no, it would be the fault of the person who wants to engage a conversation when he doesn't even speak the same language (or a reasonable attempt at a lingua franca)
> It might help to define what "socially constructed" means.
> Does this term apply solely to social conventions (i.e.,
> blue for boys, pink for girls)? Does it apply to social
> conventions which arose because they seem to work, or
> fulfill a strong utilitarian basis (the development of
> paper economies, the training system for physicians, the
> shapes of chairs)? Is it a catch-all for anything that's
> not solely derived from the genes or the brain (capacity
> for language, eye color, bilateral symmetry), even if we
> have _no idea_ if it's socially "constructed" or not?
you know, kelley wasn't particularly nice in her response to your rather obtuse question, so maybe i can help. (not that i'll be nice...)
you joined this list and got a blurb telling you what it was about. you either read it and stayed or you ignored it and stayed, but whichever it was, you were warned that it wasn't about shoring up your predetermined notions of human behaviour. you were warned that silly 'cultural' topics were considered fair game.
i know i don't have to tell you about netiquette: you lurk and learn about the community and decide if you want to participate. if you enter, even after lurking, with the idea you know The Truth and everyone else is confused, you are likely to be shat upon. as you should be.
if you don't understand what 'social construction' means, maybe that is your deficiency, not the people who use the term. at least google it and come up with a coherent critique before launching your uninformed tirade. alternatively, ask what it means, there are some very nice and very inteligent people who would be happy to explain it if you asked. but you chose not to ask. fine.
> Frankly, when people say that _anything_ is "socially
> constructed," I suspect that people are simply using
> quasi-technical terms to look sophisticated.
is this what you say to surgeons when they use big words or is this sort criticism reserved for fields where you have no competence?
> that's actually very simple and straightforward, using
> technical verbiage makes you appear to be more precise.
> But, if you're describing something vague and ill-defined,
> or something which no one else seems to grasp, then the
> technical terms make this wispy stuff _seem_ more
> substantial.
yes indeed, i have seen this sort of thing. much like the patient note made by phycisians who have just prescribed a worthless antibacterial for a viral infection. i bet you get all punky about that too, eh?
-- no Onan
"superior sound quality"