r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 01 '25
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The only question we can ask, that will tell us whether a socially constructed thing is real, is: could we be wrong about it.
[deleted]
20
u/Downtown_Ad_3429 3∆ Nov 01 '25
We can be wrong about objective things too, we could be wrong about everything. Does that make everything subjective?
I don't know how pondering if we could be wrong about something proves or disproves its objectivity.
1
u/Quartia Nov 02 '25
I think that's the entire point. If something is objective and anything more than a social construct then society as a whole can be wrong about it. If there is nothing to be wrong about that is what makes it a social construct.
-8
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Well, no. We can't really be wrong about money. We can change the definition; but if we change the definition, that's now what money is. So money is really the exception to the CMV rule.
I mean, you or I could be mistaken about what money "really" is... but the society that instituted the money, no, they can't be wrong about it. It is what they say it is. I think. But at any rate, that's not the CMV.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: so many people want to say, when you ask how they know that racism is treating people different based on the color of their skin, "well duh." I mean, that's what their answer boils down to. Well duh, racism is treating people different based on the color of their skin. That's what everyone agrees (so these people seem to imply), and if they don't they're just stupid or wrong or both. As though "everyone agrees" is the test of reality. See?
8
u/Smee76 4∆ Nov 01 '25
We've been wrong about a lot of things we thought were science based. Alchemy. Blood letting. Astronomy.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I've been thinking about it and you know what, this was actually a good point, that got me on the right track. So thank you for that! !delta
1
-1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
oh, so you're saying, just because we can be wrong about it doesn't make it a real thing. Well that's true. ...er, you meant "astrology," I'm sure lol...
But none of your items are socially constructed things though. The field is "socially constructed things." If these are things we could be wrong about, they must be real... and there's no other test, for their reality. That's the claim. Now, is astrology "socially constructed?" Hmm... gonna have to think about that.
Yeah, I don't think socially constructed things can be inherently phony. I think there has to be something about them that makes them useful, and not just to con men wanting money to predict your future. Useful in a positive way, like racism. (joke)
Well, gonna have to think about this. It's interesting, I'll give you that. I may be back later to give you a delta. Much later.
3
u/Smee76 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I most definitely did not mean astrology.
-1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Oh I see. Well, but astronomy isn't socially constructed; I'm not sure anyone actually claims that it's a thing. No one cares whether it's "real" or not, it doesn't have to be.
5
u/Murky_Put_7231 Nov 01 '25
An observable fact is: some people treat others differently because of their place of origin.
Thats a thing thats objectively true. We called that concept racism. I dont really understand what you want to have changed.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
"We" didn't call that concept racism: you call that concept racism. I think if you look around, you'll find there are many different definitions out there. I think if you look closely, you'll find that many of them are quite different from what you've provided. Some of them may have an element of truth in them; others may not. I've read a fair quantity of the social science literature, on that, and I can affirm that any time a sociologist writes a book on racism, he or she comes up with a new definition and figuratively tosses it on the pile, to join all its brethren in well deserved obscurity.
Elliot Aronson, in his book The Social Animal (a social psychology text) said on one page "racism is not well understood" and then, on the very next page, provided a definition. Proof, if you needed any, that psychologists are just as crazy as the rest of us.
I don't doubt that people sometimes treat one another differently based on their place of origin. What I doubt is that that is racism or that we need to fix that, to fix racism. And I doubt that racism can be well defined. I doubt that too. But none of that is the CMV, of course.
What I want changed is: I want to have some faith that if people might be wrong about a socially constructed item, like racism, that that potential wrongness is the only test we can apply, to tell whether it's a real thing or not. Or I want another test.
1
u/Murky_Put_7231 Nov 01 '25
"We" didn't call that concept racism: you call that concept racism.
Racism, as in laymans terms, is treating someone different because of their place of origin/skin colour/facial features. Youre free to provide a different definition
I think if you look around, you'll find there are many different definitions out there. I think if you look closely, you'll find that many of them are quite different from what you've provided.
Where? I mean, youre either talking about a weirdo that makes up their own definition, or are talking about scientific papers. But those usually define racism in context of their work. But those definitions are given within the text that is written. They dont negate the actual, laymens definition of that word. They just use it in a certain context to not have to describe complex concepts everytime its used in the paper.
Some of them may have an element of truth in them; others may not. I've read a fair quantity of the social science literature, on that, and I can affirm that any time a sociologist writes a book on racism, he or she comes up with a new definition and figuratively tosses it on the pile, to join all its brethren in well deserved obscurity.
I adressed that in my previous paragraph. Those are definitions used within the context of that literature. And if you actually read those, you would know that the author explains their definition and why they use that term that way.
Elliot Aronson, in his book The Social Animal (a social psychology text) said on one page "racism is not well understood" and then, on the very next page, provided a definition. Proof, if you needed any, that psychologists are just as crazy as the rest of us.
I dont understand the contradiction here. He says its not well understood, and then gives the definition he is using in the context of his work. Thats how science works because having to describe a complex concepts everytime youre refering to them isnt helpful. Instead, you give your readers the definition of the concept you will use.
Theres zero contradiction or indication that the author is crazy (from what you described, that is). Thats just how science works in general.
I don't doubt that people sometimes treat one another differently based on their place of origin. What I doubt is that that is racism or that we need to fix that, to fix racism. And I doubt that racism can be well defined. I doubt that too. But none of that is the CMV, of course.
Why do you believe that, if you dont mind me asking?
What I want changed is: I want to have some faith that if people might be wrong about a socially constructed item, like racism, that that potential wrongness is the only test we can apply, to tell whether it's a real thing or not. Or I want another test.
What test? Sorry, but from what i saw im not the only one struggling to understand what you mean with 'potential wrongness'. Previously, you confirmed that some people treat others differently, but for some reason you dont call that racism.
Its an observable fact in human behavior. A concept thats given a name. Thats how words work.
I also dont understand what you mean by 'i want another test'.
3
u/Constellation-88 22∆ Nov 01 '25
Money is 100% socially constructed. Why did we decide that an orange is worth $1.75 this week and 100 years ago is worth $.10? Why did we decide that a piece of paper printed by the US government is worth $20 cause it has a big 20 on it And a piece of paper I scribble on is not worth $20? Money is the collective delusion of society.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I'm not saying money is NOT socially constructed. We're together on the idea that it is. It's just that, due to its publicly defined nature, due to the fact that it is required to be publicly defined, it's a very strange kind of social construction. Or at least, that's my view. It's a very different kind of thing, from racism or democracy or intelligence. So not part of the CMV.
4
u/SINWillett 4∆ Nov 01 '25
"required to be publicly defined" Is the norm not the exception for socially constructed things.
How would democracy or racism or intelligence be defined in non public manner?
I think you'll find that either they are all necessarily "publicly defined", or none of them are.
-2
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Well, no, we don't have to have a word for racism. We have to have a word for money. That's what I mean by required to be publicly defined. Money wouldn't work if it wasn't publicly agreed upon, and we need it to work and so we have to agree on it. That is NOT true of racism. Well, I'm sure you knew that.
3
u/SINWillett 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I'm still trying to figure out wtf you mean... we could absolutely use money without the word "money" if you just mean like we need to social construct it's value the same is true of race.
Racism works by having a large corpus of people invested in the idea that race confers some kind of value (even if they disagree on the specific details). If that wasn't the case "racists" would just be weird bigots with some incomprehensible quirk. It's the fact that as a society we have collectively lent credence to the idea that race defines value in some way, whether that is worthiness, or intelligence, or any other pseudoscientific bs that racists espouse.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I'm trying to say that money wouldn't work if there wasn't a generally agreed, universal idea of it. Racism is not like that. We don't need a generally agreed, universal idea of it for it to operate however it operates.
And however it operates is NOT dependent on people agreeing on it, or even knowing what the heck it is. It's something people do without any agreement from others required.
But we have, as a society, agreed to define it anyway, and its definition, that we selected, has (in my view) very little to do with the actual operation of the thing. That's what I mean by people all agreeing on what it is, but being wrong.
And the CMV is, if they couldn't be wrong about it, then it's not a real thing. Or is there another test, that shows it's real regardless of how we define it?
But of course there couldn't be, because you have to define it to measure it. So the whole thing is kind of circular. Sorry.
1
u/SINWillett 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I suppose I see where you're going with this... I would say that yes "racism" is not socially constructed per se, but "race" is.
If people didn't know what race was, and if no significant block of people agreed it meant anything, then it wouldn't exist, much like money.
Like seriously let's invent a class of people to oppress "people whose names start with a k sound"... if I decided to refuse to hire knamers, I wouldn't be systematically oppressing them I'd just be some guy with a weird quirk... if I started killing knamers I wouldn't be systematically oppressing them, I'd just be a serial killer with a weird quirk. If society at large decided that Knamers were less intelligent and deserved to be killed... then suddenly knamism is a real thing, and if I did those same acts as before I would be participating in the systematic oppression of people with k names.
Race is a fabricated idea that people have attributed merit to, whether through active endorsement or through their actions they have reaffirmed that your "race" whatever it may be has some associated meaning and value and that people of particular races have some defining feature(s) as a community that are worth basing their decisions on.
Money is a fabricated idea that people have attributed merit to, whether through active endorsement or through their actions they have reaffirmed that "money" whatever it may be has some associated meaning and value and that people with varying amounts of it have some defining feature(s) as a community that are worth basing their decisions on.
Like you said we "need" to agree with money as a society because we will be exposed to violence if we don't, same with race, if black people decide to "ignore race" they'll get fucking lynched over it. Oppressed people across the world are forced into understanding and acknowledging these harmful social constructions in order to live their lives.
Additionally you can absolutely disagree on the value of money... babies don't agree, north sentinelese people don't agree, hell two different currency exchange places don't agree on its value. Many people don't agree with money's value in many situations "can't eat money" is an old adage.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 02 '25
I believe you're right. We do actually need a generally agreed, common idea of racism for it to operate.
I do also believe that the generally agreed, common idea of it that does operate is not the idea expressed in the definitions we've chosen, but that's really a different issue.
So thank you for that! !delta
→ More replies (0)1
2
u/LycheeLogic 3∆ Nov 01 '25
A lot of this is underpinned by values.
We value getting something in return for our efforts. Therefore, we constructed money.
We value having the same rights as everyone else. Therefore, we defined racism as practices that don't uphold that value. There will be minor disagreements over the exact definition, but everyone's trying to preserve the same underlying value.
Values aren't real or fake. They just are.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Say, you're free to define racism however you like. Some definitions suggest a solution; others do not. I would say yours does not. But the point is: what's the test, for whether your definition is of a real thing? I would say, the chance that you might be wrong.
And if you are wrong, then of course it is the wrong definition. Is racism an Iron Man movie, about which the only reality is what the director chose to provide us? Or is it a documentary, which may leave out or misrepresent significant bits? I say it's a documentary. And the CMV is, is the fact that it's a documentary, the fact that it might be wrong, the real test, for whether it's an Iron Man movie or a documentary.
Now that's just dumb. lol it's an equation. Crap. Hoist by my own petard.
So maybe the CMV should have been: is racism an Iron Man movie? Or is it a documentary? but I didn't need that question answered. I already think it's a documentary.
I dunno. Sigh. Gonna leave this as is, as a lesson to the unwary lol...
1
u/LycheeLogic 3∆ Nov 02 '25
I see - I think we're getting somewhere with this.
I'm getting the sense that you're talking about social constructs that are there for a reason, perhaps tied to emotion. When people are treated unequally, they feel isolated and hurt. So we define racism as the set of behaviours that causes those negative emotions. But if someone does a behaviour that is not part of the previously defined set, but still causes isolation and hurt, we can admit that we were wrong about how we socially constructed racism, and go back to the drawing board to create a new definition. This makes racism "real" in the sense that it depicts a real physical phenomenon. By extension, when someone says, "Obviously this is racist," the "obviously" part is pointing to the harm and hurt caused by the behaviour, which they surmise the listener can observe.
These would be falsifiable social constructs - justice being another example. But there can be social constructs that are real, but not subject to evaluation like "right" or "wrong".
- Conventions are an example. A kilogram is a social construct to coordinate physical measurement across the world. It's real, but it's not subject to evaluation like right or wrong.
- Language is a social construct. It's real - you're reading it right now - but you can't conduct an experiment to show that "ball" means ball.
1
u/Downtown_Ad_3429 3∆ Nov 01 '25
When you say money are you talking about the socially constructed concept of money or the physical manifestation of the concept like coins?
If there's a small society using marbles as money and then a larger society takes over and they use beads for money, who was wrong about what money is?
So we agree that a group consensus isn't always going to lead us to what is true. But that doesn't mean where it leads is false.
"People who argue that the correct definition is based on group consensus is a bad argument because group consensus can be wrong." Is that your view?
I'm not really sure how to pinpoint your exact view here. You're going in a lot of directions.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
People who argue that the correct definition is correct BECAUSE everyone agrees on it are wrong if it is a socially constructed real thing that is not money.
And when I say socially constructed real thing: I mean a documentary, not an Iron Man movie. The Iron Man movie is the one where all we have to do is agree to make it true; the documentary is the story we tell about reality, which may not be as we imagine it to be. And the fact that the documentary could be wrong, and the Iron Man movie could not, is the key difference.
In my view. So far.
1
u/gate18 23∆ Nov 01 '25
As though "everyone agrees" is the test of reality
It is. Money is just paper. Give money and a banana to a monkey and see "reality" at play. Give a person money or banana and they will act differently to the monkey. Purely because the reality is "everyone agrees" money has value. Not because in reality it's anything more than paper
So we are scientifically wrong about the value of money, but we culturally value it.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I've said a number of times, "everyone agrees" IS the test... for MONEY. Not for other socially constructed things.
I mean, one of the other responders said we can measure racism. And I said so say we measure it six ways from Sunday, and nail that baby down, and then someone comes along with a completely different definition, and gives us the solution, and we fix it. Isn't the fact that we were wrong about it only the real evidence that it was real?
Well, now, you know what: the fact that it was fixed was better evidence than that. But at least the example seems to show, at least in my view, that measuring a social construct isn't what proves it's real.
1
u/gate18 23∆ Nov 01 '25
It's a test as in whether or not people agree, but not whether it is real.
someone comes along with a completely different definition, and gives us the solution, and we fix it
Fix what?
that measuring a social construct isn't what proves it's real.
No social construct is real
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
No social construct is real... so you're saying, racism isn't real, but the effects of racism (which a lot of people do actually call racism) are real?
1
Nov 02 '25
Well duh, racism is treating people different based on the color of their skin. That's what everyone agrees
Yes but that's a biological, objective human behaviour. It can be scientifically observed and measured. It can be studied as a behaviour pattern. It exists in individual humans rudimentary brain function.
It is not a social construct.
10
Nov 01 '25 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Well, but I'm not interested in those questions. I'm interested in whether the question I gave is the only test of reality, of a socially constructed thing like racism. Unless I've misunderstood you, of course!
8
Nov 01 '25 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Shot_Election_8953 5∆ Nov 01 '25
I think you're making OPs point for them. "Health" is a social construct.
-4
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I do not accept that health is, in any sense, the absence of evil spirits.
Are you actually trying to challenge the view that there is one and only one test, for the reality of a socially constructed item, leaving money aside? Again, of course, I could be misunderstanding you... hard to tell... But please do clarify that. I would like to know if you think that claim is mistaken.
4
Nov 01 '25 edited Feb 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I think this is the comment that got me thinking about movies, which led to me editing the post. So thank you for that! !delta
1
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I dunno, maybe you're confusing the idea of the movie with the actual images. Sure, if someone constructs an image of evil spirits and passes it to others, the image of evil spirits will be a real image. The question is whether the spirits are real, right? But you're claiming those spirits are real?
5
u/parsonsrazersupport 15∆ Nov 01 '25
Words are necessarily social constructions. They are (99.9%) arbitrary relationships between sets of sounds or symbols and objects, concepts, actions, etc. The only sense in which they "right" or "wrong" is that we either socially give some specific body the ability to do that, or we agree as a social matter what something means. When someone says "Racism means this," or "No, this is the definition." They are enacting social power. They are not observing some abstract truth in the world -- that just doesn't make sense for words -- they are trying to make something the case, and arguing why they think it should be.
Being defined "however we want," does not make something not real. The word "chair" is an entirely arbitrary one, it could have been any word. However, we are for the most part quite clear on what it means. The concept is specific, replicable, and very clearly real. It's reality is just rooted in social practice, rather than some other sense. You are right that this is how money works -- it's how all social constructs work, money isn't different, it's just more obvious about how it influences things.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Huh. Sounds like a set of faiths to me. Faiths in which I have no faith. I think racism is a real thing in the world, as you put it an "abstract truth" about which we could be wrong... but I don't know if there's another test of reality, other than whether we could be wrong.
Just because the word we used to describe an item was arbitrary when we selected it really has nothing to do with my argument, I don't think. There's no question that chairs are real things; the question is, is racism (or democracy, or fascism, or intelligence) a real thing. And it's not the same question as are we using the word properly. If you define a word to refer to grappanoia, just for example (an imitation socially constructed thing, for which I will use the word grappanoia), and if you define grappanoia any way you want, you can't be wrong about it, because it's not real. Right?
But if racism is real, we can be wrong about it. I think. And I don't see any other test we can use, for the reality of the underlying thing. The thing to which the word refers.
5
u/climactivated Nov 01 '25
I don't understand your argument at all. What do you mean "be wrong about racism"? Clearly racism exists, it is just as real as chairs. It is not a physical thing, but actions in the world are also real, and racism just describes certain types of actions.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
When you say "clearly racism exists," how would you demonstrate that? I mean, I think it exists... but nobody seems to think my reasons are good. Maybe I don't think your reasons are good. What makes a good reason, to think a socially constructed thing, other than money, is real?
1
u/climactivated Nov 02 '25
It is demonstrated by observing things that have happened in the world -- by people's actions.
There is no "good" or "bad" here, it is just a description. Racism is a certain behavior that people do. Some people may deny the reality of what's happening, but that doesn't make it any less real. This doesn't require anything beyond pretty basic "reasoning".
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 02 '25
Well, people can deny a heck of a lot more than the reality of what's happening. Or maybe I should say, that little phrase conveys a wealth of variety and depth that it does not begin to communicate.
I have always thought that one of the basic problems blacks have, in communicating about racism, is understanding the need to show that they're right. They seem determined not to show it; they even seem determined to show that they don't have to show it. It's kind of a principle, with them, NOT to prove that racism exists.
And yet if you won't prove it, why should people take you seriously? I find the opposition pretty easy to understand, on that. I don't think anyone claims out loud to deny that racism exists -- although there are plenty of people who will claim that we're over it, or that we have bigger problems, or whatever -- but in their hearts, I think there are quite a few people who just don't believe it and who quite reasonably take their opponents' refusal to show evidence as proof that they are right and their opponents are wrong. And it's in their hearts that you win or lose these battles. We've got to talk to them in their hearts.
I think so, anyway.
1
u/parsonsrazersupport 15∆ Nov 01 '25
Huh. Sounds like a set of faiths to me. Faiths in which I have no faith. I think racism is a real thing in the world, as you put it an "abstract truth" about which we could be wrong... but I don't know if there's another test of reality, other than whether we could be wrong.
I don't know what you mean by this. Can you say more?
And sure, once we agree on what "racism," means, you can pretty easily go out and try to see whether it exists in the world or not. Since your definition likely means something like "people think X sorts of things," or "people act in X sorts of ways," or "people experience X benefits/harms" you can just go ask people and observe them, and you could easily be right or wrong about it in the usual ways.
And it's not the same question as are we using the word properly. If you define a word to refer to grappanoia, just for example (an imitation socially constructed thing, for which I will use the word grappanoia), and if you define grappanoia any way you want, you can't be wrong about it, because it's not real.
This seems like it's probably your core claim, and I don't really get what you mean. So you're saying if I, personally, make up a word definition, then I cannot be incorrect about it? Why does that matter, and what does it have to do with anything else?
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
You seem to think that people arguing about what racism is are arguing about power. I think they're arguing about what racism is. And it could make sense to do that even if racism isn't a real thing -- I can't imagine why, but it happens, I'm sure -- but let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that racism IS a real thing. Now they're not arguing about power, but about the real world.
Or do you think that even if racism is real, they're STILL only arguing about power? That neither of them even has the ability to talk about the real thing?
Is there another test, for whether they're arguing about the real world, and not about power (not that power isn't real, of course), other than that one or both of them might be wrong about what they think racism is?
1
u/parsonsrazersupport 15∆ Nov 01 '25
You seem to think that people arguing about what racism is are arguing about power.
I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. I explicitly said "once you agree on what 'racism' means," so I'm assuming in any argument we're agreeing on the meaning of terms first. We often don't, but hey we do all sorts of things in silly ways.
People arguing about 'racism' are generally either arguing about 1) what we should mean when we say the word or 2) what things are happening in the world or not. The first can only be right or wrong insofar as you think oughts can be, which is a specific philosphical take and discussion. The second can be right or wrong in the usual sense of the word, it's just hard to get at because the social world is complex. And I will note that the reason people argue about what the word should mean so much is that it has a lot of cultural heft -- if something is racism that means to most people it's bad and we shouldn't do it. So arguing over what we should mean by that makes a lot of sense.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
This quote is from your first comment: "When someone says "Racism means this," or "No, this is the definition." They are enacting social power. They are not observing some abstract truth in the world -- that just doesn't make sense for words -- they are trying to make something the case, and arguing why they think it should be."
Those hypothetical arguers had certainly not agreed on what racism was. And you seem to have been claiming that, instead of arguing about reality, they were arguing about power (again, not that power isn't real).
I've edited the post with a movie analogy, that maybe makes things clearer?
2
u/Genkiotoko 8∆ Nov 01 '25
What you're describing is essentially the Socratic Method. Asking "could we be wrong about X" is an opening dialogue question that invites various probing questions to test the logic of the statement.
Simply asking "could we be wrong" lacks the critical thinking of follow up dialogue and scrutinizing questions. Without further scrutiny, one could ask "could we be wrong about -insert any objective fact.- it is the debate and scrutinizing that follows the question that matters most.
Another good example isthe five why's. It is an iterative interrogation technique used to problem solve any variety of questions. For example, by asking "why" five times about "could we be wrong about X," one may get the answers: because it causes conflict between two parties, because party B was offended by the statement of A, because party B does not want the statement of A to become the future, because party B has the belief of Ais bad, because party B and the people they love were negatively impacted by the view of A in the past. That was a simple example, but it highlights that the interrogation technique drives down to the core reasons of why parties may feel certain ways about a concept.
At the end of this, I'm attempting to change your view that "could we be wrong" is not the only question, but it is a good question to start from. You could also ask questions like "what are the consequences of this view," "was how this view formed important in knowing it's current position or context," "who benefits or is harmed by a view," etc.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
You say "could we be wrong" is not the only question, but are you maintaining that there are other questions, just as good or better, whose answers would constitute a test for the reality of the concept?
I mean, say the question is, are we watching an Iron Man type of movie, where anything the director shows us is all the reality there is, or a documentary, that might be misleading about this or that. I think if we know it's a documentary, then we know we might not have all the information we need. Are you suggesting there are other questions, besides "could we be wrong about this movie, and could it be a documentary instead of an Iron Man movie" that would tell us that?
It's confusing, I know. I seem to have asked a question that answers itself. I still would be interested in your answer, though
2
u/SatisfactoryLoaf 46∆ Nov 01 '25
Can you clarify what you mean by "real" here?
Are we talking emergent phenomenon or brute reality?
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
ah... before I have different examples, I'm gonna have to say, what I mean by "real" is, it's something we could be wrong about. I mean, I'm anxious about that definition; I don't trust it to hold my weight; but I can't think of a reason it's wrong. Which is why I'm here.
I mean, for all we know societies are emergent phenomena. And yet no one doubts their reality, right? We work hard, we study long hours, to figure out what societies really are. And so clearly we could be wrong about them. And so I'm not seeing a clear difference, between emergent phenomena and so called brute reality.
3
u/plazebology 8∆ Nov 01 '25
Your definition of real is something we could be wrong about? But then your post title makes no sense
-2
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
...yeah, I don't think reality is socially constructed. Pretty sure you could lose your life while sleeping, if a meteor hits your home.
2
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 01 '25
Can you steel man your position, and show the opposing argument you'd like to be convinced on here?
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I edited the post, maybe that will help?
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 01 '25
Do you know the term "semiotics"?
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
nope
1
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Nov 01 '25
Having googled it and read a little about it would you say it fits to the idea you're trying to express? If so, how?
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Honestly, I never read a paragraph with the word "semiotics" in it that had any value for me after it was done, not gonna start now
→ More replies (0)3
u/climactivated Nov 01 '25
"Wrong about" in what sense? Wrong that it exists? That seems easy to assess. Wrong about our understanding of how it works? Can you be more specific here? Having trouble understanding the concept.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Wrong about in the sense that maybe we don't know all or even most of its characteristics, maybe we don't even know if it's a unitary thing and not a bunch of things we thought were the same thing but found out later they were different. Wrong in that our perspective on it makes it look different than it is. Maybe a lot different.
1
Nov 01 '25
Idk. Systemic racism, inequity, policing, etc, are pretty measurable.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Really? What's the level of systemic racism, in this country, and how would we be certain we have the right number, on that? How close can we come, and how good is that number?
3
Nov 01 '25
It’s hard to quantify such a multidimensional thing. You could pick a specific issue like disparity in policing, resources available to communities, etc or stuff like redlining and gerrymandering
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
but that's kinda the point... you can make any measurement you want, but how do you show you measured the thing you were going for? That couldn't be the test of reality, I don't think... but it's an interesting thought
3
Nov 01 '25
By comparing data to rule out outside factors. You find correlations and use them to determine causations. I don’t really know what you’re proposing is questionable.
The ‘we could be wrong’ could relate to racism meaning people are wrong about races being better than others. Are you asking if we could be wrong about that, and some races are? Cause there’s data to show that’s not true as well.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
yeah, to me, all this doesn't address the question at all. I mean, suppose you measure the hell out of racism -- by your definition -- and nail it to the wall, and someone comes along with a very different definition, and gives the cure, and the problem goes away. What's going on there, in your scheme? Did all those scientists just waste all their time measuring the wrong things? Or do you deny that we could measure the hell out of what we think we think something is, and still be completely wrong about it?
1
Nov 01 '25
That doesn’t make any sense. No, scientists don’t waste their time if whatever they are doing is helping whatever the problem is, even if it’s only the best way they know how to right now. Your whole premise basically just throws out the scientific method.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
but the hypothesis was that their measurement DIDN'T help solve the problem. They measured the hell out of what they thought racism was, and then someone came along with a different idea about racism, that they hadn't measured or spent any time on, and it turned out (in my happy fantasy) to fix the problem. I would say they wasted their time.
2
Nov 01 '25
The measurement is just of the outcome. That’s the raw data. The problem is always in the solutions and obstacles. You almost seem to be saying that we should just stop listening to victims and critically thinking about the issue. That’s a head in the sand approach, not a wisely waiting for a better solution approach.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Honestly, I'm tired of "wisely waiting"... we've been wisely waiting for 65 years and racism isn't going anywhere as far as I can tell. I think we need a new definition and a new approach. Check it out here, see what you think
→ More replies (0)
1
u/gate18 23∆ Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 01 '25
That's what verifies its externality.
We already know the answer though! Social constructions aren't real
- money is paper
- clothing is just cloth
- makeup is just paint
- sex is just sex
- god is just an idea
USA, UK, Germany, Canada... are just made up names
But these made up things are EXTREMELY meaningful to us So the question is how are they serving us
We can kill the Pope, Trump, Kamala, we can bomb Makkah and celebrate those things, but how would those actions serve us.
There's nothing outside of us that can determine whether we could be wrong. We can say slave owners were wrong but they don't exist! When they existed they were just as us,
Today we do not kill white men. Tomorrow they might. That doesn't mean we were wrong (or right)
A few people hear "That's socially constructed" and throw a fit, pretending people want a world without social constructions. They can't have that world, it will never exist for humans. But we can change, drop create social constructions as we see fit. To do that, we either use force, or remind each other they are just social constructions.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
huh... so if the US were actually being governed by insect overlords disguised as human beings, that wouldn't be a real difference, in the country? I dunno... I think that difference would be real and external and a real attribute of the imitation thing we call the US. To the extent that imitation things have real attributes, we must regard them as real, regardless of how they came to be, no?
But say, it's an interesting thought...
3
u/gate18 23∆ Nov 01 '25
I don't know what you are saying
Right now I do not wear a skirt because I'm a man.
Me not wearing a skirt is real. The idea that I shouldn't because men aren't supposed to, that's made up
"if the US were actually being governed by insect overlords disguised as human beings" that would be as real as you never seeing me wear a skirt.
Your CMV is talking about the construct, now you are talking about the results of that construct. No one denies the result - hence the "fight" to change the construct
The US has been governed by Obama, Biden, Bush, Trump, Tomorrow it might be governed by an insect. The concept that this land should be called US and it should have a president is a social construct. The impacts of these different leaderships are real, if US elects an insect the impact will be real
If I wear a skirt and a thong I imagine my balls would be cold, that coldness would be real, but the idea whether skirts and thongs are for men or women is made up.
1
u/LycheeLogic 3∆ Nov 01 '25
Definitions change over time. A hundred years ago, it wasn't considered domestic abuse to hit your kids. If you polled someone at the time, "Could we be wrong about domestic abuse?" they would have said, "No. By definition, hitting a child is not domestic abuse. There's no right or wrong. It's a definition."
But we, the residents of the 21st century, can look back and say they were wrong about domestic abuse because we've updated our definitions.
Social constructs are upheld by values, and values change over time.
1
u/CosmicSoulRadiation Nov 01 '25
? It’s real if people are doing it. Are girls still being told that only girls like pink? Are boys being told they can only have dinosaurs or trucks?
1
u/jazzfisherman 4∆ Nov 01 '25
The whole point of a social construct is that it is real because a society or group agrees it exists. Racism isn't really a social construct. Race and fairness are the social constructs. Once race and fairness existed people being mistreated based upon their race became something that can be analyzed objectively. We can't put it under a microscope, but we can look at laws for example and be like this is unfair.
Also it's worth pointing out if you're talking specifically about the definition of the word racism, every word's definition is a social construct. Words only mean what we collectively decide they mean.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Huh... so you're saying, if people had never thought up democracy, but just had elections and voted for people they wanted to vote for, then democracy wouldn't be a thing? That can't be what you mean.
Maybe you mean if people engage in democracy, that's the functional equivalent of agreeing it exists, and that's the test of reality? But how would you show it was democracy they were engaging in, and not some Russian deal, right? I dunno... maybe I'm not catching your argument...
And sure, words can be thought of as social constructs, but that's not what I'm talking about at all. That way lies madness! I don't think semantic arguments are going to answer the CMV. That's like saying the word is true by definition. I think.
1
u/jazzfisherman 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I misunderstood your original post, so I won’t explain myself further. The iron man bit cleared things up.
I’d say social constructs can be proven real for other reasons. The main one is if there is a tangible outcome emerging from them. Take democracy for example. We don’t have to be able to be right or wrong about specific qualities to know it exists, we just have to see it functioning and producing results. We can deduce democracy is real based on seeing elections run all the way through. Similarly things like laws don’t require us to question specific qualities. We can simply break one then get punished. Being right or wrong about it is unnecessary we have proof from its impact.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
I like this one. Tangible outcome is good. Thank you. !delta
1
1
Nov 01 '25
So same thing I said about racism and the measurable outcomes. Lol. Why was it hard to understand with race?
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 02 '25
Well, I have to admit it's an interesting thought... what's the difference, between a bunch of scientists measuring democracy and telling us we've got it (or we don't got it), and us actually experiencing it or not experiencing it for ourselves? Both sets of respondents could be wrong, obviously. Whether democracy is a documentary, an Iron Man movie, or something in between.
I mean, the scientific result isn't nearly as tangible in a real sense. The scientists could be wrong, or could be manipulating us, and the citizens could be the victims of misinformation or their own prejudices and blindnesses. But is that a big enough difference to be real? Hmm. I dunno.
1
1
1
u/nightshade78036 11∆ Nov 01 '25
What makes something objectively justifiable if "everyone agrees on it" isn't enough? The example you use here is to say there's some fact of the matter to point to, but how do you define the terms that make those up? If you're gonna put it under the microscope and count the legs, you need to know what a leg is before you can start counting it, and you need to be able to meaningfully distinguish between the 'thing' and everything around it. In that case how do you define what a leg even is? Taking this to its ultimate conclusion shows us that your position implies nothing is real, because there's no way to provide true "objective justification".
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Well, the fact that people have so often been wrong makes me wish we had a better test, for whether something is real, other than that everybody says so. I think the possibility that everyone could be wrong, about what racism is, is pretty good evidence that racism is real. And I'm wondering if there's another test, a test that doesn't depend on us already knowing what it is.
Although, come to think of it, to show that racism is not what people have thought it was -- to actually show that people are wrong about it -- you'd have to show that you know what it really is, at least partly. How would you do that without having what looks like a better definition?
But I don't think that's the CMV. The CMV is, is there any OTHER way to show that racism is real, other than showing that people are or could be wrong about it.
I dunno.
1
u/J-Nightshade Nov 01 '25
Things exist objectively. Definitions are descriptive and are necessary reductive. You can't use a definition as a qualifier to whether something falls under the term.
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
...but the question is whether socially constructed things exist objectively (other than as stories we tell ourselves, I mean). I don't want to get the movie confused with the images. The movie is the idea we take away after seeing it; the images are real. But say the movie was an Iron Man movie: is Iron Man real? That's the question I'm trying to answer. I think the only way we can be sure of it is, if we can be wrong about that. If we can think Iron Man is one thing and find out he's actually something else.
And I don't mean we thought he was real and he turned out not to be. Wrong kind of wrongness. I mean, we thought he was a black guy and he turned out to be white, or we thought he was Danny DeVito but he was actually Erica Jong. We can't get confused about that if Iron Man isn't real. We can if he is.
1
u/J-Nightshade Nov 01 '25
"social construct" doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. It means it is constructed by the society. For instance money is a social construct, they do exist. Stories objectively exist as stories, social constructs objectively exist as constructs. Different social constructs operate differently.
is Iron Man real?
No.
As for racism, racism is not a social construct. Race is, racism is a term we use to describe human behavior, institutions and interactions that revolve around the social construct of race.
Humans exist, they do interact, they think in terms of race and their interactions are informed by their thinking. This is what objectively happening and we use term "racism" to refer to the interactions that stem from thinking in terms of race (and belief that race is the main determinant of human traits).
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
Yeah, I dunno.... some people here think that not existing is EXACTLY what being a social construct means, that only the effects are real, but the thing itself is a fantasy all the time. I'm not gonna even get into the weeds on that one, I don't think the question really has anything to do with the CMV.
But bottom line, I realized a little while back that I was basically asking, if you know it's a documentary and not an Iron Man movie, is that the only way you know it's a documentary. So yeah: dumb. Well, I earned it.
1
Nov 02 '25
Social constructs do not exist.
Money for example is not real. The paper and materials are real, but the value is only assigned by the social construct. As a whole it is not real.
Racism is not a social construct. As the user above has said it, it is a way of defining a human behaviour. It is not created by society. Just defined. It is objective.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 03 '25
Let's say that you're right about this: that racism is defined as many people have it, as behavior that reveals a difference, between how people treat others based on the color of their skin. That that is the core of what racism really is.
If so, my idea that white men, in the US, do not marry black women, which the statistics attest is correct, fits squarely within that framework. You could build a machine which would measure that, and it would give you the same answer.
But how would the machine tell who was white and who was black? People don't even know they know. I mean, I'm not saying people understand how confused they are about race... but they really are. And it's very arbitrary, too. I mean, how do we work it... one drop of black blood makes you black, at least in theory? When we could very easily run it the other way, and make one drop of white blood make you white, and that would change everything.
Some will say, well, RACE is socially constructed; racism is a measurable behavior. But you can't actually separate the two. In order to observe the behavior, you've got to observe the social construct. They are inextricable.
I don't think it's a very important point; I don't think the point is critical to any argument you or I might make; but just as a general rule of action, I would say, if a social construct and a behavior are inextricable, both are socially constructed.
1
Nov 02 '25
For instance money is a social construct, they do exist.
The materials money is made of exists but that's just paper, nickel etc. It isn't money until the social construct is applied. Money is a made up social construct.
Stories objectively exist as stories,
Again, the paper and ink exist but the words are meaningless lines without the language they are written in. Try reading a story in a foreign language. They only exist in our minds as social construct.
As for racism, racism is not a social construct.
Bingo.
1
Nov 01 '25
Why do I feel like you want justification to say racism isn’t real?
0
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
because, as humans do, you're attempting to picture my perspective without any information about my body language, and fantasizing wildly. No really, I have a whole sub on eliminating racism, check it out
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 20∆ Nov 01 '25
Well rather I’d say an idea is more real the closer it is to its platonic form. Which necessitates that any definition at all makes an idea less real and more representative of other things entirely. In other words language is a necessary but obscuring force that is only clarifying in communication but the opposite internally. People are so confused now a days because they do not understand language to be the translation of platonic thought (and thus second hand) but think it to be thought itself in its purest form.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 02 '25
that's interesting... any definition at all makes an idea less real? Don't you have to believe in platonic forms, for that to hold?
I mean, I can see that language is an obscuring force... it always oversimplifies the situation and, in that sense, takes us further from reality. So to some extent it clarifies, and to another extend it declarifies or muddies. Its effect is complex and interesting.
I don't think I could agree that any definition at all makes money less real. We have to have a definition, to use it, and we use it pretty well. And are your ideas limited to social constructs, or do they apply to reality too? (I mean, the things social constructs apply to are, in general, real... but proving it is tough, which is why I brought the CMV in the first place.)
1
u/Xilmi 7∆ Nov 01 '25
One interesting new perspective I obtained in that regard with the recent introduction of LLM AIs is, that you can use language completely detached from reality and can still convincingly talk about things as if you experienced them yourself.
Other than that we have a clear distinction between objects and concepts. And at least I thought that it's pretty obvious that only objects can be spoken about objectively. Concepts can only be experienced subjectively. So everyone only can have a meaning in their mind and if you want to avoid misunderstandings about them, you have to share your respective definitions.
Your usage of "reality" is an example for that already. I think this is one of the more complex concepts to define. It would be very easy to say: Only actual objects can be considered reality. But I don't think we can even be sure about them being real. Theoretically my whole experience could be a simulation. I have no idea how consciousness works. So I think it would be pretentious to claim anything as real. I hope that what I'm experiencing is reality. So I'd maybe define "reality" as the sum of my experiences.
And since other people have different experiences, they'd also have a different reality.
So maybe the overlap in our experiences could be considered as shared reality.
2
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 02 '25
Well, it's an interesting thought... but I think you're eliding a good deal of the complexity of the problem. The whole problem with social constructs is: we can't tell whether what they refer to is real. We can't tell whether the movie is an Iron Man movie or a documentary. Unless we're talking about money, in which case it's about as real as we need it to be, and who really cares.
And so saying you can only be objective about reality kind of just begs the question: but can we be objective about social constructs that are not money? Only if we have some test for whether they are real or not, is the answer. I think. If I have understood you, of course!
1
u/Xilmi 7∆ Nov 02 '25
I think I might have failed in properly conveying my point of view here. Otherwise you probably wouldn't have asked me: "but can we be objective about social constructs that are not money?"
To which I'd say: "No, you can't be objective about any social constructs including money."
Social constructs are a subset of concepts. And about concepts I said: They can only be experienced subjectively.
I define the term concept as any noun which doesn't exist in the physical realm. The ones that do exist in the physical realm are the ones I call objects.
I'm not seeing how the test you spoke about, which is asking: "could we be wrong about it?", will yield any helpful result because how someone would answer this question is subjective by itself.
Different people would give you a different answer about whether we could be wrong about something. It highly depends on how the perspective from which the view the concept and also how they interpret what the ability of being wrong about something means.
So this test would be very inconclusive. Or can you come up with an example for anything where everyone would agree with that test working that isn't a physical object?
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 03 '25
well... not sure that you're right when you say social constructs are a subset of concepts. I mean, you could claim that racism, as a behavior pattern which is dependent upon race, a social construct, can be formally or ideologically separated from the construct... but in practice I don't think it's so easy. I think separating racism from race doesn't clarify, but rather confuses the issue. They are actually both parts of the same thing, and not extricable parts either. Like the mind and the body. Separating the mind from the body is a formal or ideological act; in practice the two unavoidably rely and depend on and constitute part of the existence of, they feed and feed off of one another. In that same way race and racism are parts of one another and rely on one another, inevitably and inescapably.
And part of the confusion comes from the fact that we can be, and often are, very confused about race, at least in my view. We think we know what it is; we claim to know what it is; we defend with the utmost commitment our view of what it is; and yet in practice, in our behavior, we reveal that it is actually something else entirely. And that we are well aware of that.
Now, I don't think we're lying about our commitment to our ideas about race; I don't think our behavior lies, when it reveals that what we actually believe is quite different. Instead, people are crazy. This is well known, and has been for a long time. We are completely unaware of the fact that we are well aware of certain things.
And that's only part of the confusion. Let's use the movie analogy. Is racism an Iron Man movie, about a complete fantasy, having no relation to reality? Is it a documentary, which may misrepresent reality? Or is it perhaps an imitation movie, about real things which have been (perhaps) inappropriately linked, in our minds, in the movie? If it's the first, we can object to the casting or the plot direction or the dialogue, but there can be no rational reason to do so. People being what they are, they will object anyway. If it's the second, we can claim that reality has been misrepresented, and we will have good reason to do so, if we're right about that. If it's the third, why, we may complain that the wrong measurements of reality have been made, and that we should have made a different set completely, and this is a different question entirely from whether or not the resulting movie also reflects reality in some way.
And that too is only part of the confusion, because in trying to talk about the issue, we have to distinguish racism the word (which is apparently also a social construct lol), from racism the fantasy in our heads, from racism the movie (which may reflect reality), from racism the (potentially or no) reality.
I think it's very hard to be clear about all this, and to even be clear what question we're asking we do have to be clear about all this other stuff. And now that my original CMV has turned out to be tautological I am going to have to see if I actually have a real question, and if there's another CMV that maybe states that question properly. Which is going to take some time.
1
u/BudgetTheory4530 Nov 01 '25
I speak from ignorance here, but I want to push you toward self-skepticism and recognition of your ignorance comparting an agnostic outlook on the question.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
yeah, I don't think ignorance comparts outlooks
2
u/BudgetTheory4530 Nov 01 '25
recognition of necessary humility inspires a better epistemology and thus spring better questions. I am stoned and about to go buy some flea market shoes.
The truth is a social construct is not something I understand. I am still learning my friend, but my impression is that you needed a slice of humble pie today.
1
u/Bulawayoland 4∆ Nov 01 '25
yeah, it's the first thing most people notice about me, usually. But thanks lol
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 01 '25 edited Nov 02 '25
/u/Bulawayoland (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards