Talk:Social constructionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge with Social constructivism

Variation on a theme; merge into stronger of the two articles DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are important salient differences between constructiVISM and constructionISM. I recommend not merging the two, but making the differences more pronounced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.26.186 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree that these should NOT be merged. Constructivism is part of cognitivism and sees reality as existing in an individual's mind which develops through social interactions with the world around them. Constructionism sees reality as literally created and existing in the relationships between people through their use of language and shared communion. Nathank2 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should NOT be merged. Constructionism is about how concepts are constructed socially. Constructivism is about how children (mostly) construct their view of the world around them and develop cognitively. Graham Jones (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree: Not to be merged but: constructivism is certainly not about "children (mostly)". Piaget, and later Papert were constructivists that were specifically known for research and practice in pedagogy. But constructivism is a general approach to epistemology that has different branches and representatives, not just the pedagocical direction. 141.163.120.112 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree also: Not be merged. Dnm (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I removed the merge proposal template, no consensus to merge. • Arch♦Reader 00:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The article switches back and forth between the two, without any indication that the subject has changed. The section "Teleology of social construction" (which reads like an embedded essay in need of an editor) uses both, in some places within the same sentence.

Someone with in-depth knowledge should probably go through the article, and make sure it makes sense. My suggestion would be not to mention social constructivism except to point out how it contrasts with the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.103.130.132 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong teleology

• Entire section below unsourced, moved here to TALK page for later editing. • Arch♦Reader 00:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong social constructionism sees everything as a social construction, everything as metaphysical. This is not to say that it sees the outer world as having beings in a non-reality, as unreal. Rather, it proposes that the notions of "real" and "unreal" are themselves social constructs, so that the question of whether anything is "real" is just a matter of social convention. The conservative proponent of institutions the way they are progressing, would, in Rudolf Carnap's words "pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science." Everyone else has their own reality, and take the stance that "if you have to ask, you would not understand."

Strong social constructionists oppose the existence of "brute" facts. That a mountain is a mountain (as opposed to just another undifferentiated clump of earth) is socially engendered, and not a brute fact. That the concept of mountain is universally admitted in all human languages reflects near-universal human consensus, but does not make it an objective reality; similarly for all apparently real objects and events: trees, cars, snow, collisions. It reasons that all reality is thought, all thought is in a language, all language is a convention, and that all convention is socially acceptable, hence, it uses language to socially program. ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.5.101 (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A Strong social constructionism entity convenes and forms the conventions of consensus reality, a real, human operated set of social programs, whose subjects participate in operating on the "real" to the extent they conform democratically and politely. If its ontology is accused, the pragmatic answer is "read the minutes of the meeting", both because the strong social constructionism is busy creating programs, and because sharing a reality accurately and completely is futile.

Also, in regards to Broadcast History, 'social construction' refers to the way in which the media form has been created. This relates both to its structure and regulation. It's the way that the social media outlet is constructed by our society. [End section] section moved by:• Arch♦Reader 00:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, Strong social constructs are never explained in the page, only their critique is mentioned. 198.91.199.237 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caboudiwan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 25 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CannonCH. Peer reviewers: Mcontris.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Expert attention needed banner

According to one editor, there are problems in the article sufficiently serious to place the following maintenance template at the top of the article:

This is far too much detail to place at the top of the article, and in addition, it represents the sole view of one editor. In my view, this amounts to an end run around WP:Original research, as clearly none of this would have been permitted in the article itself without secondary sourcing. The tag was placed without any prior discussion here on the talk page, contrary to the spirit of the helpful essay on WP:Responsible tagging which recommends discussion first (and makes other valuable points). Further, the banner was already removed once, and then immediately reinserted by the original editor, contrary to the guidelines on discussion and edit warring. Accordingly, I have removed this template once more, as not having consensus.

Personally, I might be persuaded to go along with a briefer version consisting solely of the first sentence, but I'm opposed to the rest of it as personal opinion which has no place at the top of the article; that is not what that template is for, rather, the talk page is the place to make that kind of statements. Indeed, the hatnote "Not to be confused with Social constructivism", present since it was added in 2016, makes the point sufficiently well, imho, and the banner (and additional unnecessary hatnotes) merely tend to conceal it. As a corollary, all the hatnotes except for the "not to be confused" are just clutter, and do not address the reasons for WP:HATNOTEs; removing them would improve the article; as is, they are just confusing. Pinging @Graham11, FatalSubjectivities, and Neconnaitpoint:. Mathglot (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• As a point on the content of the hat note itself. Some failry well-known qualitative researchers identify as social constructivist, e.g. Kathy Charmaz, social construction of knowledge is a thing, e.g. in Medical Sociology and Sociology of knowledge, and you have whole fields like. I agree that in the current iteration of the culture wars any form of "social critique of knowledge" has become something to be attacked, with exaggerations about precisely what it means for something to be a social construct... but given the history of this sort of analysis this feels like a bit of internet wave that will wash over us and be replaced by something else in a years time. Talpedia (talk)