Social construct.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes.  Next question.

Maybe take a breath and reassess..because we're at the point where you're asking me whether or not we're sure that teosinte and field corn are different.  Let that sink in.  I mean, we know they're significantly different, because we literally made them different, eh?

no we are not. 

there is no question domestication have given some organism a suite of biological traits which we can point to as the unique biological consequence of our domestication efforts.   but the key is there is no such set for ALL pets.   therefore the biological difference is cherry picked and does not define “pets”.  it at most only define cherry picked “pet”.  so biological difference does not unify “pets”.

only the human social construct truly unify “pets”.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's this "we" shit? I don't even know what that's supposed to refer to, but I do appreciate that you acknowledge that there are objective differences between teosinte and field corn. Thus, the distinction between teosinte and field corn is not a social construct, and could not be.

What.....is.......word.

There is absolutely no argument between us as to whether or not people keep wild animals in cages..."as pets". We do. Ask Sigfried and Roy.

[Anomalocaris]

What's this "we" shit?  I don't even know what that's supposed to refer to, but I do appreciate that you acknowledge that there are objective differences between teosinte and field corn.  Thus, the distinction between teosinte and field corn is not a social construct, and could not be.

What.....is.......word.

There is absolutely no argument between us as to whether or not people keep wild animals in cages..."as pets".  We do.  Ask Sigfried and Roy.

this we “shit” is to give you an opportunity to forget what a little undomesticated twerp you are and start pretending you can discuss an issue as if you are domesticated.

[The Grand Nudger]

Human beings are probably the prime example of a domesticated species. Nevertheless. There are actual biological differences bewteen wild species and useful cultivars. We could all agree that everything is nature...and that would still be the case.

The difference between teosinte and field corn is not sociological. Put your chips down, on that, if you truly believe otherwise? If not? Well...shut the fuck up...bluntly speaking. I'm tired of this tedious shit. What.....is.......word.

[Objectivist]

I've seen some examples of what a social construct is using Google.

It seems fairly simple but I've come to  a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

Pretty much all definitions are based on one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is.  Even if it's a precise explanation by normal social standards.

Am I missing the point of what a social construct is or has anyone got an obvious example of a non social construct.

I don't think that a tree is a social construct.  Nor is a mountain, a cloud, or anything else that exists in reality apart from human choice.  I think that culture is a social construct in that it is a product of a group or society of people.  

I don't agree with you that definitions are based on "one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is".  I think proper definitions serve a very important function and they are objective, i.e., based on facts and there are rules to defining concepts that derive from the process of concept formation.  A definition names the things a concept subsumes in terms of their essential characteristics.  Essential characteristics are what makes a thing what it is and also distinguish the thing from other things. For instance, man is the rational animal. This definition names the fundamental characteristic that makes man what he is and distinguishes him from other animals.  They need to be precise in order to serve their function, which is to facilitate cognition.  In fact, when someone is using vague definitions, they are probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  

Definitions are the carriers of truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

And I'm saying pets are a social construct. It depends on the outlook of what people agree on socially.

You just said to ask your wife about the spiders.
If I did and she said yeh they are our pets my husband is talking shit, and if you and your wife were to specifically chose to pay attention and care for one of those spiders and call it Sidney then that spider that isn't a pet would now be your pet spider.
In reality your wife doesn't want them as pets so they aren't.

You point out one difference between a pet spider and a wild spider, right there.  The care and feeding thereof.  Another would be their containment.  This changes their behavior.  People who work at zoos deal with this issue constantly, especially if they ever intend to reintroduce the animal.  In practice, this care and feeding also freezes them.  It's not always the case with novelty pets, which is to say non-domesticates...that they change, biologically, but the wild population still does.  A geneticist could, with enough samples, tell you roughly where and when an animal or it's descendants have been removed from a wild population (that's how we derive estimates for the domestication of dogs and cats).  Even in the exception seeking subset of wild caught animals kept as pets, you'll still find genetic divergence between wild populations and captive animals, changes to behavior, and objective differences in situations and circumstances.   

The word pet, and what we deem as "acceptable pets", a social construct.  The pets themselves, the fact that something is or is not a pet, not a social construct - because it refers to an objective reality about those animals.  A social construct is any concept that exists, not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. Compare the existence of pets, to the value of money. The value of money is not derived from the objective reality of a small piece of colored paper. The set of things that owe the totality of their existence to human agreement is large, and it's close to you (because you're a human). You see social constructs all around you - but, to continue along with the theme of pets, that's because you're in the fishbowl - not because everything is a social construct - or because the definition of the term is too vague. It takes aggressive misunderstandings to contend that a tree, for example, your own very first, is not a good example of a thing that is not a social construct. Every human being alive could blip out in an instant tomorrow, no one left to interact or agree....and there would still be trees. Our pets would linger on for awhile too, though, for most of them, not as long as trees.

[Anomalocaris]

I've seen some examples of what a social construct is using Google.

It seems fairly simple but I've come to  a conclusion I can't think of much that isn't a social construct.

For example with a tree, I don't think there's an exact precise definition of when a dead tree stops being a tree or when a tree becomes a tree and stops being a seed.

Pretty much all definitions are based on one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is.  Even if it's a precise explanation by normal social standards.

Am I missing the point of what a social construct is or has anyone got an obvious example of a non social construct.

I don't think that a tree is a social construct.  Nor is a mountain, a cloud, or anything else that exists in reality apart from human choice.  I think that culture is a social construct in that it is a product of a group or society of people.  

I don't agree with you that definitions are based on "one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is".  I think proper definitions serve a very important function and they are objective, i.e., based on facts and there are rules to defining concepts that derive from the process of concept formation.  A definition names the things a concept subsumes in terms of their essential characteristics.  Essential characteristics are what makes a thing what it is and also distinguish the thing from other things. For instance, man is the rational animal. This definition names the fundamental characteristic that makes man what he is and distinguishes him from other animals.  They need to be precise in order to serve their function, which is to facilitate cognition.  In fact, when someone is using vague definitions, they are probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  

Definitions are the carriers of truth.

No, definition is the medium of human cognitive organization.   Whether it is the truth depends what you mean by truth.

[Objectivist]

I don't think that a tree is a social construct.  Nor is a mountain, a cloud, or anything else that exists in reality apart from human choice.  I think that culture is a social construct in that it is a product of a group or society of people.  

I don't agree with you that definitions are based on "one person communicating to another person vaguely what something is".  I think proper definitions serve a very important function and they are objective, i.e., based on facts and there are rules to defining concepts that derive from the process of concept formation.  A definition names the things a concept subsumes in terms of their essential characteristics.  Essential characteristics are what makes a thing what it is and also distinguish the thing from other things. For instance, man is the rational animal. This definition names the fundamental characteristic that makes man what he is and distinguishes him from other animals.  They need to be precise in order to serve their function, which is to facilitate cognition.  In fact, when someone is using vague definitions, they are probably trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  

Definitions are the carriers of truth.

No, definition is the medium of human cognitive organization.   Whether it is the truth depends what you mean by truth.

I disagree.  Definitions of what?  Concepts are the medium of cognitive organization.  They are how we identify and organize the material brought in by the senses and definition is the final step in that process.   A definition is what unites the many units of a concept into a single unit. A definition is true if it corresponds to reality.  That's what I mean by truth.  If we defined a tree as a species of pachyderm, then that would be a false definition.  

What theory of concepts are you using?

[paulpablo]

And I'm saying pets are a social construct. It depends on the outlook of what people agree on socially.

You just said to ask your wife about the spiders.
If I did and she said yeh they are our pets my husband is talking shit, and if you and your wife were to specifically chose to pay attention and care for one of those spiders and call it Sidney then that spider that isn't a pet would now be your pet spider.
In reality your wife doesn't want them as pets so they aren't.

You point out one difference between a pet spider and a wild spider, right there.  The care and feeding thereof.  Another would be their containment. 

  Even in the exception seeking subset of wild caught animals kept as pets, you'll still find genetic divergence between wild populations and captive animals, changes to behavior, and objective differences in situations and circumstances.   

No I'm not saying it's a pet spider because it's contained or cared for. This is what makes pets a human construct.

You can take your pet out of it's containment and it's still your pet because you think it is. Caring for an animal doesn't define a pet because people neglect and mistreat their pets. People let their cats out of the house sometimes I knew a family that let their rabbit walk the streets for some reason.

You won't find genetic divergence between a spider in the wild and a spider that was in the wild and spent 1 second in a human created containment.

There might be a genetic divergence after spending a long time in a cage at which point a human decides whether or not to call it wild or domesticated or not.

[Anomalocaris]

No, definition is the medium of human cognitive organization.   Whether it is the truth depends what you mean by truth.

I disagree.  Definitions of what?  Concepts are the medium of cognitive organization.  They are how we identify and organize the material brought in by the senses and definition is the final step in that process.   A definition is what unites the many units of a concept into a single unit. A definition is true if it corresponds to reality.  That's what I mean by truth.  If we defined a tree as a species of pachyderm, then that would be a false definition.  

What theory of concepts are you using?

a definition is just a concept given specificity so that it’s application in a social environment can be made smoother through the reduction of the effects of individual caprice.

so definition is a social construct