3 ms·

While stated like fact, you're espousing a relatively radical philosophical perspective about reality. It might drive radical social change (or desire to), but

While stated like fact, you're espousing a relatively radical philosophical perspective about reality. It might drive radical social change (or desire to), but most people don't think like this.

kqr 4y ago
I fail to see how it's anything other than a logical consequence -- much less radical. I know from first-hand experience that if a team don't believe they have a particular person as their manager, that person is, in fact, not their manager. It's impossible for that person to be their manager. I also know from first-hand experience that once a group of people no longer believe themselves to be a soccer team, they stop being a soccer team. (Well, actually, this is not about a soccer team but the real example is too fresh and personal to be detailed about so let's pretend it's about a soccer team.) Similarly, I know from second hand experience that once people don't believe a person is part of a family, that person is, in effect, not part of that family anymore. I have third hand experience of people not believing a grocery store to be such, and indeed it ceased to be such very quickly and tragically to its former owner. And so on. I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties.
- quesera 4y ago
  This is essentially nonsensical though. You can internally reject social consensus or even objective measurement, but you cannot choose the frame in which you are evaluated by others. > I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties. "Prisoner", "slave", and "taxpayer" spring to mind (but I repeat myself). These are artifacts of social consensus, enforced by people with stronger-than-usual opinions about the correctness of their evaluations. Viktor Frankl, Nat Turner, and Warren Buffett, as exceptions, do not disprove the larger point.
  - kqr 4y ago
    I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from! I did not mean to say that you, as an individual, can disappear the grocery store by ceasing to believe in it, any less than you can wish away a recession by choosing not to believe in it. These social constructions (recession, manager, grocery store) are the product of the belief of a majority of the relevant people. One person believing this way or that way changes nothing. Only when most people stop believing do we see change. Slavery is a great example of a type of social relationship that ends when people stop believing in it. This goes for the recession just as well as the other examples I gave.

While stated like fact, you're espousing a relatively radical philosophical perspective about reality. It might drive radical social change (or desire to), but most people don't think like this.

kqr 4y ago

I fail to see how it's anything other than a logical consequence -- much less radical. I know from first-hand experience that if a team don't believe they have a particular person as their manager, that person is, in fact, not their manager. It's impossible for that person to be their manager. I also know from first-hand experience that once a group of people no longer believe themselves to be a soccer team, they stop being a soccer team. (Well, actually, this is not about a soccer team but the real example is too fresh and personal to be detailed about so let's pretend it's about a soccer team.) Similarly, I know from second hand experience that once people don't believe a person is part of a family, that person is, in effect, not part of that family anymore. I have third hand experience of people not believing a grocery store to be such, and indeed it ceased to be such very quickly and tragically to its former owner. And so on. I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties.

quesera 4y ago
This is essentially nonsensical though. You can internally reject social consensus or even objective measurement, but you cannot choose the frame in which you are evaluated by others. > I can't think of any social construct that does not require buy-in from the affected parties. "Prisoner", "slave", and "taxpayer" spring to mind (but I repeat myself). These are artifacts of social consensus, enforced by people with stronger-than-usual opinions about the correctness of their evaluations. Viktor Frankl, Nat Turner, and Warren Buffett, as exceptions, do not disprove the larger point.
- kqr 4y ago
  I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from! I did not mean to say that you, as an individual, can disappear the grocery store by ceasing to believe in it, any less than you can wish away a recession by choosing not to believe in it. These social constructions (recession, manager, grocery store) are the product of the belief of a majority of the relevant people. One person believing this way or that way changes nothing. Only when most people stop believing do we see change. Slavery is a great example of a type of social relationship that ends when people stop believing in it. This goes for the recession just as well as the other examples I gave.