Social Constructivism Flaws

The Flaws of Constructivist Thinking

Social constructivism and psychology have come at odds in recent years, as social constructivism has increasingly been used as the be-all-end-all explanation by third-wave feminists for different aspects of human sexuality and sexual behavior, despite proven scientific explanations that debunk and even contradict such a view. In the continuation of the everlasting nature vs. nurture debate, the feminists assert that society, nurture, is far more significant in determining sexual behavior than genetic or innate biological factors. These modern-day constructivists are as close to the Tabula Rasa/blank slate perspective as can be, and assert this as the truth, even when science shows otherwise. The University of California Berkeley explains that social constructivist view asserts that “all cognitive functions originate in, and must therefore be explained as products of social interactions” (Berkeley). In other words, it argues that human behavior is learned through interactions with other people and the whole of society, and “not

Youth and physical appearance. Youth is key because, as Dr. Buss put it, “By the age of forty, a woman’s reproductive capacity is low, and by fifty it is close to zero” (Buss 51). This holds true due to factors such as menopause occurring in middle aged women, and genetic conditions such as Down syndrome being more likely to appear in children born from older mothers. The National Down Syndrome Society (NDSS) confirms this by saying that twenty-year-old mothers have a one in two-thousand chance to give birth to a baby with Down Syndrome. Compare that to a thirty-five-year-old woman, who “has about a one in 350 chance of conceiving a child with Down syndrome” (Down), or a forty-year-old woman who has a one in one-hundred chance of bearing a child with the condition (Down), or a forty-nine-year-old, who has a one in 10 chance of conceiving a Down syndrome child