Experimental measures of dehumanization reflect the researcher’s gaze more than the phenomenon itself

Evidence

Experiments on ‘infra-humanization’, ‘dehumanization’ and ‘ontologization’ remain at an operational level. There are virtually no attempts to research the broader phenomenon in an experiential or phenomenological sense. The notions of ‘infra-humanization’, ‘dehumanization’ or ‘ontologization’ are not derived from (nor do they index) an experiential domain; they are the outcome of an operational defi nition of human nature. Psychology’s experimental descriptions of the humanity of human beings downplays the idea that these descriptions vary with time, place and observer, and they are the consequences of actual human experiences and encounters. Social psychologists’ nomothetic explorations of humanity seem to derive ‘more from the nature of the analysts’ gaze than from what is gazed upon’ (Reicher, 2004 , p. 924). — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 646

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A dense methodological critique: operational definitions of humanness are artifacts of the experimenter’s gaze, not products of lived experience — paradigm-questioning in the top tier.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s existing skepticism of quantification in social science (cf. the social capital and trust readings, which the reader found had the same gap between operational and experiential). — connects to: the MOC “The Enemy-Making Machine: How Ourselves, the True, and Every Other Are Built from War”