In natural sciences, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction but does that hold true for social sciences as well?

A manifested realism verifies that citizens of the country belonging to either private or public sector, from any status class or from any scientific or social field are exposed to communication and dealing. Either excessively or insufficiently/ extrovertly or introvertly; a student, an employee, a politician, a business man, a servant, a priest, a victim all communicates and deals with people in their melting pots. The dealing with the world is a psychodynamic nexus in reciprocation to unrighteous and righteous behavioural settings.

Every human on the planet has similar reactions based on the command of his organic self-perception knowledge e.g. good would be taken as good and bad as bad until evil temptations occur and changes the natural mind settings into deliberate virtue transgression. Therefore, does human behavior always have equivalent reaction to every action e.g. to kindness as being kind, to cruelty as being cruel, to wickedness as being wicked, to destruction as being destructive and will such ‘’behavioral equations’’ are justified?

To answer this, one might get into much more inquisitiveness; for instance is raising voice against injustice is violence? Is giving reasoning for a failure should be interpreted as an excuse for non-accomplishment? Is defending oneself is a weak reaction to questioning? Is talking about your right publicly shows you’re aggressive? Is giving up always show weakness? Is the attitude for the rich should be arrogance? Is the attitude for the poor should be merciful?

An insight to this concept absolutely smashes the balanced behavioral equation to the highest degree. But how? Lets review the different human roles on the planet. For example, a competent employee witness enormous politics in an organizational set-up for a long time which has affected his promotion and recognition rewards. He decides to talk to his boss about it but boss refuses all the evidences he puts forward because he trusts the majority staff’s opinion over him and disregard what the employee says. Employee now have two ways to handle politics either to surrender and be part of the politics by playing politics in return or be a whistleblower and act against injustice. If he starts playing politics the reasons could be the job insecurity, the status quo, the tangible respect for the position he holds in society, the salary he receives at the end of the month and the internal psychodynamic weakness to be an evil to handle evil. If he fights back the politics, the reasons could be being truthful, to raise voice against injustice, to break the unjust system. Whatever he chooses between the two options; the different number of reasoning itself proves that there is no such thing as monotonousness of a human reaction to the environmental influences, attacks and welcomes.

In another instance, suppose a nation has been suffering a barbaric ruler for 50 years and their ancestors died bemoaning but could not remonstrate to make him step down, it further has undergone unemployment, inflation, excessive taxation, ruined facilities, ruined infrastructure, tarnished image, rising poverty rates and other derogatory occurrences. If the nation under effective leader supervision, come on roads fighting for their rights and repeatedly perform such an act until their demands are fulfilled; does that really mean the nation is not democratically right, lacks vision, lacks acceptance of the government as a whole, or are they collectively violent influenced by the current reverberating effect of collective protest intellectualism? The whole nation protestation for their rights has dominance over creating a collective change which fosters new ideologies and new mind sets as an achievement consequence. So in this very case, every action or step taken by the brutal and barbaric government for snatching rights must have an equal reaction by the nation in the form of immense expostulation. However, can we also propose that democracy is always right and people exactly know whom they are to elect? The whole world population has different religions or no religions, have different perceptions and different ways of doing things; suppose if the whole planet population had to elect one president of the entire world; were they able to have consensus in doing so? Apparently no! Because of the excessive diversification in views and thinking patterns which is further translated into religions, cultures and lifestyles. Islamic history states that many prophets were rejected by the people of their times but prophets were themselves right in their originality. Therefore, democracy is always not the answer in times of collective ignorance and in a structure of corruption and deceit.

In conclusion, we may confirm that similar to natural sciences; social sciences explain the same principle of having an equal and opposite reaction to every action rather than only equalized reactions to behavioral actions.