Created Constructs vs. Laws of Nature

Wikipedia, accessed 10/29/2017

A construct is something that humans have created in order to make sense of their world, and/or, to justify a certain set of behaviors and logic within a human society. These are not to be mistaken for laws of nature that can be inferred through the constant interrogation of evidence and quality data. The difference is that constructs (such as social, political, and economic institutions) can (and should) be altered if alternatives prove more accurate and helpful for the whole of humanity. Natural laws and facts are not so easily changed by human activities. 

Often times, social scientists happen upon (or imagine) phenomena that are actually just constructs, and mistake them for natural law intentionally (to justify or enact a specific set of constructs for a specific purpose), or unintentionally through the misinterpretation of data and evidence.  An example of this includes the construct of race and ethnicity (which is used and repeated to unilaterally improve the conditions of one group at the expense of another), Capitalism (as a means of convincing people that a small group of people is more entitled to wealth produced through collective labor than another), or totalitarianism (in that a small group of people seek to have authority over others without a means of non-violent and effective feedback for those with power).  These are not natural laws, but are constructs that are created by human minds, sometimes for means and ends that are not healthy or healthful for anyone.  

What is an apparent nugget of nature in this, is for some people to be more individualistic and anti-social than others, and that those who abuse their position of influence often face a steep penalty in a group for abusing or poorly using that influence.  

Therefore, it seems that the use or disuse of various social constructs in our individual and group minds have a profound influence on how we look at, feel and think about, and ultimately work with the lived reality in which we make our existence.  It would appear that some individual and group constructs are more or less helpful from others at achieving their defacto intended goal (which may or may not be helpful for the individual or group), and at achieving the ultimate common goals of humanity and life to live and be well in the environment and set of conditions in which that life finds itself.

Moving forward, it would seem that it would be best for individuals to first, consider whether their intentions are aimed at having a positive, neutral, or negative effect on others and the environment.  If they are based in malevolence, they are not likely to last long in the group or in the environment, as the destruction of one or the other would destroy the mal-intentioned individual as well; evolutionary dead-end.  Life would then continue to evolve and adapt around the changes, and achieve a new kind of normal for a awhile until something else changes from internal or external causes.  Neutral intentions may be alright, but they could end up also destroying the society and environment through negligence and ignorance of what is happening in the world, and how we are affecting it.  Neutral intentions are not as certain an evolutionary dead-end as negative intentions, but likely less successful than positive intentions, which will enable the individual and/or society to accurately perceive and explore the world and others.  Healthful actions and attitudes can be accepted, while the negative and neutral actions and attitudes get consumed by the positive ones as they prove their actual value in human societies and, at times, nature itself; a much more promising type and make of vessel for sailing existence.

Note: this is all talk of different constructs and the effects they have on individual humans, human societies, and the ecosystems we inhabit.  The laws of nature are only at work as soon as we begin to make choices and actions in our world with the mindsets that we each and all have.  Those need further examination and study through the scientific method with actual quality data and evidence.  The point of this piece is to show that we, as individuals and groups of individuals, can make better individual and group choices to achieve better outcomes and conditions for all.  This is not an idea that can rest easily on its laurels, because each set of conditions is different and needs to be regarded as such.  However, I think there are patterns we can find from looking at the past, and I think we can infer from those patterns some of the general principles that may help us as a species do better than we previously had been doing.  Learning is possible, for individuals and groups of individuals.  With that, I think we can begin changing our world for the actual better.

Source:

Lehrer, Jonah, (August 18, 2010). The Psychology of Power, retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2010/08/the-psychology-of-power/, accessed 10/29/2017