The Constructivist Preference
When we are presented with conflicting beliefs and ideas, which ones are we to support or assume? That question, in our age of scientism, is usually answered with “those that are true,” or “those that are more realistic,” irrespective of how these terms may be defined.
For anything that cannot be answered with a high degree of certainty I wish to propose that it’s more useful for us, and more advisable indeed, not to desperately look at truth or realism, but for what is more constructive or positive. Although one might label this genuine constructivism, positivism, or plain idealism, I like to call this the “constructivist preference.”
Applying the constructivist preference, which seems close to the pragmatist views of Charles Sanders Peirce and William James (they had suggested to judge the value of ideas in terms of their usefulness), means a careful monitoring of input to choose those statements that, unless there is no prima facie room for error, are more favorable. As that’s close to repeating what we’ve established in the last paragraph, we should inspect examples:
Of “people are terrible” vs. “people are great,” two statements asymmetric as much as unprovable, “people are great” should—here I prefer the normative route—be preferred, no matter how many cases were brought forth that want people to be terrible.
Of “things get better” vs. “things will stay the same” (or get worse), more constructive is certainly the belief that things get better (and we remember Émile Coué when he famously coined the affirmation, “every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better”).
Of “life is difficult” vs. “life is easy,” no matter the frivolous triviality, the constructivist preference absolutely favors “life is easy.” Following the pragmatists (“what are the practical implications of accepting this as true?”) we know why we prefer the latter.
What led me to this preference have been occasional conversations that contained mere opinion, dark opinion, and one or the other situation in which a participant would cling to something so hard to verify (scientifically: falsify), yet so negative, that one could not bear the damage such person mentally inflicted on themselves, that I longed for something to ground myself, and maybe convince the other: In matters of opinion, and beyond the glass that’s half full, let’s prefer those views that are more constructive.
I’m Jens, and I’m an engineering lead and author. I’ve worked as a technical lead for companies like Google, I’m close to W3C and WHATWG, and I write and review books for O’Reilly and Frontend Dogma. I love trying things, not only in web development, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my views and experiences.
If you have a question or suggestion about what I write, please leave a comment (if available) or a message. Thank you!
Maybe of interest to you, too:
- Next: Highlights from Smiles’s “Character”
- Previous: On Quality and Logistics
- More under Philosophy, or from 2017
- Most popular posts
Looking for a way to comment? Comments have been disabled, unfortunately.
Find adventure anywhere? Try 100 Things I Learned as an Everyday Adventurer (2013). During my time in the States I started trying everything. Everything. Then I noticed that wasn’t only fun, it was also useful. Available at Amazon, Apple Books, Kobo, Google Play Books, and Leanpub.