The Social Construction of Facts: Surviving a Post-Truth World | Massimo Maoret | TEDxIESEBarcelona

In a world where truth and fiction are blurring, Massimo asks a simple
question: What happened to facts? Through an analysis of how social
networks have changed, Massimo launches a call to action and proposes
solutions to diffuse the dangers lingering in our post-truth society.

Massimo Maoret is an Assistant Professor in the Strategic Management
Department at IESE Business School, and a Marie Curie Fellow of the
European Commission. He has received a Ph.D. in Management from Boston
College in 2013. Massimo's research focuses on how social networks
affect the performance of firms and individuals. At IESE Business
School, he teaches Competitive Strategy, Strategy Execution and Managing
Social Networks in the MBA and Ph.D programs, and also in various
Executive modules.

[loristephens]

I don't like the way it's worded in the video, but I think the point he is trying to make is that what some people are calling "facts" (i.e. alternative facts) are being socially constructed. Actual facts are true, but we don't always know the truth. As science progresses, often viewpoints change because we know more information. Statistical inference is very helpful, but the findings are only as good as the data and methods of collecting the data. Honestly, I didn't like hearing "statistics are facts" because of that reason. The statistics might show some finding that fits the theory, but if the methodology is not properly done, the findings are severely limited. There are always limitations and those are rarely ever discussed outside of the scientific community. There is a problem in science that the only findings people are interested in are when the analysis "found something". Null findings are rarely published, so let's say 50 studies found nothing, but 1 found something and was published. It makes that 1 study seem pretty factual to the average person and with a media spin and confirmation bias, it turns into a socially constructed "fact".

[meanpersonable]

When a scientist or statistician says statistics are facts, (s)he means done properly, not some sloppy model that doesn't follow all the rules. Being familiar with TED talks it should be clear that he didn't have time to vet the statistics (not to mention people would fall asleep). A serious scientist in any field is not likely to make statistics up to support a talk. Their colleagues find out they have been fast and loose with the numbers and their reputation could be seriously damaged. A Facebook post has none of those restrictions.

Also, when we speak of facts, I don't think we're saying that a ruler cannot claim to measure 20 cm, because it isn't a laser range finder, so the claim is a lie.

The bigger problem to me is that there are few objective measures of well being that we can agree with. For an investor, making 50, 000 on his/her investments (your currency here) might be what we call "chump change" in the USA. But to me, making $50, 000 is a living wage. Hurrah! Certainly GDP doesn't tell you much about the socio-economic strata in a society. Neither does unemployment. Of course a job is a job, but all jobs are not sufficient to provide a living wage. Unemployment could be zero and huge portions of your society may still need help. However, I think I understood why he used those measures. That is because they are reportable facts.

Massimo seemed quite sincere and his arguments rang true to me [clearly false true]. I picked the * instead of "objectively true" because I didn't fact check him, i.e. I did not check his sources. I will most likely NOT check his sources and I don't intend to pursue a career as a social scientist.

[Eduardo-birv]

I don't agree in many statements Massimo proposed, I believe that social constructivism is an ideological oversimplification of the world, social interactions and biology(if even taken in account).
I'm no prfessional, but I would advice myself and others to research more about the topic.

[johnnysgarbi]

Good talk, but there is an important non sequitur. From the fact that people form their beliefs based mainly on the opinions of others does no follow that facts - objetive reality - are socialy constructed, but just that beliefs are socialy influenced. Facts - that which makes opinions true or false - are objetive, even though some facts might be institutional (in Searle's sense of institution).

[Lobishomem]

The speaker seems like a very intelligent and well meaning person. It's hard though to imagine the majority of readers or receivers of information actually going to the work of fact checking what they read (if they read at all). It's just too much work and too time consuming and probably in many cases inconclusive. There still is a place for publications that are responsible for what they print or broadcast. The solution to the spread of fake news cannot fall on the shoulders of the individual.

[pm]

I have to object to terminology here. Facts are not socially constructed more than truth. If a fact is not true, it's not a fact.

Of course - you might say that "facts" are only our current best understanding of truth. ... but still. People can't just go around and invent their own facts.

[herbwiseman]

What do you do when people are not interested in engaging in a conversation?

[aresmars]

Wikipedia does fairly well, at least it enables divergent voices to argue out publicly available sources, and find a way to present them all in a way that enables others to check on their own. You can't depend everything on Wikipedia is correct, but you can challenge it, and the results of your individual efforts benefit everyone else as well.

[saradanhoff]

Post truth is only possible when the price of deceit is not death.

[caballero]

9:38 "Take vaccination..." VERY pertinent re. today's Covid vaccine hesitancy.

[asecretturning]

This talk is very inspiring, but the comments are totally demoralizing.

[b-er]

So ultimately this is an ideology of power, i.e., get enough power at any cost so you can create/control the narrative? Am I wrong?

[alanwhite]

This is a question humanists spend too much time arguing about. Scientists take a ruler and make the measurement...

[zuLess]

so, in the same breath he says that they are both socially constructed and only partially true?

[jaltos]

The speaker dropped the ball big time the moment he claimed "Facts are socially constructed". At this point he stopped instructing and started preaching.

Facts are not socially constructed. The sky being blue is a fact (when it's a sunny day out). He goes one step beyond and conflates facts and fact interpretation.

For his example of the three sticks and the X stick, the correct answer is "It doesn't matter what I think, I'll need to compare and measure the sticks to give an accurate answer". The X stick is only as tall as the B stick once I can confirm they are the same length, which I can't do it without measuring them. Until then, I don't have the fact. Once I measure and compare the sticks, and see that the X stick is as tall as the B stick, I can now confirm that fact. But regardless of if I know or not, the X stick and the B stick have the same height. That's the fact there.

This feels like the biggest (and worse) ad populum defense I've ever heard.

[numshinfan]

You're a social scientist and you think statistics are facts? That's a new one. I'm pleasantly surprised

[john-paulcisneros]

Truth is arbitrary. An infinite number of interpretations exist for any "fact" that all can be true. That's not to say there is no difference between deception and truth. The key distinction is betrayal.