Post

This problem extends to "artificial" as well. Yes, many things are made up. But there isn't always a "real" thing (in a platonic or structuralist sense) elsewhere. "Intelligence," as we use it, is also it's own model. So much misunderstanding comes from this false real vs not dichotomy.

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò@olufemiotaiwo.bsky.social

there are a lot of philosophical concepts that get egregiously misused out of the seminar room (and in the seminar room, to be fair). but in terms of sheer pernicious misuse "social construct" has gotta be top 5 somewhere and it's not number 5

Frank Elavsky (he/him) ⌁

@frank.computer

People hear that [thing] is a social construct and assume that "since it was made, it is artificial, it is inauthentic, it is fake." But something can be real *and* constructed. Inventions are real, but important *because* of their construction. Houses are real. (You get the point.)

31/7/26, 4:01 pm0 reposts2 likes

Frank Elavsky (he/him) ⌁

@frank.computer

31 July

Critical scholars pushing against something as "socially constructed" aren't dissing something for being fake. It's an invitation for 2 things: #1, to examine. First, how and why that thing was made and then what it does. And #2, to re-construct. If we learn from #1, we can do better.