photo by Francisco Antunes
If you’ve ever been called out for “being subjective”, then you know how frustrating it can be. It seems hardly fair that after performing research and forming reasoned arguments, a colleague or partner can shut you down with one phrase, usually putting an end to any rigorous debate or academic inquiry.
Psychologists and designers suffer from a cliched generalization that we engage in a subjective discipline. This half-truth seeks to invalidate the factual and empirical findings which are made in the field.
Are we, in fact, being subjective? Yes and no. The truth is, you can be subjective while being factual.
In their (and your) defense, let us explore this misunderstood claim:“You’re just being subjective!”
We’re somewhat mistaken in how we use the phrase. Subjectivity comes in two flavors : ontological and epistemological. Lets start by distinguishing the two types.
Ontological subjectivity
A discipline can be said to be “objective” in ontology if it studies phenomena that which exists without human beings, and makes claim that remain true and valid without the existence of human beings:
- Natural sciences — rocks, trees, oceans, animals
- Physical sciences — matter, planets, stars, atoms,
- Chemical sciences — material, reactions,
In contrast, disciplines that are “subjective” in ontology focus on topics that rely on human consciousness, and whose claims will be nonsensical without a human being.
- Psychological sciences — emotion, judgment, reasoning, action
- Aesthetic sciences — perception, color, style
- Philosophical sciences — morality, values, knowledge
Are you being subjective? Well, if you study human behavior and action, you probably are. Designers and psychologists (as well as economists, historians, and similar professions) concern themselves with subjective topics. We find human subjectivity, consciousness and decision making more interesting than atoms. However, that does not mean these studies are not based on facts.
“When a pin pricks my finger, I draw away”.
“This shade of green is present in the works of this period”.
“When making decisions, humans are risk-averse and prefer certainty”.
These claims have a subjective ontology, but are based in factual observation. They are nonsensical without reference to a human subject, but this alone does not make them biased or matters of opinion.
We are not Subjective!!… epistemologically
“Psychology is subjective. Design is subjective.” Attacks on design are not ontological (attacks on our subject matter), but are epistemological attacks, questioning the nature & extent of knowledge that the fields produce. Attacking epistemology is saying our conclusions are rooted in opinion, rather than fact.
I whole-heartedly reject this idea. Investigate the statements listed above, and find me the bias in them. As professional, academics, and progressive thinkers, we hope to eliminate any deviance from hard facts. Do critics really believe that designers & psychologists don’t value facts? We ALSO strive for epistemological objectivity!
Am I confusing you yet? Well, my main point is this: It is wrong is to assume that studying humans means we’re only capable of making opinions. Design is NOT SUBJECTIVE. Psychology is NOT SUBJECTIVE. We make factual claims, though we study areas that require a subjective ontology — a knower, a perceiver, a person with opinions, bias, and willful behaviors. This is the human “subject”.
Designers, stop selling yourself short.
One can study human perceptions, emotions, desires & consciousness without being steeped in bias, assumptions, and opinion. You are engaged in an objective discipline. Various debates have fueled the divide between subjective and objective, to the point that subjectivity has become a dirty word in almost all disciplines. So stop associating yourself with that word. It’s confused and muddled and should no longer be effective as a claim.
The *methods* that they [design and psychology] use are another factor that affects people’s judgment. The “hard sciences” can rely on quantifications more than the “soft sciences” are able to do. This is of course partly due to their respective subject matters. Electrons, e.g., are more “reliable” when being measured than humans are
-markus weber-
Yes, studying human beings is a bit like trying to hit a moving target. However, we are still able to make factual claims about effectiveness of a design, the persuasiveness of an argument, the likelihood an idea will be adopted. Perhaps more importantly: isn’t the un-reliability of human subjectivity part of the reason these fields are so fascinating? It’s the reason I’d rather study this than engineering.
