Kia ora Dave.

Presumably it was a social constructivist who walked out?

I think you are right about the bit you said was "their own reality". Reality for most people is a precious thing that they own. Ownership, even for a belief, is a very powerful human feeling.

But each individual owns their own reality, and to suggest that theirs doesn't exist can cause reactions that are seemingly irrational to others.

I'm not a Social Constructivist, but I am aware that some others follow social constructivism almost devoutly.

Spare a thought for the devout :-)

Ka kite
from Middle-earth

Hey, nice judo move there...similar to when the critics of logical positivism pointed out that it failed its own test.

There is a lot to say for social constructivism as a theory of pedagogy, but I didn't know there were many hardcore "metaphysical" social constructivists still around.

I think that the argument debunks solipsism, but not social constructivism. I can think that physical reality exists (the earth did exist before people/observers were there and a falling tree shakes the earth and generates pressure changes in the air even if no one listens) and still think that the world "as I/we see/perceive is" is a construct - in most cases good enough to make sense and to be able to act. Which does not mean that all constructs are equal (that's trivial) nor equally valid or ligitimate (that's not so trivial).

Dave,

Are you maybe conflating reality (whatever that might be) with knowledge (whatever that might be)?

John

Dave,

As a person who at one time read extensively in social constructivism I would suggest that saying that reality is socially constructed merely claims that our view of a phenomena is relative to a perspective developed across groups or networks. Saying reality is relative to social constructions does not equate with claiming that reality is subjective and changes based on personal psychology. Individuals don't create reality, groups do. JMHO

Dave,
I was in the audience when he walked out and although he disagreed with you, I believe he walked out because it was 1:30 and he had another meeting to get to. (two to three others followed suit less than 1 minute later).

Hi --

Don't want to comment specifically here, but rather link two blogs and comment.

I am thrilled you are a fan of the mother of all social constructivist applications, Wikipedia.

Is this a conflict?

-j

Is there anyone whose head would not hurt when bashed hard, repeatedly, against a big rock ?

I am always amazed at the way in which the most casual of blogs often produces the highest volume of interesting responses. I think my response calls for a new blog with some more links and that will take some time.

Some quickies however in no particular order

1. Christian, I think social constuctivism leads to solipsim on a simple reductio ad absurdam
2. John, the fact that some things are socially constructed does not mean that social constructivism is a valid epistemology or for that matter ontology.
3. Larry and others, the fact that our perception of reality can differ does not mean that empirical proof is necessarily rules out, or that reality does not exist or more importantly that some things cannot be proved to be false (even if lots of people believe in them)
4. Ken, one should always spare a thought for the devout, but one should subject them to criticism
5. Larry, your emphasis on groups over individuals (I would say relationships but that it nit picking) is very important. It is our interactions with others that create our view of the world not some innate personal quality. However I don't think you can go from there to social constructivism..
6. Jon - very clever; needs two answers. (i) some people's heads need to be bashed frequently against rhetorical rocks (ii) even then some will not hurt
7. Cleve - intersting idea on pedagogy need to think about that. With regret the metaphysical social constructivists still exist, in increasingly isolated pockets but they are there. And there are some who use the name, but avoid the ontological consequences of their position
8. Katie - Everyone else I talked to thinks he walked out, two or three held back leaving to make sure they were not associated however there is a chance you are right and it would be a more humane assumption to agree with you.
9. John - no I am not, our knowledge of something is not necessarily complete, but it can exist. One should not conflate, but that does not mean that they are separate.

Thanks everyone - more of this later

He did leave because of his next meeting.

Having spoke to him subsequently I know he wasn't aware of the timing of his raising his point and then "walking out" ... life gets like that some times.

"walking out" now takes on a different reality, wouldn't you say? ;-)

Good to hear Mike, it will make it more frustrating for those who were late for subsequent meetings because they didn't want to be seen to follow him! Sparked an interesting debate anyway

Hi --

Didn't want to imply anything about validity. Just want to acknowledge that we/you engage heavily in social constructivism vis-à-vis most new social media like Wikipedia and this blog.

There is a reason for this exploding behavior: Millennials. Gen-Y, all 70 million of them are highly constructivist. There hyper-connectivity and peer-orientation IS their notion of reality.

Researchers at USC and elsewhere recount a specific indicative vignette of Millennials and social constructivism. They told me that Gen-Yers call or text a friend before getting out of bed in the morning to specifically determine what their day will be like, how it will unfold, what meaning it will have. Millennial reality inhabits their social connections.

-j
.

Many many things are socially constructed John, but that is not to validate social constructivism.

Hi --

At SuperNova 2008 in SF last month, a panel of college professors (Stanford, Johns Hopkins, etc.) was asked if they use wikis or Wikipedia in their courses. Here is startling summary of the responses.

Prof 1: absolutely not. too constructivist.
Prof 2: absolutely yes. need constructivism.

And, my personal favorite...

Prof 3: no. most my students don't know what a wiki is or how to use it. (juniors @ Stanford.)

Wow! Even the professors were stunned by the differences.

This discussion piqued my interest. I guess that everybody agrees on the reality that an audience member walked out. Yet there were varying interpretations of that behaviour. Does this prove or disprove social constructivism?

Perhaps the question of the role of constructivism in explaining reality is answerable at the meta-theoretical level where grand theories can be combined with mid-range theory for more complete explanations, rather than conflating one level with another? Perhaps this would make sociology more usable in everyday life eg education?

At least, this was my conclusion during my degree studies in sociology years ago. The next decade or so of teaching & raising my forgive-the-label, 'gifted' child taught me some interesting lessons in how, in application, sociological idea(l)s can demonstrate the tensions inherent in the realm of sociological understanding.

Perhaps our schools and their students are living out this very conflict as we speak in their efforts to facilitate all students to 'create' themselves equally while 'back to basics' campaigns suggest the belief that equality and individuality are neither synonyms, nor mutually exclusive.

Interesting take Rosie! Combining theories can be tricky, but considering different levels of analysis or differing foci, can be very . . ah . . . constructive. My understanding and use of the term social constructionism is as the social science correlate of hermeneutics or the late 20th Century interpretive turn in philosophy. It is not so much that everything is a social construction as it is the need to interpret that invades every aspect of life and every action we take. I tend to think of it as the way we evolved to deal with the potential complexity that could exist within everyday decision-making or maybe I should say ignore that complexity. It's how we make sense of things in order to go on.