Just finished watching this for the third time and all I can say is...that it was an amazing explanation...with amazing examples.. This whole concept challenges us to broaden our thoughts...to take different things into consideration....I loved it❤
1. Meaning is not inherent to object or event 2. Meaning grow from communities / social construction 3. Construct always has a value 4. Communal Agreement (not required by the nature of the object) 5. Language Game 6. Way of life , way of talking; not Truth 7. There can be Multiple constructions about same object event 8. Constructionism is just a perspective for multiplicity, not the method of finding truth 9. Three different forms of arguement: critical theory (Foccoult ) ; literary theory no words are authorative, we can create more, creativity ; T Kuhn , there's no independent observer, paradigms are limited, collaborative effort 10. new forms of enquiry, alternative narrative. Talk, act, construct realities in future
I liked what I heard. There is lots I want to mention but I will narrow my comment. I agree about the multiplicity of truths (little t) rather than the discourse of the ultimate singular Truth. This is the tension amongst the various paradigms electing to have Truth. The authority from the communities that share the same language and explain their forms of life are all subject to a jointly held construction. hence the strong relevance of relationships and language. The world we understand hinges on our everyday understanding of various language used and the multiple relationships in the world. ...I want to say that I enjoyed this presentation very much. Thank you.
Thank you very much!! excellent! I have a question. in the 23 minute o the talk you mention that "we should mutually recognize the possibilities inherent in various ways of life and it is not a matter of which is going to be superior, it is a matter of attempting to develop forms of living together, new forms of co-ordination”. Does this mean that constructionism values "harmony" and "peace"?
+Yashar Najaflou Harmony and peace as the 'better option' are social constructions. We should consider that there are multiple outcomes, or multiple realities, rather than thinking of them as a binary opposites
+Yashar Najaflou If I may, S Constructionism is a way of looking at the world that neither values nor denies the existence of a certain way of being/living. Hence, values such as "harmony" and "peace" or "hate" and "intolerant" are all social constructions that would be put into questions in the process of "deconstructions" before choosing which to go on with together. Although most constructionists would choose harmony and peace over other ways of beings.
@@jonsalt What if our nature wasn't set as we would picture our ideal world and that the human being is biologically predisposed to think in binary terms, and hierarchical terms, etc..?
@@biapac7849 I think if humans were "biologically predisposed to think in binary terms, and hierarchical terms, etc" then we wouldn't have the ability to imagine anything outside of that. The fact that we can imagine/think of alternative ways of being means that we are capable of living them out
@@sophiarussell-harts862 Very smart answer... (I'm ironic). Imagine to survive jumping down from the 10th floor of a building and then live it out... Then tell me how it went ;)
The Earth existed and revolved around the Sun 4 1/2 billion times before we were around to study and measure it. We did not construct the Earth. We only constructed names, labels, definitions and descriptions of the Earth and its features. There is a world that exists outside our experience of it, and that existence cannot be socially constructed, nor deconstructed. It is telling that he is using artifacts, which exist solely to serve some social purpose, rather than natural objects or organisms, to make his point. The proposition that our understanding of the world is socially constructed is so obvious that I didn't have to take a philosophy class to figure that out.
1. Social constructionism gets a lot of stick because it is misunderstood. It's even misunderstood by some of those who claim to be its proponents. But in short, many many constructionists do not deny that a world exists 'out there', as academics like to say. The perspective is not about what is and is not real, but about the social relationships and dynamics of knowledge that shape how we make sense of the world - how we categorise it and so on. 2. Although it may well state the obvious, sometimes the 'obvious' is only obvious once it is said. We think it is obvious yet, if we take a step back and think about our own minds, we may never have thought about it before. In any case, why should something not be worth saying just because it's obvious?
You don't understand Social Constructionism. You are confusing it with Idealism, which states that the mind or consciousness is primary reality, as opposed to materialism that states matter is primary, with the mind an epiphenomenon or iridescence of it. That is why he specifically said, "... lower case 'truth'," versus 'Truth'. The former is referring to meaning (labels and descriptions that necessarily imply value in a linguistic/cultural context), the latter a priori, physical reality. Where that divide is may be up for debate, but the idea that the Sun does not exist is not in Social Constructionism. It doesn't mean some people are Idealists on top it, but that is irrespective of the SC itself. It's not a metaphysical belief system; it's a method for approaching things from a critical distance. I'm also not suggesting it's correct, but you should make sure you understand an idea before you refute it.
From how I understand it, it's not saying the sun didn't exist before we did. It's saying that the sun is different things to different people. To many today, its a star, a giant chemical and physical entity in space. To kids, if they even notice it, its the big orange hot thing. To some in ancient times, it was a god, the god of gods that ruled over all other gods and you could dishonour the sun god and earn its disfavour and have misfortune fall upon you. It's not that the sun wasn't around before us, it just didn't mean anything to anyone before us. That's my understanding of it anyway.
If a person alone, dying of thirst in the desert were to find that water bottle, they would treat it the same, regardless of whatever social background they come from, and they would have no need to speak about it. There is an underlying biological system that gives the water bottle value, without any sort of social construction.
Fichel Moucault - Not true. We have to know how to open the bottle (there are several ways) and to drink from it (again, there are several ways). It's an obvious tautology that humans require water, but it really adds nothing to our knowledge, as humans are composed mostly of water.
in fact according to mauss( an ethnologist) the acts of drinkin,eating, sleeping performed by primitive man are more social interactions or exchanges rather than needs, we first come to know about what needs meant in the late XIX with Marx and the early XX with modern psychology ,biology ,medicine , so it is obvious for many people to assume we can send backwards in time all the way to stone age, the needs conceptual apparatus to explain the way primitive man feel when he was hungry etc the same way Marx juxtaposes his production concept into the realm of primeitive world,(primitive mode of production) the concept of needs as you said is a great tautology , i have desires because i have needs , i have needs because i have desires is circular and it pretty much seems like a conceptual hoax
So your argument is that when it comes to survival value plays no part in it. There was once a persian army that faced the egyptians and painted cats on the front of their shields and such and when they faced the egyptians, they wouldn't fight back because they wouldnt attack this depiction of a sacred animal and they were then killed. If someone was from the water bottle or water religion like ken used earlier, if they were from this religion and held water bottles sacred and was very faithful and a true believer etc then it is entirely possible that they wouldnt drink that water because it would be sacrilegious. Same with if there was a religion with sacred camels, someone could be leading a camel through a desert and they get lost and find the water bottle, the person may very well choose to give the water to the camel instead of themselves because in their eyes it was more important than them and they may believe that they would be rewarded in the next life or afterlife depending on their belief. The social and cultural perception of things absolutely matter and can impact the choices that people make.
@@F4T4LFUS1ON In your example the person still dies, though. There is still an overarching biological reality that you implicitly accept exists. We can endlessly think of different interpretations of a chair, but if someone hits me with it, it will hurt. I can't socially construct myself out of torture. There are still underlying realities that can exist, despite having multiple possible interpretations of supposedly "objective things". Sure, we as humans could religiously believe that a certain tree is not just a tree but a human being turned into a plant. However, even if we belive that said tree is a human, we can't change the material characteristics of the tree by using different social constructions: we will never be able to make it human. This is why social constructivism is also just one possible interpretation of reality and it can never encompass everything. It's inherently flawed, just like every other philosophy. Being able to interpret a thing in different ways doesn't mean that said thing is able to be *everything*. Social constructivism necessarily needs this to be the case in order to be true. If everything is socially constructed and nothing less, then a fly could turn into the sun just by having different interpretations of it. We could be convinced of this and communicate it with other beings with our language, but a fly will never be 180.000 degrees fahrenheit hot and orbit around the earth.
This theory appears to be based on a misreading of Wittgenstein. If an individual comes upon a bottle of water she doesn't need to talk about it or create a language to describe it. She just needs to find ways to make use of it. All this talk about "social construction" is really just about creating a language so that two or more people can discuss it. That doesn't take away the fact that each of us as individuals will be able to relate to the object as individuals and either be helped or harmed or unaffected by it.
@@finchbevdale2069 it's been a while but I believe that when I posted this comment I was thinking about the proberbial person raised by wolves who doesn't know or use language at least not in the sophisticated sense we humans do.
Never heard anything more ridiculous than this ideology... Changing the names that you use to describe reality just changes its description, not reality. For example, I could establish that pink is the color of females. Everybody will associate female characteristics to that color. If I suddenly exchange pink with blue, I will cause some confusion, because we traditionally associate male characteristics with blue. I agree: overtime we would associate pink to males and blue to females effortlessly. But that would still not mean that we switched male characteristics to female characteristics and viceversa. That just means that connotations around both colors would have gradually shifted to represent the object of association. So pink would mean strong and risk taker, blue would mean agreeable and weak. Thus, changing the names that you use to describe reality just changes its description, not reality.
The funny thing is this actually happened, pink was a more masculine colour before because it was seen as a bolder and stronger, brighter colour but then over time blue became the more masculine colour. If you properly listened, there are no absolute truths so nothing is definite and everything is subject to change based on the relationships and that we have to the things we are describing. To a chemist, water is h20 and the chemical composition of the bottle, to an environmentalist the water is irrelevant and its the bottle thats the focus. The whole idea of social constructionism is that things are given meaning through our relationship to them. Using your example again, you could hold the belief as a kid that blue is for boys and pink is for girls but you might watch a tv show where a guy always wears a pink shirt and rescues people and fights bad guys etc that could then change the relationship to the colour pink for you, you now associate it with this manly hero and would then think that pink is manly and strong. Its all about perception and relationships.
@@F4T4LFUS1ON I dont know if you see it but in the first part of your comment you are literally adding to my point. Changing the appearance of an object does not change its essence. As you said, beliefs can change overtime and across different cultures, but if you let boys wear pink and girls blue you still wont get reversed personality features. The huge body of evidence of it is well explained by the Gender Equality Paradox: the more you reduce social pressure, the more male proclivity to develop masculine traits and female proclivity to develop feminine traits increase rather than decrease. That is the reason why social constructionism is a non-sense embraced by low than average IQ individuals and also why science will always rule
@@biapac7849 I'm afraid you may not be entirely up to date on the research, and you seem somehow childishly opposed to ideas that do not align with your own viewpoint. You could use some of the ideas and concepts in this video to have a less emotional/personal/aggressive conversation about and reaction to these subjects. On Wikipedia you find a nice overview of the gender equality paradox and the problems with it: "The gender-equality paradox most commonly refers to the findings of a 2018 study by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary that, counter-intuitively, suggests that countries with a higher level of gender equality tend to have less gender balance in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), than less equal countries. This research originally claimed that within the study's sample, more gender equality in a country is linked with a lower proportion of women studying STEM fields. The study and its results received significant coverage in non-academic media outlets. However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper. The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis." As per usual, you can find all citations and sources there as well: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
@@DigitalFeeling Thanks for showing your stupidity and citing Wikipedia man :) But if you actually read the studies instead of just citing them, you would understand why the hippies from the Gender Studies dep. of Harvard did come up with no results. I'll give you one example: they took the data from UNESCO which makes no distinction between students in Life Science and students in object-related Science. Stoet and Geary took a database that made that distinction, exactly to show the divergence in female/male attitude towards things and people. Concerning your intellectual level, I hope you are young enough to have the time to correct yourself, or old enough to mean no harm to society.
@@finchbevdale2069 Sure man, keep dreaming: science is fantasy and we are all pure and equal. The enemy is patriarchy, capitalism and the rest. Next time you come across 2 variables with a 70% correlation, just ignore it. It means nothing.
One of the biggest blocks to people understanding what sociol constructionism is, comes from the Gender Studies school. There proponents push the idea that gender is a social construct but when you dig down to find out if these gender theorist actually understand what a social construct is they often show they don't understand what a social construct is as outlined in this video.
Just finished watching this for the third time and all I can say is...that it was an amazing explanation...with amazing examples.. This whole concept challenges us to broaden our thoughts...to take different things into consideration....I loved it❤
Really really excellent lecture
Social constructionism - An honoring of all traditions, perspectives, and paradigms. An enriching talk by ken.
muy bueno y muy actual y planteamiento integro.
Lovely talk, sets my mind off like clock work. Thanks.
Nihilism is your thing eh?
amzing lecture and a very much inspirational close from one of the forerunners of constructivism i wouldnt ask for more
Curiosity: What did you find helpful?
1. Meaning is not inherent to object or event
2. Meaning grow from communities / social construction
3. Construct always has a value
4. Communal Agreement (not required by the nature of the object)
5. Language Game
6. Way of life , way of talking; not Truth
7. There can be Multiple constructions about same object event
8. Constructionism is just a perspective for multiplicity, not the method of finding truth
9. Three different forms of arguement: critical theory (Foccoult ) ; literary theory no words are authorative, we can create more, creativity ; T Kuhn , there's no independent observer, paradigms are limited, collaborative effort
10. new forms of enquiry, alternative narrative.
Talk, act, construct realities in future
Great way to get to the base, core, fundamentals of social constructivist principles.
I liked what I heard. There is lots I want to mention but I will narrow my comment. I agree about the multiplicity of truths (little t) rather than the discourse of the ultimate singular Truth. This is the tension amongst the various paradigms electing to have Truth. The authority from the communities that share the same language and explain their forms of life are all subject to a jointly held construction. hence the strong relevance of relationships and language. The world we understand hinges on our everyday understanding of various language used and the multiple relationships in the world. ...I want to say that I enjoyed this presentation very much. Thank you.
Excellent teaching. Thank you!
Absolutely amazing!
Thank you very much!! excellent! I have a question. in the 23 minute o the talk you mention that "we should mutually recognize the possibilities inherent in various ways of life and it is not a matter of which is going to be superior, it is a matter of attempting to develop forms of living together, new forms of co-ordination”. Does this mean that constructionism values "harmony" and "peace"?
+Yashar Najaflou Harmony and peace as the 'better option' are social constructions. We should consider that there are multiple outcomes, or multiple realities, rather than thinking of them as a binary opposites
+Yashar Najaflou If I may, S Constructionism is a way of looking at the world that neither values nor denies the existence of a certain way of being/living. Hence, values such as "harmony" and "peace" or "hate" and "intolerant" are all social constructions that would be put into questions in the process of "deconstructions" before choosing which to go on with together. Although most constructionists would choose harmony and peace over other ways of beings.
@@jonsalt What if our nature wasn't set as we would picture our ideal world and that the human being is biologically predisposed to think in binary terms, and hierarchical terms, etc..?
@@biapac7849 I think if humans were "biologically predisposed to think in binary terms, and hierarchical terms, etc" then we wouldn't have the ability to imagine anything outside of that. The fact that we can imagine/think of alternative ways of being means that we are capable of living them out
@@sophiarussell-harts862 Very smart answer... (I'm ironic). Imagine to survive jumping down from the 10th floor of a building and then live it out... Then tell me how it went ;)
Excelente explanation, Thank you for sharing it!
I understod. Nice!
Ken Gergen
nuff said mate
tres intéressant. si nous vveons ensemnle comme une société nous pouvons créér nouvelles réalisations et paradigmes
The Earth existed and revolved around the Sun 4 1/2 billion times before we were around to study and measure it. We did not construct the Earth. We only constructed names, labels, definitions and descriptions of the Earth and its features. There is a world that exists outside our experience of it, and that existence cannot be socially constructed, nor deconstructed. It is telling that he is using artifacts, which exist solely to serve some social purpose, rather than natural objects or organisms, to make his point. The proposition that our understanding of the world is socially constructed is so obvious that I didn't have to take a philosophy class to figure that out.
I support this analysis!
1. Social constructionism gets a lot of stick because it is misunderstood. It's even misunderstood by some of those who claim to be its proponents. But in short, many many constructionists do not deny that a world exists 'out there', as academics like to say. The perspective is not about what is and is not real, but about the social relationships and dynamics of knowledge that shape how we make sense of the world - how we categorise it and so on.
2. Although it may well state the obvious, sometimes the 'obvious' is only obvious once it is said. We think it is obvious yet, if we take a step back and think about our own minds, we may never have thought about it before. In any case, why should something not be worth saying just because it's obvious?
You don't understand Social Constructionism. You are confusing it with Idealism, which states that the mind or consciousness is primary reality, as opposed to materialism that states matter is primary, with the mind an epiphenomenon or iridescence of it. That is why he specifically said, "... lower case 'truth'," versus 'Truth'. The former is referring to meaning (labels and descriptions that necessarily imply value in a linguistic/cultural context), the latter a priori, physical reality. Where that divide is may be up for debate, but the idea that the Sun does not exist is not in Social Constructionism. It doesn't mean some people are Idealists on top it, but that is irrespective of the SC itself. It's not a metaphysical belief system; it's a method for approaching things from a critical distance. I'm also not suggesting it's correct, but you should make sure you understand an idea before you refute it.
@@Len124 Brilliant! I like.
From how I understand it, it's not saying the sun didn't exist before we did. It's saying that the sun is different things to different people. To many today, its a star, a giant chemical and physical entity in space. To kids, if they even notice it, its the big orange hot thing. To some in ancient times, it was a god, the god of gods that ruled over all other gods and you could dishonour the sun god and earn its disfavour and have misfortune fall upon you. It's not that the sun wasn't around before us, it just didn't mean anything to anyone before us. That's my understanding of it anyway.
Plastic is a social construct.
If a person alone, dying of thirst in the desert were to find that water bottle, they would treat it the same, regardless of whatever social background they come from, and they would have no need to speak about it. There is an underlying biological system that gives the water bottle value, without any sort of social construction.
Fichel Moucault - Not true. We have to know how to open the bottle (there are several ways) and to drink from it (again, there are several ways). It's an obvious tautology that humans require water, but it really adds nothing to our knowledge, as humans are composed mostly of water.
in fact according to mauss( an ethnologist) the acts of drinkin,eating, sleeping performed by primitive man are more social interactions or exchanges rather than needs, we first come to know about what needs meant in the late XIX with Marx and the early XX with modern psychology ,biology ,medicine , so it is obvious for many people to assume we can send backwards in time all the way to stone age, the needs conceptual apparatus to explain the way primitive man feel when he was hungry etc the same way Marx juxtaposes his production concept into the realm of primeitive world,(primitive mode of production) the concept of needs as you said is a great tautology , i have desires because i have needs , i have needs because i have desires is circular and it pretty much seems like a conceptual hoax
If you were to convince the person that the water was holy, perhaps containing the tears of a saint, the person might rather die than drink the water.
So your argument is that when it comes to survival value plays no part in it. There was once a persian army that faced the egyptians and painted cats on the front of their shields and such and when they faced the egyptians, they wouldn't fight back because they wouldnt attack this depiction of a sacred animal and they were then killed. If someone was from the water bottle or water religion like ken used earlier, if they were from this religion and held water bottles sacred and was very faithful and a true believer etc then it is entirely possible that they wouldnt drink that water because it would be sacrilegious. Same with if there was a religion with sacred camels, someone could be leading a camel through a desert and they get lost and find the water bottle, the person may very well choose to give the water to the camel instead of themselves because in their eyes it was more important than them and they may believe that they would be rewarded in the next life or afterlife depending on their belief. The social and cultural perception of things absolutely matter and can impact the choices that people make.
@@F4T4LFUS1ON In your example the person still dies, though. There is still an overarching biological reality that you implicitly accept exists.
We can endlessly think of different interpretations of a chair, but if someone hits me with it, it will hurt.
I can't socially construct myself out of torture.
There are still underlying realities that can exist, despite having multiple possible interpretations of supposedly "objective things".
Sure, we as humans could religiously believe that a certain tree is not just a tree but a human being turned into a plant. However, even if we belive that said tree is a human, we can't change the material characteristics of the tree by using different social constructions: we will never be able to make it human.
This is why social constructivism is also just one possible interpretation of reality and it can never encompass everything. It's inherently flawed, just like every other philosophy.
Being able to interpret a thing in different ways doesn't mean that said thing is able to be *everything*. Social constructivism necessarily needs this to be the case in order to be true. If everything is socially constructed and nothing less, then a fly could turn into the sun just by having different interpretations of it. We could be convinced of this and communicate it with other beings with our language, but a fly will never be 180.000 degrees fahrenheit hot and orbit around the earth.
Water is a substance that sustains life. Pretty simple really, and its value neutral. It's a brute fact.
This theory appears to be based on a misreading of Wittgenstein. If an individual comes upon a bottle of water she doesn't need to talk about it or create a language to describe it. She just needs to find ways to make use of it. All this talk about "social construction" is really just about creating a language so that two or more people can discuss it. That doesn't take away the fact that each of us as individuals will be able to relate to the object as individuals and either be helped or harmed or unaffected by it.
@@finchbevdale2069 it's been a while but I believe that when I posted this comment I was thinking about the proberbial person raised by wolves who doesn't know or use language at least not in the sophisticated sense we humans do.
Delete your CZcams account.
“If everything is a social construct, society can be constructed any way those in power deem necessary” JBP
Exactly, so isnt useful to use social construction to destruct what those in power say?
@@troyhampton5339 very surprising that Peterson once again does not fucking understand power
10:49 IMPORTANT: Now remember. Predictions in science do not mean....truth.
Wittgenstein.
Although I don't agree a bit with anything he's saying, his lecture was very interesting and engaging. Liked the video, disagreed with everything.
Never heard anything more ridiculous than this ideology... Changing the names that you use to describe reality just changes its description, not reality. For example, I could establish that pink is the color of females. Everybody will associate female characteristics to that color. If I suddenly exchange pink with blue, I will cause some confusion, because we traditionally associate male characteristics with blue. I agree: overtime we would associate pink to males and blue to females effortlessly. But that would still not mean that we switched male characteristics to female characteristics and viceversa. That just means that connotations around both colors would have gradually shifted to represent the object of association. So pink would mean strong and risk taker, blue would mean agreeable and weak. Thus, changing the names that you use to describe reality just changes its description, not reality.
The funny thing is this actually happened, pink was a more masculine colour before because it was seen as a bolder and stronger, brighter colour but then over time blue became the more masculine colour. If you properly listened, there are no absolute truths so nothing is definite and everything is subject to change based on the relationships and that we have to the things we are describing. To a chemist, water is h20 and the chemical composition of the bottle, to an environmentalist the water is irrelevant and its the bottle thats the focus. The whole idea of social constructionism is that things are given meaning through our relationship to them. Using your example again, you could hold the belief as a kid that blue is for boys and pink is for girls but you might watch a tv show where a guy always wears a pink shirt and rescues people and fights bad guys etc that could then change the relationship to the colour pink for you, you now associate it with this manly hero and would then think that pink is manly and strong. Its all about perception and relationships.
@@F4T4LFUS1ON I dont know if you see it but in the first part of your comment you are literally adding to my point. Changing the appearance of an object does not change its essence. As you said, beliefs can change overtime and across different cultures, but if you let boys wear pink and girls blue you still wont get reversed personality features. The huge body of evidence of it is well explained by the Gender Equality Paradox: the more you reduce social pressure, the more male proclivity to develop masculine traits and female proclivity to develop feminine traits increase rather than decrease. That is the reason why social constructionism is a non-sense embraced by low than average IQ individuals and also why science will always rule
@@biapac7849 I'm afraid you may not be entirely up to date on the research, and you seem somehow childishly opposed to ideas that do not align with your own viewpoint. You could use some of the ideas and concepts in this video to have a less emotional/personal/aggressive conversation about and reaction to these subjects.
On Wikipedia you find a nice overview of the gender equality paradox and the problems with it:
"The gender-equality paradox most commonly refers to the findings of a 2018 study by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary that, counter-intuitively, suggests that countries with a higher level of gender equality tend to have less gender balance in fields such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), than less equal countries. This research originally claimed that within the study's sample, more gender equality in a country is linked with a lower proportion of women studying STEM fields. The study and its results received significant coverage in non-academic media outlets. However, separate Harvard researchers were unable to recreate the data reported in the study, and in December 2019, a correction was issued to the original paper. The correction outlined that the authors had created a previously undisclosed and unvalidated method to measure "propensity" of women and men to attain a higher degree in STEM, as opposed to the originally claimed measurement of "women’s share of STEM degrees". However, even incorporating the newly disclosed method, the investigating researchers could not recreate all the results presented. A follow-up paper by the researchers who discovered the discrepancy found conceptual and empirical problems with the gender-equality paradox in STEM hypothesis."
As per usual, you can find all citations and sources there as well: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox
@@DigitalFeeling Thanks for showing your stupidity and citing Wikipedia man :) But if you actually read the studies instead of just citing them, you would understand why the hippies from the Gender Studies dep. of Harvard did come up with no results. I'll give you one example: they took the data from UNESCO which makes no distinction between students in Life Science and students in object-related Science. Stoet and Geary took a database that made that distinction, exactly to show the divergence in female/male attitude towards things and people.
Concerning your intellectual level, I hope you are young enough to have the time to correct yourself, or old enough to mean no harm to society.
@@finchbevdale2069 Sure man, keep dreaming: science is fantasy and we are all pure and equal. The enemy is patriarchy, capitalism and the rest. Next time you come across 2 variables with a 70% correlation, just ignore it. It means nothing.
It reminds me of the movie "The gods must be crazy 2" : czcams.com/video/17HGR7FBwu0/video.html
Wonderful stuff. Reminds me a lot of discussions with Marxists over Joseph Dietzgen's writings on dialectics.
These are the kinds of academics that need to go.
One of the biggest blocks to people understanding what sociol constructionism is, comes from the Gender Studies school.
There proponents push the idea that gender is a social construct but when you dig down to find out if these gender theorist actually understand what a social construct is they often show they don't understand what a social construct is as outlined in this video.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
~14:00 - Wait...are there witches?
@@finchbevdale2069 No, thanks.
😂😂😂😂