Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Social constructionism: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==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. However, the science is clear that most human behaviour is biologically rather than socially determined. 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 and Y-DNA. | Scientific consensus rejects any hard-line nature vs. nuture stance, including social deconstructionism and [[biological essentialism]] respectively. However, the science is clear that most human behaviour is biologically rather than socially determined. 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 and Y-DNA. | ||
===Race=== | |||
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. | 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 as 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 sub-sarahan africa could be more prosperous than other countries, but foreign pillaging of E3* haplogroup countries rather than the E3* Y-DNA itself caused resource shortages and led to centuries of violence. | Social constructionists often explain human behaviour as 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 sub-sarahan africa could be more prosperous than other countries, but foreign pillaging of E3* haplogroup countries rather than the E3* Y-DNA itself caused resource shortages and led to centuries of violence. | ||
===Sex=== | |||
[[Blackpill]]ers would state that racial immigration into R1B haplogroup countries is creating polygamy, violence, and ultimately inceldom in those countries. [[Sexual Marxism|Sexual marxists]] may or may not believe this is happening, but think that with a sufficiently authoritarian state, this would not be an issue. | |||
==Criticism== | ==Criticism== | ||