Social Construction of Reality Problems?

Fathom · 18-10-2017 4:36pm #1

Interacting with each other humans constructed their reality suggested Berger and Luckmann. A model of the world about them. They used language to facilitate this. To what extent does this language limit that construction? Contrasts seemed important to understand language. Dichotomies occurred that were nominal, mutually exclusive categories of good-evil, true-false, male-female, etc. Or at best, along 2-dimensional lines between opposites as an ordinal greater-or-lesser-than measure. To what extent do these nominal or ordinal measures distort reality and its social construction? Other problems with the social construction of reality? Ref: The Social Construction of Reality by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1966).

Black Swan · 19-10-2017 2:22am

Jacques Derrida suggested that dichotomies were often treated in a hierarchy, where one was preferred over the other. For example, true was higher ranked than false, male higher than female, etc. Dichotomies were said to be biased in this way, and were also representing imbalances for measurement. Furthermore, Derrida suggested that nature was more complex than an over-simplistic either/or categorisation, or where measurement was between two-dimensional opposites (e.g., Likert scale). Nature was complex, multifaceted, and interactive to the extent that a simple "social construction" of reality may be misleading or spurious.

Sources:
Jacques Derrida (1967), Of Grammatology
Christopher Johnson (1999), Derrida. New York: Routledge.

Fathom · 20-10-2017 8:11pm

Ferdinand de Saussure suggested a dichotomy between speech and writing, with speech exhibiting a Derridean distorted preference over writing. Claude Levi-Strauss, when building his social construction of reality, combined Saussure's speech preference with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's romantic notion that speech was pure and writing led to corruption and bondage. To what extent does this represent a measure of anti-intellectualism that exists today, where written scholarly works and scientific findings have been rejected in favor of the superficial, without substance populist speech of Donald Trump?

mzungu · 22-10-2017 11:01pm

Fathom wrote: »

Ferdinand de Saussure suggested a dichotomy between speech and writing, with speech exhibiting a Derridean distorted preference over writing. Claude Levi-Strauss, when building his social construction of reality, combined Saussure's speech preference with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's romantic notion that speech was pure and writing led to corruption and bondage.

To what extent does this represent a measure of anti-intellectualism that exists today, where written scholarly works and scientific findings have been rejected in favor of the superficial, without substance populist speech of Donald Trump?

I think the anti-intellectualism movement can be found following the likes of Trump, and on the other side of the political spectrum too. In some sense, people have always rejected science (to varying degrees), especially when it confronts their worldview. There is an anti-intellectual element to it, but there is something much bigger than that causing it.

However, on the surface level, I think a desperate voter base won't care about what is true or false. Whomever promises to put three meals a day on their table and a few quid in their pocket will be what they will gravitate towards. Even though they have unknowingly bought into more lies peddled by a snake oil salesman.

Fathom · 23-10-2017 6:54pm

Anti-intellectualism can be found in American schools. Teachers and administrators focus on K-12 student test scores to justify school funding. Teach to the test. Standardized scores outweigh creative thinking. No learning outside the box. Ref: Noddings, N. (2007), Education Week.

Fathom · 25-10-2017 4:12am

"Trump has elevated intellectual impoverishment to a high art, and America is buying it." What's Trump's social construction of reality?

Victor · 25-10-2017 5:37am

It's been observed that colour has a function in language. The Welsh language didn't have a word for 'pink', so pink things were 'red'. In the Irish language, Africans are 'blue' people.

Language, other media and the manipulation they allow can distort the message and perception of the reality - "Bob came second in the race" and "Bob came last in the race" are not mutually exclusive statements.

Black Swan wrote: »

Likert scale

Depending on the objective, psychologists will most commonly use Likert scales with 2, 3, 4 or 5 points, sometimes forcing the subject to make choices they wouldn't prefer, e.g. forcing yes/no answers or soft yes/no answers to a question where many people might prefer a middle option or some variant thereof.

Black Swan · 26-10-2017 5:58pm

Victor wrote: »

Depending on the objective, psychologists will most commonly use Likert scales with 2, 3, 4 or 5 points, sometimes forcing the subject to make choices they wouldn't prefer, e.g. forcing yes/no answers or soft yes/no answers to a question where many people might prefer a middle option or some variant thereof.

Certainly there have been serious measurement issues when attempting to examine the social construction of reality. The limitations exhibited by Likert and Likert-like opinion scales demonstrate this, especially if such a scale allows for a middle choice (odd numbered scales), or forces a subject to pick one side or the other (even numbered scales). The larger issue mentioned earlier has to do with Jacques Derrida's challenge of such 2-dimensional scales when attempting to operationalise (theory>concept>variable>measure) natural occurring phenomena, nature variables being highly complex, interactive, and with many dimensions.

mzungu · 26-10-2017 11:36pm

Fathom wrote: »

"Trump has elevated intellectual impoverishment to a high art, and America is buying it." What's Trump's social construction of reality?

Violent crime down. But at the same time concern about violent crime has risen with 7/10 believing crime was on the rise. As a result, gun sales start to hit record breaking figures. I think Trump may have fed into a media construction of reality that existed long before he ever ran for president. He, or rather his advisors, manipulated the existing framework to give him an advantage. With that kind of power, reality will be what the one in control of the message says it is.

Fathom wrote: »

Anti-intellectualism can be found in American schools. Teachers and administrators focus on K-12 student test scores to justify school funding. Teach to the test. Standardized scores outweigh creative thinking. No learning outside the box.

Ref: Noddings, N. (2007), Education Week.

It takes its queue from other education sectors. As a general rule, commercial interests are paramount here. Third level education is sold like any other commodity (flashy prospectus and website etc). Not to mention research grants awarded for profitable research.

Black Swan · 28-10-2017 4:27am

mzungu wrote: »

Violent crime down.

It's down compared to 30 years ago, but there is a larger demographic shift occurring in the US that can account for a significant part of that decline. The greatest age-at-risk occurs between 16 and 26, and America is aging, and as this 16 to 26 age cohort shrinks, so will crime. Certainly, this is not the only reason, but it's an important one that will impact on America's social construction of reality.

mzungu · 28-10-2017 11:15pm

Black Swan wrote: »

It's down compared to 30 years ago, but there is a larger demographic shift occurring in the US that can account for a significant part of that decline. The greatest age-at-risk occurs between 16 and 26, and America is aging, and as this 16 to 26 age cohort shrinks, so will crime. Certainly, this is not the only reason, but it's an important one that will impact on America's social construction of reality.

Good point. Although, if the population is getting older, and less are in the problem age group of 16-24, then crime should be going down for the foreseeable future. As for a new social construction of reality, is this why Mexicans have suddenly become public enemy number 1? Not to mention republicans were race baiting long before Trump came along. On the financial side, even Irish affairs are coming under scrutiny with the plan being to bring jobs back to the . Possibly being used (and exaggerated) as part of a strategy to create new bogeymen/scapegoats for (possible) future socioeconomic struggles.

Black Swan · 29-10-2017 12:31am

mzungu wrote: »

As for a new social construction of reality, is this why Mexicans have suddenly become public enemy number 1? Not to mention republicans were race baiting long before Trump came along.

A new social construction, or repetition of a past one? Millions of Irish immigrated to America during the Potato Famine (1845-1849) and after, and were often met by the same level of rejection back then as Mexicans are met today. Ironically, the American version of capitalism requires continuous customer growth, and if it were not for both legal and illegal immigration today, America would have reached zero population growth (2.1) decades ago, and its capitalistic model would have been in trouble.

Fathom · 29-10-2017 2:52am

Black Swan wrote: »

It's down compared to 30 years ago, but there is a larger demographic shift occurring in the US that can account for a significant part of that decline. The greatest age-at-risk occurs between 16 and 26, and America is aging, and as this 16 to 26 age cohort shrinks, so will crime. Certainly, this is not the only reason, but it's an important one that will impact on America's social construction of reality.

Illustrative US population pyramid. Cohorts changing. Overtime. Shape transforms from pyramid towards column.

Black Swan · 08-11-2017 10:00am

Excellent illustrative pyramid. Should have social construction problems accordingly.

Fathom · 08-11-2017 4:45pm

Social constructions varying by generation? Culture, language variations, Internet usage, etc.?

mzungu · 08-11-2017 5:10pm

Fathom wrote: »

Social constructions varying by generation? Culture, language variations, Internet usage, etc.?

Worth remembering that those of 74+ years would have had their own reality constructed by spin/propaganda/media when they were the age that Millenials are now. The technology changes but that is about all!

Fathom · 09-11-2017 6:30pm

mzungu wrote: »

Worth remembering that those of 74+ years would have had their own reality constructed by spin/propaganda/media when they were the age that Millenials are now. The technology changes but that is about all!

Different times. Different distributions. Some intersection. Different cultural content and contexts?

mzungu · 09-11-2017 11:07pm

Fathom wrote: »

Different times. Different distributions. Some intersection. Different cultural content and contexts?

Without a doubt, and we can widen the scope to include other media (ie. Cold War propaganda on both sides of the divide). Depending on where you live the context will change quite a bit. Today, media is a lot more homogeneous mainly due to conglomerates. There are still definitely outliers, but I struggle to think of many countries where you can't get BBC, Sky, CNN on TV, granted you would need satellite. Things have closed in a bit!

Black Swan · 10-11-2017 2:41am

Just got into a very heated argument regarding the social construction of reality in our locale javahouse Thursday night. The opposing person's argument claimed that such things as social constructions were past nonsense and without merit, and that in the nature vs nurture argument, nature (i.e., biology) was the determinant of most human behaviour. He cited videos by Bryan Caplan as the source of his argument (Caplan is a self-described economic libertarian in the Economics Dept at George Mason University). Might be worth a review of these vids, especially if we debate again?

server down · 10-11-2017 3:02am

You all may want to read Stephen Pinker’s blank slate.

Fathom · 10-11-2017 8:31pm

server down wrote: »

You all may want to read Stephen Pinker’s blank slate.

Will check it out. Thanks for reference.

mzungu · 12-11-2017 12:50am

server down wrote: »

You all may want to read Stephen Pinker’s blank slate.

The "blank slate" idea has a few holes in it alight. IMO both nature and nurture play a part. Although that should not be a controversial statement, there are certain areas of academia where it is. Plus, you get the likes of the christian right subscribing to it (for gay conversion therapy and other barbarous acts) and gender activists championing it (to show there are no innate differences between men and women). When two polar opposite extremes gleefully sign up to something that, you can be pretty sure it is a terrible idea.

Fathom · 13-11-2017 6:31pm

server down wrote: »

You all may want to read Stephen Pinker’s blank slate.

John Locke (1689) in Essay Concerning Human Understanding suggested tabula rasa. Humans at birth had blank slates. B.F. Skinner (1971) suggested as much in Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Steven Pinker (2002) in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature challenges this suggesting behavior was substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. Thus rages the nature vs nurture debate in their respective constructions of reality.

Black Swan · 13-11-2017 8:22pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Just got into a very heated argument regarding the social construction of reality in our locale javahouse Thursday night. The opposing person's argument claimed that such things as social constructions were past nonsense and without merit, and that in the nature vs nurture argument, nature (i.e., biology) was the determinant of most human behaviour. He cited videos by Bryan Caplan as the source of his argument (Caplan is a self-described economic libertarian in the Economics Dept at George Mason University). Might be worth a review of these vids, especially if we debate again?

Read and viewed a bit of Bryan Caplan. Methinks that the opposing person during the javahouse argument was exhibiting confirmation bias when viewing Bryan Caplan videos. He was cherry picking what fit his POV, largely ignoring some of the content and context of Caplan's arguments. Caplan claims that he is not a genetic determinist, rather humans have free will. "Identical twins are genetically identical, but they're not identical for any complex trait. Identical twins don't have the same lifespan, the same IQ, the same happiness, the same friends, or the same income -- even when they are raised together. Since genetic determinism predicts that identical twins will be identical for all traits, genetic determinism is demonstrably false."

So let's not throw the social construction baby out with the bath water.

Source:
Caplan, Bryan (2011), Genetic Determinism vs Parental Irrelevantism, Library of Economics and Liberty.

mzungu · 15-11-2017 11:55pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Read and viewed a bit of Bryan Caplan. Methinks that the opposing person during the javahouse argument was exhibiting confirmation bias when viewing Bryan Caplan videos. He was cherry picking what fit his POV, largely ignoring some of the content and context of Caplan's arguments. Caplan claims that he is not a genetic determinist, rather humans have free will. "Identical twins are genetically identical, but they're not identical for any complex trait. Identical twins don't have the same lifespan, the same IQ, the same happiness, the same friends, or the same income -- even when they are raised together. Since genetic determinism predicts that identical twins will be identical for all traits, genetic determinism is demonstrably false."

So let's not throw the social construction baby out with the bath water.

Source:
Caplan, Bryan (2011), Genetic Determinism vs Parental Irrelevantism, Library of Economics and Liberty.

No disagreements there, I do think biology plays a big part, but then again social factors do too. Denial of either one is a misstep. The only question is how much influence either of them has.

Black Swan · 19-11-2017 11:33am

mzungu wrote: »

No disagreements there, I do think biology plays a big part, but then again social factors do too. Denial of either one is a misstep. The only question is how much influence either of them has.

Nature vs nurture has been, and continues to be problematic.

Fox_In_Socks · 21-11-2017 12:56am

mzungu wrote: »

Without a doubt, and we can widen the scope to include other media (ie. Cold War propaganda on both sides of the divide). Depending on where you live the context will change quite a bit. Today, media is a lot more homogeneous mainly due to conglomerates. There are still definitely outliers, but I struggle to think of many countries where you can't get BBC, Sky, CNN on TV, granted you would need satellite. Things have closed in a bit!

I would have thought that there is a variety of medi outlets now. How many YouTube channels are there that dispense out current affairs programs, podcasts and original content? Thousands?

Fox_In_Socks · 21-11-2017 1:08am

Black Swan wrote: »

Read and viewed a bit of Bryan Caplan. Methinks that the opposing person during the javahouse argument was exhibiting confirmation bias when viewing Bryan Caplan videos. He was cherry picking what fit his POV, largely ignoring some of the content and context of Caplan's arguments. Caplan claims that he is not a genetic determinist, rather humans have free will. "Identical twins are genetically identical, but they're not identical for any complex trait. Identical twins don't have the same lifespan, the same IQ, the same happiness, the same friends, or the same income -- even when they are raised together. Since genetic determinism predicts that identical twins will be identical for all traits, genetic determinism is demonstrably false."

So let's not throw the social construction baby out with the bath water.

Source:
Caplan, Bryan (2011), Genetic Determinism vs Parental Irrelevantism, Library of Economics and Liberty.

Does genetic determinism say that they will be identical in everything? I would say that children have various stages that are activated with the appropriate stimulus. Doesn’t mean that they will turn out identical even if they are largely identical genetically. For instance and look it up, if you provide food, clothing and shelter to a new born baby but no touching or love or affection, the baby will most likely die within the first year or will have serious developmental issues from which they never recover. This was seen in Romanian orphanages in the late 80s and early 90s where the dictators policy in that country was to ensure that Romanian women produced lots of babies which. were left in orphanages where they weren’t cared for.

Black Swan · 21-11-2017 1:56pm

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Does genetic determinism say that they will be identical in everything?

Genetic determinism suggests that nature dominates outcomes overtime, and that nurture plays a minimal role.

Fathom · 21-11-2017 4:16pm

Can postmodern deconstructionists exhibit social construction?

mzungu · 21-11-2017 10:43pm

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

I would have thought that there is a variety of medi outlets now. How many YouTube channels are there that dispense out current affairs programs, podcasts and original content? Thousands?

In my post I was referring mainly to mainstream TV, but you are right, there are channels on the web for pretty much everything you can think of. How many of those uphold proper journalistic standards though?. A lot seem to be of dubious quality and even those that are well meaning and balanced would not have the same kind of reach as the mainstream media for certain issues like the Panama/Paradise Papers.

Small and independent media does have a role to play, but at this moment it would not have the clout and resources as the likes of The Guardian or The New York Times etc. That may very well change in the next decade or two.

Social Construction of Reality Problems?

Comments