Wasn't sure where to put this, so if Mods feel there's a more appropriate sub please advise. This is less a question on historical facts, the process of recording history, or the study of what's been written - more so a direct question to real historians on how a historian's mind works.

Background: Two events occurred to make me wonder how the brain of a historian works. The first were the great posts that can be found in the history subs regarding the POV of Soviets/Germans of WW2; the second was listening to The Band's "The Night They Drove Ole Dixie Down".

My question is this: when real historians encounter humans in their studies what happens? Is it void of emotion and rooted in facts, logic,etc? Or do feelings become involved such as empathy?

I ask because I put myself in the shoes of historians, humbly admitting I still couldn't figure out what they would do in that situation. I can see how a historian would have to feel some type of emotion - anger, love, empathy, etc. - as history involves humans just like us. On the other hand, I can absolutely see how a historian would want to distance themselves from feelings to be able to have an unbiased view that can be recorded for future generations. Seems like a possible conflict, and an interesting question to ask a historian.

Apologies in advance if I didn't convey this or word this eloquently. Also, please do direct me to a better sub if this is not the appropriate avenue of discussion.

Edit: Also, the historic Ferguson Riots came to mind as well, which might be a different question for a different post titled "Do historians remove themselves (emotions, political views, etc.) when recording recent/current events?"