, especially such poorly understood subjects as human psychology, according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. They viewpoint of the observer, in such cases (and usually the very purpose of the testing) automatically skews the results. Ask different study groups how the Iraq war is going.

This leads us to demographics, which, as we know, can be twisted how ever you like to better support your particular view. For instance, many demographic studies, produced by different agencies, have opposed results, depending on many upon many factors.

100% percent of people polled prefer soccer. I asked myself and the friend I play soccer with.

To answer the direct question... Both. People are basically the same, with variation across particular spectrum, so everyone is overwhelmingly the same, while we are all unique individuals. As a group, we are the same, as individuals, we are different.

Answer 5

"If this approach ignores that each person's unique qualities affect the specific variable under investigation,"...
Obviously, this approach was developed specifically BECAUSE each person has unique qualities (their genetics, to start with), so how could it ignore it?

Without it, NO conclusions could be drawn about anything, the results of all studies would be a list of every single individual response, there would be no such thing as statistics, and there would be no marketing industry.

And you KNOW that we couldn't bear to feel that stupid!

Answer 6

I don't know what you're asking here, but unique individuals are influenced by other "people". People often behave differently as a direct result of the behavior of others, thus you have group think.