Imagine human cognition as a sprawling vine, with objectivity acting as the trellis that guides its growth. The nature of this trellis remains a central topic in psychology. An objective reality is considered the bedrock of rational thought and scientific inquiry, a concept that has been central to the pursuit of truth. The idea of objectivity as something independent of human perception and subjective experience is deeply ingrained in many Western intellectual traditions. However, upon closer examination, this seemingly straightforward concept reveals itself to be complex and elusive. Although the notion of objectivity existing independently in the mind is highly seductive, one's sense of objectivity is fundamentally a subjective construct, and widely accepted objectivity is merely a form of collective consensus. The notion of absolute objectivity itself remains an unverifiable and ultimately flawed hypothesis.

Objectivity Processed by Cognition

Current definitions of objectivity describe it as “the tendency to base judgments and interpretations on external data” (APA, 2018). Overlooked is the fact that this definition implies the basis of objectivity lies in “judgments and interpretations,” which are themselves products of cognitive processing that “encompass such activities as attention, perception” and are characterized by a “manipulation, transformation, and use of knowledge” (APA, n.d.). This points to a fundamental issue: objectivity is based on judgments and interpretations that require mental processing. “Mental processing” in this context refers to cognition, which is the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through one’s thoughts, experiences, and senses. Given that cognition is likely the sole avenue through which humans engage with the objective world, any subjective error occurring at any stage of this process can alter the way humans understand objectivity. Thus, as humans attempt to view the world objectively, there remains the possibility for subjective errors throughout the stages of mental processing resulting in the distortion of objective reality.

Perception Stage

Color blindness is a perceptual shortcoming that exemplifies issues in identifying “objective” perception. Before British chemist John Dalton revealed significant differences in human visual experiences, it was generally assumed that everyone perceived colors in the same way. Detailing his own red-green color blindness, Dalton (1798) demonstrated subjective experiences can vary greatly, even in basic color perception. Dalton's discovery underscored the limitations of relying solely on human senses, which are inherently subjective, to understand the world. Thus, what people consider objective is actually dependent on subjective perceptions. In addition to individual differences, someone’s inability to perceive a certain color means that aspect of reality effectively does not exist for them. Thus, the inherent limitations of perception contribute to the challenges of exploring objective reality.

Attention Stage

Following perception, the second step in cognition, attention, may also increase the possibility of distorting objectivity. This is demonstrated by confirmation bias, which is the human tendency to focus on information that supports one’s beliefs while ignoring or distorting contradicting data (Peter, 2022). The Madrid Bomber case exemplifies forensic confirmation bias. The FBI incorrectly identified a suspect using a latent fingerprint after being influenced by his watchlist status. This case underscores how preconceived notions can skew expert analysis, leading to erroneous conclusions despite contradictory evidence. This bias skews the allocation of attention, pushing people farther from an objective grasp of reality (Kassin et al., 2013).

Judgement and Interpretation Stage

Judgment and interpretation is a critical phase in the cognitive process. It is also another key juncture where objectivity can be undermined. In the Asch conformity experiment an unsuspecting participant was placed in a room where other participants were instructed to unanimously give an incorrect answer to a prompt (Asch, 1951).  When asked to compare the lengths of various lines, the unsuspecting individual suddenly found themselves in a predicament regarding the simple task. Despite knowing the correct answer, the pressure to conform led to self-doubt. This is a specific application of social proof, where individuals rely on others' behavior in uncertain situations, highlighting the subjectivity of our cognitive processes (Cialdini, 2009).

Some may argue that individuals possess the ability to self-correct biases at each of the aforementioned stages, implying that objectivity can be used to improve one’s behavior. Indeed, through metacognition, the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes, individuals can recognize and adjust their biased perspectives on specific issues (Nussinson & Koriat, 2008). However, this capacity for self-correction is not based on an absolute standard of objectivity. Instead, it relies on a re-understanding of human consensus and an adjustment of one's own cognitive patterns (Flavell, 1976). The concepts of "correctness" and "objectivity" are grounded in the consensus of culture, society, and personal experience within which individuals exist. This indicates that even with metacognitive abilities, the process of correction is still subject to the constraints of societal norms and personal perspectives, rather than an objective truth.

In short, the chain of cognitive processes can be corrupted at any stage, preventing a firm grasp on objective reality. Despite the occasional use of metacognition to identify biases and make self-corrections, the standards for correction are still based on understanding gained through the cognitive process, which is not truly objective. It can be deduced, therefore, that no matter how the human brain processes information, it is always vulnerable to the influence of subjective factors. Thus, objectivity processed by cognition is no longer its true form but redefined by subjective cognition.

The Paradigm Shifts of Objectivity

If the cognitive process is inevitably tinged with subjectivity, then to get in touch with true objectivity one would need to find a kind of knowledge that can bypass the cognitive process altogether. However, such a method today is virtually non-existent. Many regard scientific truths as the epitome of objectivity. For example, when tools like spectrometers are used to understand the difference in perception between normal vision and color blindness, researchers are relying on the numbers of a qualified instrument without further understanding. Yet, such scientific evidence still cannot achieve objectivity. The design of these instruments is based on a consensus about the standards for measuring light, and the readings from a spectrometer are interpreted within the framework of human understanding, which is still inherently subjective.

In other words, as scientific tools evolve, so does scientific truth. As Thomas Kuhn (1962) has pointed out, scientific development is not linear but is achieved through paradigm shifts. The transition from behaviorism to cognitivism in psychology illustrates this well. Behaviorism was widely accepted because it aligned with the observable and measurable aspects of human behavior, fitting the scientific standards of the time. However, with advancements in technology and methodology, particularly the development of neuroimaging techniques like fMRI and the application of information processing models, researchers began to explore cognitive phenomena that behaviorism could not explain (Ramos, 2024). The data from cognitive psychology gradually revealed the complexity of mental processes. This theoretical shift was not because behaviorism was entirely wrong but because, with the changing of research techniques and the deepening of cognitive levels, human understanding of the mind developed. The introduction of cognitivism marked a redefinition of "objective truth" in the scientific community. 

Thus, the shift in theories is not because the old ones are entirely wrong, nor are the new ones absolute truths, but rather they are relative and rooted on human cognitive frameworks and scientific consensus. They are not truly absolutely objective, but rather a subset of objectivity that is meaningful to a social group with a commonly recognized consensus. In other words, the collective acceptance of a set of theoretical frameworks or research methods by scientists is essentially a consensus, a common recognition or agreement on a viewpoint, belief, fact, or behavior by the majority of a group or society, and its foundation is still cognition (APA, 2018). "White epistemology" is a notable example of this consensus. In the field of science, white epistemology has long dominated, based on Western culture and knowledge systems, and often unconsciously takes the white perspective and experience as the default, universally applicable standard. This epistemological tradition has influenced the selection and interpretation of scientific theories, making certain kinds of knowledge and viewpoints more easily accepted as "consensus," while other non-Western knowledge systems and perspectives are ignored or marginalized (Gusa, 2021). Therefore, even in the scientific practice known to pursue objectivity, it can be seen that the consensus reached by humans has deeply rooted epistemological bias. This further illustrates that the objectivity we perceive is ingrained with human cognitive consensus, rather than an absolute reality independent of the mind.

Searching for Truth and Absolute Objectivity

The notion that the human mind’s objectivity is not a genuine objective reality prompts a critical inquiry: does there exist a true objectivity independent of cognition? To address this question, a general theory of information processing is pertinent. Central to this issue is the initial stage of information processing: input (Anderson et al., 2016). If one posits that the input phase, where raw sensory data first enters the cognitive process, contains absolute objectivity, it would imply that there exists a foundational, unaltered reality that precedes cognitive interpretation. However, empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks fail to substantiate this notion. Firstly, the cognitive process is too fragile, with each stage susceptible to subjective manipulation of objectivity, misconstruing our understanding of objective reality. Secondly, scientific truths are not truly objective either, but rather a form of consensus. Additionally, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics suggests that the very act of observation influences the observed, further complicating the notion of absolute objectivity in the input stage (Heisenberg, 1958). Thus, while the idea of absolute objectivity in the input phase is theoretically appealing, it remains unsupported by the current understanding of cognitive and perceptual processes.

If the initial input in the information processing model is devoid of absolute objectivity, a fundamental paradox emerges within the framework of cognition. Knowledge derives from the existing knowledge, and continuously evolves. As such, cognitive processes have a self-referential quality, with each act of cognition generating further cognition in a recursive loop. This creates a chicken-and-egg dilemma, where it becomes impossible to determine the origin of the initial cognitive act. This situation defies general logical principles, as it suggests that cognition is both the creator and the product of itself, without any external validation.

To resolve this paradox, it becomes necessary to introduce a separate third entity that exists outside the recursive loop of cognition, providing a basis for validating cognitive processes and breaking the self-referential cycle. The concept of the “looking-glass self” has been proposed, which posits that individuals develop their self-concept through the perceived evaluations and reactions of others (Cooley, 1902). Involving external input from others, this idea seems to offer a solution to the self-referential loop. However, like scientific consensus, it is still a form of collective agreement, inherently subject to the biases and limitations of human perception and social interaction (Nickerson, 2023). As such, it remains embedded within the subjective frameworks of human interaction and perception, and thus cannot provide the absolute objectivity required to validate cognitive processes independently. This failure highlights the fundamental issue in seeking a third entity: by its nature, it is posited to exist beyond human perception and understanding, making it inherently inaccessible. Moreover, the third entity must itself be subject to scrutiny and validation, leading to a deadlock. Thus, the pursuit of absolute objectivity through the third entity ultimately reaches an impasse, with objectivity still rooted in the subjective frameworks of the human mind.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the pursuit of objective truth is inherently subjective, as it is shaped by human cognition and societal consensus. Despite attempts to find an independent standard, objectivity remains a mental construct, influenced by perception, bias, and cultural norms. The quest for an absolute, external objectivity is unattainable, as any perceived objectivity is still processed and interpreted through subjective lenses. Thus, objectivity is indeed all in the mind.

References

Anderson, J. R., Zhang, Q., Borst, J. P., & Walsh, M. M. (2016). The discovery of processing stages: extension of Sternberg's Method. Psychological Review, 123(4), 481-509.

APA. (2018). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

APA. (n.d.). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.

Asch, S. E. (1951). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 185(5), 31-35.

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Dalton, J. (1798). Extraordinary facts relating to the vision of colours: With observations. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 5, 28–45.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Gusa, D. (2010). Masking inequality with good intentions: Systemic bias, counterspaces, and discourse acquisition in STEM education. The WAC Clearinghouse.

Heisenberg, W. (1958). Physics and philosophy: The revolution in modern science. Harper & Brothers.

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42-52.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Nickerson, C. (2023, September 22). The looking-glass self: Theory, definition & examples. SimplyPsychology.

Nussinson, R., & Koriat, A. (2008). Correcting experience-based judgments: the perseverance of subjective experience in the face of the correction of judgment. Metacognition and Learning, 3(2), 127-146.

Peter, U. (2022). What is the function of confirmation bias? Erkenntnis, 87(3), 1351-1376.

Ramos, T. (2024, November 11). Cognitive psychology vs. behaviorism. Cognitive Psychology News Journal.