This video gets too caught up in misusing social constructionism as a way of discerning what is real from what isn't real. That's not what social constructionism does. Social constructionism takes anything, whether real or unreal, and examines how knowledge about that thing is constructed through social interactions, institutions, etc. The thing constructed could be fictional or real/factual, but what interests social constructionism is not whether it is real or not, but how it becomes part of social experience and how knowledge of it is generated through social interaction.
I'm having a report and my teacher gives me the constructionism as my topic, my first time hearing this word, is constructionism and social constructuinism are the same? also whats the connection between constructionsim and constructivsm? can someone please explain this>??
People valuing something means that, in the minds of those people, that thing is desired- for whatever reason. However, there seems to be no logical inconsistency in also stating that a people can find personal value in something but also understand that that thing that they value is without inherent value. Take the money example. People value it because they can use it. it has a practical use. However, itvis hard to see why we should use the term social construct to refer to this money example.
What does "can I take this video into consideration" mean? Can you cite it? No, probably not. Can you use it to get a decent grasp of the concept, its terminology and thinkers? Yes.
A good example of social contruction is childhood. Let us see childhood means the state of being a child. So who is a child well the dictionary defines a child(ren) as a young person or people below puberty or a person below the age of adulthood. For example according to UNICEF a child is a young person below 18 years however biologicaly a child is a person who is in between puberty and infancy. This means that childhood could be defined biologicaly starting at the end of infancy and ending at puberty, or defined socially and legally starting at birth and ending at 18 years. But mostly I have to agree childhood is mostly socially consturcted because it is society and the law that deems when one is a child and when he ceases to be a child and because an adult
what kills me is how people deny truth even when their own eyes show them the truth. They can clearly see with theyre physical eyes that these teens under 18 are sexually developed and mentally knows what they are doing. And are nothing like actual children. Yet they turn a blind eye, blatantly lie and act like they are the same as actual children under puberty. I also believe most people just like the to follow the popular opinion. God and biology agrees and speak truth, while humans lie just for theyre own benefit and desires.
can i interpret the term brute like how to guess secret code in random way as encrypted calculating probability. if yes, in which part of the social construction can be "brute". thanks.
Only thing I see was a discrepancy was that we can predict many natural phenomena perhaps weather! 80% of the time we are right within a seven day period. But great observation on that we created everything around us. It’s real😂
@@karimart7439 Some of it but not all. Up until fifty seconds in is definitely a fine basic explanation. Check out Stanford.edu. Philosophical concepts are explained in impeccable detail on that website.
@@karimart7439 Also, the explanation here is pretty good and it wouldn't hurt having the two basic concepts of Weak and Strong Constructionism in mind for your class/course.
Can "strong constructionism" be thought of an ultimate form of "agnosticism" with regard to the ultimate nature of reality, in the sense that our senses are fallible and we in the end base the basic natural facts in a "robust circularity", allowing we to claim that, while this is not known as absolute facts in the same sense that logical or mathematical facts are necessarily true (by definition), they're still "the most likely ultimate reality, as far as we know?" That kind of phrasing would perhaps make it sound less like some sort of Pyrrhic epistemological "mentalism"/solipsism, or those new-age "what the #$@$# do we know" ideas. Or those notions along the lines that maybe magic and sorcery is real and science is all a hoax.
social constructivism deals with the nature of knowledge and the formation of "abstract" entities such as money, myth, news and etc. and how they interact within society. It makes no comment on the nature of reality, truth or anything besides that unless you subscribe to the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory. No proponent of Social Constructivism had ever argued for a nihilism or relativism
@@iBot. This is just my opinion based on the numerous conversations I have about this subject. They think X is a social construct when really its the labels we use to define X is the actual social construct. For example a rock is still what it is no matter what we label it, the rock itself is not a social construct only what we choose to call it. Believe it or not some people have argued with me over something that absurd.
@@Arminius420 yeah that’s right. Everything is “social construct” for them now. That’s the explanation for everything because they want to rebel against the system and society.
@@Arminius420 bull. I have never seen a sociologist comment on the reality of a rock. They applies the constructionist lens to cultural mores such as hand gestures or homosexuality, the meanings assigned to which are solely constructed by society. Some societies accept homosexuals, other societies don’t, that alone is proof that there is no moral reality on the act of homosexuality, but instead depends entirely on the context of the culture that behavior lies in. Uneducated.
While we have cried for generations that genetics determines our personalities, this is simply **wrong** . Our personalities are shaped by environment and the same environment also shapes our genes (epigenetics). Seeing a father playing football and seeing the son also playing football is a **correlation** , **_not_** proof of causation. What is really happening is that a father who plays footbal creates a football-emphasising environment that his children then grow up in. That conditions the child to be familiar with, and practiced in, football earlier and more deeply than other children - nothing to do with the father's genetic abilities at the sport. (If genetics were responsible then every child should be just as good as their parent, and then we would have to turn to random genetic variation to account for changes. This is the 'Ptolomy's system of planetary motion' explanation of the situation. The Occam's Razor version is that the conditions a child experiences, and how much they practice, determines their skill.) To cut this a bit short: everything we are as "people" (meaning: personality, character, behaviour) is environmentally (meaning: family, social, educational) conditioned. This becomes strikingly obvious when you realise that culture is a near-90% conforming index in terms of things like moral values, life goals, wants and desires (marriage, belief in monogamy, perception of sex & sexuality, acceptance of other races, etc etc - and yes, also sexuality and sexual attraction). If a Chinese couple moves to the USA and raises a child there, the child receives some Chinese influence from the parents and a lot of American influence from everywhere else. If genetics was such a strong part of our personalities, 2nd-gen immigrant children would be far far far more like their parents and far less like their classmates. But this is not the case. Environment. Is. Everything. And the constructed nature of society takes advantage of exactly this fact. Those with influence want people to believe that biology rules because then there is nothing that can be done about the results - there must be a reason things have turned out as they did. Social Constructivism provides those with influence exactly the tools they need to remain in positions of influence. If you can think of something that we have 'developed', that allows bad people to get away with bad things, it's not simply that it's a fault in the system; actually quite the opposite: the enablement of that 'bad thing ***_is the very reason that thing exists_*** . Some examples: - Dating (allows guys easy access to sex without commitment) - Karma (allows bad actions to go unpunished with a hopeful 'he'll get it later') - Personal Privacy (allows criminals to avoid global surveillance that would otherwise eliminate all crime..) - Conservatism (we can't change it, it's our nature, it has to stay like it is) - "Humans are innately selfish by nature" (allows e.g. traders to rip off old grandmas or nations to exploit each other for labour, and then claim 'don't blame us, we're just being human) - Political representation (allows all manner of corruption under the guise of 'helping some section of the people') I could go on. But the realisation that everything we are is learned, answers all these questions and places our human behaviour and society into a very understandable orbit, instead of the crazy 'retrograde-motion' genetic requirements that we're forced to consider if we try to attribute personality to genetics.
Social construction is useless if one is actually making something with things in the REAL WORLD. making things is learned activity that requires no social construction. learning in craft, expertise, skill requires little if any social interaction. ask a top downhill skier. or a top designer, or anyone working at the highest levels of any field. (not the social activist field however.) so-called "strong social construction" does not rely on reality - only on human language. most people, at about 12 or 13, figure out that words are symbolic, somewhat arbitrary and are not the actual real world. try using a social construction to extricate your foot from beneath couple hundred pounds of real world stuff. after 30 years in education, it is surprising to hear this crap suggested as a new paradigm for success in learning. i admit, that discussion, critique, interactive shared learning is useful but they go way to far is suggesting that reality is socially constructed. the world exist separately from us. separately from our mental construct used to understand it. you can see evidence of this when you run headlong into a tree and bust your nose. a child learns this when they gleefully run along - until they stub their toe. use the techniques, but don't drink this nihilist marxist kool-aid
@@dburgessnotburger yes hello, I am society. I see what’s wrong, you don’t even know what the word “socially” means. I’m sure you’re a great source on objective facts.
@@Charles-pf7zy depends? By what criteria do you draw your objectivity? Like I say, this is a circular form of reasoning. Let's stick to the real world bro
This video gets too caught up in misusing social constructionism as a way of discerning what is real from what isn't real. That's not what social constructionism does. Social constructionism takes anything, whether real or unreal, and examines how knowledge about that thing is constructed through social interactions, institutions, etc. The thing constructed could be fictional or real/factual, but what interests social constructionism is not whether it is real or not, but how it becomes part of social experience and how knowledge of it is generated through social interaction.
Sounds like Foucault to me.
Much more straightforward than the explanation provided in the video. Cheers.
thank you
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
This is not how I’ve understood it from what I’ve read.
Deconstruct this.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
Brake lights at noon is a social construct.
There is no active element to say it is harm to not have “brake lights” at light.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
I'm having a report and my teacher gives me the constructionism as my topic, my first time hearing this word, is constructionism and social constructuinism are the same? also whats the connection between constructionsim and constructivsm? can someone please explain this>??
lol sameeee. im confused too
People valuing something means that, in the minds of those people, that thing is desired- for whatever reason. However, there seems to be no logical inconsistency in also stating that a people can find personal value in something but also understand that that thing that they value is without inherent value.
Take the money example. People value it because they can use it. it has a practical use.
However, itvis hard to see why we should use the term social construct to refer to this money example.
True, thats why this is a meme.
People value it because they can use it. People can use it because they value it. People value it because...
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
A very brute explanation of Social constructionism.
I began to understand more after your explanation. Thank You
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
What does "can I take this video into consideration" mean? Can you cite it? No, probably not. Can you use it to get a decent grasp of the concept, its terminology and thinkers? Yes.
Good explanation, thank you.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
What is the social construction of childhood?
What is social constructionist perspective?
A good example of social contruction is childhood. Let us see childhood means the state of being a child. So who is a child well the dictionary defines a child(ren) as a young person or people below puberty or a person below the age of adulthood. For example according to UNICEF a child is a young person below 18 years however biologicaly a child is a person who is in between puberty and infancy. This means that childhood could be defined biologicaly starting at the end of infancy and ending at puberty, or defined socially and legally starting at birth and ending at 18 years. But mostly I have to agree childhood is mostly socially consturcted because it is society and the law that deems when one is a child and when he ceases to be a child and because an adult
what kills me is how people deny truth even when their own eyes show them the truth. They can clearly see with theyre physical eyes that these teens under 18 are sexually developed and mentally knows what they are doing. And are nothing like actual children. Yet they turn a blind eye, blatantly lie and act like they are the same as actual children under puberty. I also believe most people just like the to follow the popular opinion. God and biology agrees and speak truth, while humans lie just for theyre own benefit and desires.
@@kzariuscook1275 but the age of consent is at 18. Are you saying that is wrong?
A book is a social construct?
Gravity is a social construct.
your mom is a social construct
The concept of it is, but not itself.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
Deez nuts are a social construct
Gravity (like practically everything else) is explained in a socially constructed way, but the phenomenon itself is not a social construct.
can i interpret the term brute like how to guess secret code in random way as encrypted calculating probability. if yes, in which part of the social construction can be "brute". thanks.
Pretty much everything can be classified as a social construct. How about the plant earth, couldn’t we say it’s a ball filled with particles?
Only thing I see was a discrepancy was that we can predict many natural phenomena perhaps weather! 80% of the time we are right within a seven day period. But great observation on that we created everything around us. It’s real😂
If the statement "there are no brute facts" is true, then that statement is itself a brute fact.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
@@karimart7439 Some of it but not all. Up until fifty seconds in is definitely a fine basic explanation. Check out Stanford.edu. Philosophical concepts are explained in impeccable detail on that website.
@@karimart7439 Also, the explanation here is pretty good and it wouldn't hurt having the two basic concepts of Weak and Strong Constructionism in mind for your class/course.
@@asafaingram9088 I think this video mentions culture too
where does the tendency for humans to create these things come from then?
Can "strong constructionism" be thought of an ultimate form of "agnosticism" with regard to the ultimate nature of reality, in the sense that our senses are fallible and we in the end base the basic natural facts in a "robust circularity", allowing we to claim that, while this is not known as absolute facts in the same sense that logical or mathematical facts are necessarily true (by definition), they're still "the most likely ultimate reality, as far as we know?"
That kind of phrasing would perhaps make it sound less like some sort of Pyrrhic epistemological "mentalism"/solipsism, or those new-age "what the #$@$# do we know" ideas. Or those notions along the lines that maybe magic and sorcery is real and science is all a hoax.
social constructivism deals with the nature of knowledge and the formation of "abstract" entities such as money, myth, news and etc. and how they interact within society. It makes no comment on the nature of reality, truth or anything besides that unless you subscribe to the Cultural Marxist Conspiracy Theory. No proponent of Social Constructivism had ever argued for a nihilism or relativism
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
Some people have turned this into a freaking ideology or cult now.
Want to elaborate?
@@iBot. This is just my opinion based on the numerous conversations I have about this subject. They think X is a social construct when really its the labels we use to define X is the actual social construct. For example a rock is still what it is no matter what we label it, the rock itself is not a social construct only what we choose to call it. Believe it or not some people have argued with me over something that absurd.
@@Arminius420 yeah that’s right. Everything is “social construct” for them now. That’s the explanation for everything because they want to rebel against the system and society.
@@aristoteles4723 They're morons obviously
@@Arminius420 bull. I have never seen a sociologist comment on the reality of a rock. They applies the constructionist lens to cultural mores such as hand gestures or homosexuality, the meanings assigned to which are solely constructed by society. Some societies accept homosexuals, other societies don’t, that alone is proof that there is no moral reality on the act of homosexuality, but instead depends entirely on the context of the culture that behavior lies in. Uneducated.
So basically... postmodernism?
No not all.
Ryan yes. Exactly that
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
my mannnn
Nice
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
@@karimart7439 why not .
Anyone here from the AP Human Geography 2020 test?
Did you pass?
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
While we have cried for generations that genetics determines our personalities, this is simply **wrong** . Our personalities are shaped by environment and the same environment also shapes our genes (epigenetics).
Seeing a father playing football and seeing the son also playing football is a **correlation** , **_not_** proof of causation. What is really happening is that a father who plays footbal creates a football-emphasising environment that his children then grow up in. That conditions the child to be familiar with, and practiced in, football earlier and more deeply than other children - nothing to do with the father's genetic abilities at the sport. (If genetics were responsible then every child should be just as good as their parent, and then we would have to turn to random genetic variation to account for changes. This is the 'Ptolomy's system of planetary motion' explanation of the situation. The Occam's Razor version is that the conditions a child experiences, and how much they practice, determines their skill.)
To cut this a bit short: everything we are as "people" (meaning: personality, character, behaviour) is environmentally (meaning: family, social, educational) conditioned. This becomes strikingly obvious when you realise that culture is a near-90% conforming index in terms of things like moral values, life goals, wants and desires (marriage, belief in monogamy, perception of sex & sexuality, acceptance of other races, etc etc - and yes, also sexuality and sexual attraction).
If a Chinese couple moves to the USA and raises a child there, the child receives some Chinese influence from the parents and a lot of American influence from everywhere else. If genetics was such a strong part of our personalities, 2nd-gen immigrant children would be far far far more like their parents and far less like their classmates. But this is not the case.
Environment.
Is.
Everything.
And the constructed nature of society takes advantage of exactly this fact. Those with influence want people to believe that biology rules because then there is nothing that can be done about the results - there must be a reason things have turned out as they did. Social Constructivism provides those with influence exactly the tools they need to remain in positions of influence. If you can think of something that we have 'developed', that allows bad people to get away with bad things, it's not simply that it's a fault in the system; actually quite the opposite: the enablement of that 'bad thing ***_is the very reason that thing exists_*** . Some examples:
- Dating (allows guys easy access to sex without commitment)
- Karma (allows bad actions to go unpunished with a hopeful 'he'll get it later')
- Personal Privacy (allows criminals to avoid global surveillance that would otherwise eliminate all crime..)
- Conservatism (we can't change it, it's our nature, it has to stay like it is)
- "Humans are innately selfish by nature" (allows e.g. traders to rip off old grandmas or nations to exploit each other for labour, and then claim 'don't blame us, we're just being human)
- Political representation (allows all manner of corruption under the guise of 'helping some section of the people')
I could go on. But the realisation that everything we are is learned, answers all these questions and places our human behaviour and society into a very understandable orbit, instead of the crazy 'retrograde-motion' genetic requirements that we're forced to consider if we try to attribute personality to genetics.
Jordan Peterson joins the chat
Haha dude
Being a monk vs ceo
beyond your mind
Is this janhavi panwar voice
Ah Ha!Thanks.(*_*)
Btw:DR.SCOTT MCQUATE Is The TRUTH!!
Social construction is useless if one is actually making something with things in the REAL WORLD. making things is learned activity that requires no social construction. learning in craft, expertise, skill requires little if any social interaction. ask a top downhill skier. or a top designer, or anyone working at the highest levels of any field. (not the social activist field however.) so-called "strong social construction" does not rely on reality - only on human language. most people, at about 12 or 13, figure out that words are symbolic, somewhat arbitrary and are not the actual real world.
try using a social construction to extricate your foot from beneath couple hundred pounds of real world stuff.
after 30 years in education, it is surprising to hear this crap suggested as a new paradigm for success in learning.
i admit, that discussion, critique, interactive shared learning is useful but they go way to far is suggesting that reality is socially constructed. the world exist separately from us. separately from our mental construct used to understand it. you can see evidence of this when you run headlong into a tree and bust your nose. a child learns this when they gleefully run along - until they stub their toe.
use the techniques, but don't drink this nihilist marxist kool-aid
I guess you think money is useless then huh?
You had me until you called it nihilist and marxist.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
gender is an example of social construct
So is the soul
God didn't make....
finally, money isnt valueless ...unless you want a society without it [mkt economics = brute facts]
No, economics is not a brute fact about the world. Without humans there would be no economics, it's a social construct.
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
Social construction theory invalidates itself lol. Saying facts aren't real makes that exact fact unreal. What an lsd trip lol
🤦♂️. you’ve confused the descriptive with the prescriptive, yet again
@@Charles-pf7zy or is that just your socially constructed perception of my statement 🤔?
@@dburgessnotburger yes hello, I am society. I see what’s wrong, you don’t even know what the word “socially” means. I’m sure you’re a great source on objective facts.
@@Charles-pf7zy depends? By what criteria do you draw your objectivity? Like I say, this is a circular form of reasoning. Let's stick to the real world bro
@@dburgessnotburger 🤦♂️
this is a stolen video.... ethics!
I have constructionism as a concept of Cultural Studies
Do you think I can take this video into consideration
Please help
@@karimart7439 easy to be confused, better to find other resources
What does any of this bull even mean?
Sounds like a bad idea
What makes you say this?