Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Social construction vs biological essentialism
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Social construction vs biological essentialism== | ==Social construction vs biological essentialism== | ||
Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including social deconstructionism and [[biological essentialism]] respectively. Humans are both malleable and have natural impulses/behaviours. Many emotions, tendencies and traits are universal and fixed, while others are not universal across cultures. | Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including social deconstructionism and [[biological essentialism]] respectively. Humans are both malleable and have natural impulses/behaviours. Many emotions, tendencies and traits are universal and fixed, while others are not universal across cultures. H | ||
Cultures vary wildly in violent behavior among people with similar Y-DNA, as well as globally, which falls in line with social construction theory. However, there are more countries with people of E3* Y-DNA haplogroup in countries with the top 50% of violent behaviour, which falls in line with biological essentialism. | Humans all have basically the same facial movement in response to emotional stimuli, across all cultures. This falls in line with [[biological essentialism]]. Cultures vary wildly in violent behavior among people with similar Y-DNA, as well as globally, which falls in line with social construction theory. However, there are more countries with people of E3* Y-DNA haplogroup in countries with the top 50% of violent behaviour, which falls in line with biological essentialism. | ||
Social constructionists often explain human behaviour by socially determined by wealth and political power. Whereas biological determinists and racialists would state that the poverty/politics and associated ill effects are a direct result of evolution, and economic poverty is likely to be permanent in homogenous E3* Y-DNA haplogroups. Social constructionists in turn say that R1B haplogroup invasion of E3* haplogroup countries caused resource shortages and led to centuries of violence. | Social constructionists often explain human behaviour by socially determined by wealth and political power. Whereas biological determinists and racialists would state that the poverty/politics and associated ill effects are a direct result of evolution, and economic poverty is likely to be permanent in homogenous E3* Y-DNA haplogroups. Social constructionists in turn say that R1B haplogroup invasion of E3* haplogroup countries caused resource shortages and led to centuries of violence. | ||