Social construct.

[paulpablo]

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.

Human choice is a social construct, we choose how things are defined. So what comprises a mountain exists it doesn't matter what we want to call it, but it's a mountain because people agreed that hills over a certain height are mountains and everyone mostly agreed.

If everyone changed their minds it would change what mountains and hills are.
Pluto has always existed but in my lifetime it changed from being a planet to not being a planet anymore because everyone agreed. Nothing changed about the objective reality of Pluto.

BTW I'm not aggressively defending that everything is a aocial construct I have some ideas myself of what aren't social constructs but want to see anyone else has to say.

I also disagree with your point that a man is a rational animal. There could be a man who is completely in a coma and unconscious but still classified as a man, or a man who suffers from something that makes him irrational.

[The Grand Nudger]

Human choice may be a social construct , even if our ability to make selections is a fact - though some people would probably call that a semantic rounding error. Language, the words we use to refer to things, are a social construct, yes. The word is not the thing, however. Everyone changing their minds about what word to use to refer to a mountain does not change the mountain, anymore than the different words for mountain in many languages change the mountain. Pluto, as you note, being called a planet or not a planet, doesn't change pluto. This is because pluto..like a mountain... is not a social construct.

[paulpablo]

Human choice may be a social construct , even if our ability to make selections is a fact - though some people would probably call that a semantic rounding error. Language, the words we use to refer to things, are a social construct, yes. The word is not the thing, however. Everyone changing their minds about what word to use to refer to a mountain does not change the mountain, anymore than the different words for mountain in many languages change the mountain. Pluto, as you note, being called a planet or not a planet, doesn't change pluto. This is because pluto..like a mountain... is not a social construct.

But this is the same for anything you mentioned is a social construct.

Money exists as paper, its money because we agree to use it as money.

Mountains exist as mounds of earth/rocks/whatever it is a mountain is made of, they're mountains because we agreed that when the mounds of earth reach a certain height we call them mountains.

In theory if for some quirky reason there was a split decision between geologists about the difference between a hill and a mountain, there would be mounds of earth that exist which would be socially talked about as hills to one group of people and mountains to others. Yeh they would physically exist just as the paper we treat as money still exists if we all of sudden decide to not treat it as money.

Just to add a note that my description of mountains might be off but the principle remains.

[The Grand Nudger]

The pieces of paper exist just as churches exist. The value of the money is not, however, based on any objective reality of those pieces of paper. If we all stopped agreeing that they were valuable, the paper would still exist - but would not be money..as so many other discontinued currencies. If we stopped calling mountains mountains...and in fact we have many words for mountains, they would remain precisely what they were when we did call them mountains, just as pluto remains precisely what it was no matter what we call it. Same with a cat or a dog or a douglas fir.

Again, language...all the different words we use to describe things, is a good example of a social construct. Nothing other than our limited agreement as speakers of english, and nothing about a cat, makes a cat a cat instead of a zzzzzrpt. The word is not the thing, and the things themselves are, more often than not, good examples of things which aren't. Mountains are not social constructs. Pluto is not a social construct. Pets are not social constructs. Trees are not social constructs. These things do not come into existence purely because we agree, and they will not blip out of existence if that agreement stopped.

This argument is absurd, in it's entirety. You're aware of the definition of a social construct. It's not particularly difficult to understand, and it's not difficult to come up with examples of things that are and are not social constructs. Unless this goes somewhere..and it would be aaaamazing to hear wherever that place was supposed to be, I can't even imagine why someone would launch themselves into it?

[paulpablo]

The pieces of paper exist just as churches exist. The value of the money is not, however, based on any objective reality of those pieces of paper. If we all stopped agreeing that they were valuable, the paper would still exist - but would not be money..as so many other discontinued currencies. If we stopped calling mountains mountains...and in fact we have many words for mountains, they would remain precisely what they were when we did call them mountains, just as pluto remains precisely what it was.

There's no difference except we don't use mountains for much in particular.

If we stopped calling the paper money the paper would still exist if we stopped calling a tall mound of earth a mountain whatever its made from would still exist but would not be classified by people as a mountain.

[The Grand Nudger]

The classification by people that those little pieces of paper are money is the only thing that makes them money. Do you see how this money business has it's roots, not in any objective reality about those pieces of paper, but purely in human interaction?

Voila, the literal definition of a social construct. It really is a pretty narrow lane, despite having surrounded ourselves with them and often going so far as identifying ourselves by them. We have races, we have nationalities, we have genders, we have classes.

[Belacqua]

So what comprises a mountain exists it doesn't matter what we want to call it, but it's a mountain because people agreed that hills over a certain height are mountains and everyone mostly agreed.

If everyone changed their minds it would change what mountains and hills are.

Where I live, what we classify to be a mountain depends in part on what's around it.

So for example Hijiyama 比治山 (the last character means mountain) is in the center of the city, and it isn't very high. You can walk over it without much effort. One side has a big escalator these days. It just feels mountain-like because it's taller than the buildings around it. On the other hand Fujiyama 富士山 (same character) is a big thing that you have to be serious about hiking up. Nobody would call that a hill. 

So the social construct includes context -- there's a kind of sliding scale. 

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the physical object is a creation of society. How we define it, and how we think of it, and how we value it, are all social constructs. No argument there, surely.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's actually no official line and thus no agreement (in the us at least) about any difference between a mountain and a hill. We used to say that a mountain had to be over 1k feet, but that was unworkable for any number of reasons. So it was dropped. No mountains or hills disappeared or appeared when we did so.

Similarly, we could outlaw dogs tomorrow, and they would not cease to exist on the basis that they are no longer, and cannot be, our pets. That they are now unacceptable. Nor would the effects of their breeding. Amusingly, I had a convo with a guy who couldn't keep chickens where he was - the stated reasons being wildly asserted hazards to human health. I asked him to look up whether he could keep a fucking chimpanzee. He could. Pretty sure purdue had a hand in that one. Good laughs all around. Legal systems - a social construct. You're not going to stumble on a "chickens no, chimpanzees yes" law laying around out in the environment the next time you try to take out the trash, and even the justifications for such laws are very often divorced from any objective reality.

[Jehanne]

There's actually no official line and thus no agreement (in the us at least) about any difference between a mountain and a hill.  We used to say that a mountain had to be over 1k feet, but that was unworkable for any number of reasons.  So it was dropped.  No mountains or hills disappeared or appeared when we did so.

It's worth seeing:

IMDB -- The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain

[Belacqua]

So what comprises a mountain exists it doesn't matter what we want to call it, but it's a mountain because people agreed that hills over a certain height are mountains and everyone mostly agreed.

If everyone changed their minds it would change what mountains and hills are.

I wonder if it would make sense to differentiate two different types of thing here.

First, social construct as definition of existing thing. So whether the mound is a hill or a mountain, whether Pluto is a planet or something else, depends on definition. The object would exist even if humans were completely unaware of them.

Second, another kind of social construct would be something that only exists because people believe in it. Such things have no physical existence you can point to. They are relationships among people, agreements to act in certain ways, etc. I'm thinking this category could include marriage, other contracts involving promises, etc. Perhaps government. The fact that these things are recorded on paper, or have buildings built to house them, doesn't mean they are concrete objects. The marriage record in city hall is not the marriage, the capitol building is not the government. 

In the case of this second type, if the social construct changed, the agreed-upon thing would cease to exist -- unlike the case of a mountain.