"a clear example of why Piaget's analysis is bogus"? your child could not conserve, apart from on the volume task. This supports his theory as it shows how he is beginning to conserve. Also your experiment did not follow Piaget's standard 2 question condition. You repeated asked him how many coins there were and even had to take away 2 when he kept saying there were 4. Don't criticise Piaget when you can not a) produce findings that goes against his theory and b) produce a reliable experiment.
The child doesn't understand the meaning of more that the adult is taking it in.
He explained during the coin thing that there wasn't MORE coins but it was wider. The teacher kept saying more and obviously the child complied. The experiment is flawed.
I do not see how the anecdotal proof of one child who has surpassed his usual age gradient (although age is a terrible educational model) is in any way evidence against a long term idea within the education psychology movement. The Child still operates within Piaget although he is officially wise enough to understand various flaws within his old ideas and 'adopting' new ones into his schema. Which is still a large part of Piaget's theories.
@JustATheist : I don't think he's surpassed his age gradient at all. Please elaborate on what you mean by that. AFAICT, this is a clear illustration of highly typical thought processes I have observed in children his age and much younger, rendering age worse than terrible and speaking of stages similarly awful.
@minzhide If you problem is with the stage being separated into ages? People argue this? In the postmodernist era many scientist and artist agree that age does not qualify as much as previous conjectured. I would have to say that Piaget still has accommodation and assimilation, as well as some uniquely agreeable ideas such as the growth of permanence. Still his theory of conservation has fallen out of favor recently, I just think your being a bit obtuse.
@JustATheist : My problem is that he appears to be in about 3 stages all at once. If you think that's okay then I doubt you will ever understand the problem, but to me it seems to be a paradox. Forgive me, but I don't tend to take criticisms of my rationality seriously from people who have chronic problems with producing comprehensible sentences (I have no clue what you're talking about in the first two sentences).
@minzhide I think your taking me to critically and I've found that it is difficult to produce comprehensible sentences within Youtube's format. In most cases I would end up defending your stance and I often see a paradox between his theory and my personal observations. I just wouldn't agree that a 3 minute video deserves such a controversial title, it is a rather uninformative video in regards to an old but large debate.
@JustATheist : Also, how is it 'anecdotal'? Just b/c I'm not buying in to the classical theoretical framework? I'm analyzing his reactions and behaviours just as scientifically as anyone can, and within a theoretical framework that both reaffirms Piaget's data, some of his assertions about child development and further provides more predictive power than Piaget's theory based on my own study of far more than this individual child. I oppose Piaget's conclusions, not his data, and build on both.
@minzhide I do not agree with many of Piaget's theories. However one individuals observations and one video does not discredit an entire cognitive theory. This child is merely accommodating his previous theories and adopting a higher stage, his answers with the glass and the coins still follow what Piaget would expect. Top row has more 1:17 and the glass has more 2:06, I've never seen the playdoh. It is quite likely he has an above average IQ and shouldn't be used alone against Piaget.
@JustATheist : He ultimately performs as Piaget predicts, yes, but it's a long process getting there, and it's only b/c he's being pressured to do so. As I understand it, Piaget predicts that he should respond that way more or less immediately, not hesitate and try repeatedly to find a work around. Also, I've already noted that my ideas are not based solely on this one child, and they're also rooted in neuroscience, linguistics, language development and more modern theories of child development.
@JustATheist : I'm not using him alone. You seem to have a problem with paying attention. All throughout the comments I talk about my daughter and I've specifically addressed this concern of yours already. My ideas are rooted in observation of nearly every child I've been around for more than a few minutes, neuroscience, linguistics and language acquisition and development. There's also the important point that I'm not proposing a theory, I'm arguing against one, so a case study IS relevant.
@minzhide You never told me to address comments, nor did you discuss your daughter in the description. I also never suggested that I case study would be irrelevant, in fact I'm suggesting that it would be necessary. I realize that Piaget is extremely old and massively wrong, that is what I was getting across in those "incomprehensible" sentences. However, I'm just saying the scope of your claim is larger then your evidence; within this video. Thereby the title and your words seem arrogant.
The other day I asked Gracie if she wanted two cookies. She said, 'Yes, but don't break it in half.' She was subsequently fully satisfied with one whole cookie.
While word definition and "bending" word meaning is a potentially problem with Piaget's theory (effectively a language barrier, of sorts), couldn't this child simply be "emerging" from the pre-operational stage, according to Piaget? Piaget does not claim that there is a moment of revelation during which a child switches from one stage to another.
@CBJammin103 If you pay close attention to any random child who appears to be within the pre-operational stage they exhibit behaviours that are indicative of the thought processes that Scott's illustrating so beautifully here. There's also the problem that Scott is ultimately always behaving as Piaget predicted, it's just that in the process you can clearly see that his thought processes don't correspond at all with those posited by Piaget.
@CBJammin103 Also note the comment about my 3 year old daughter, Gracie, below. She's definitely within Piaget's pre-operative stage and she's behaving as Piaget predicts, but just like Scott, she's also demonstrating that she's not thinking the way Piaget wants. She is fully aware that a broken cookie is less than 2 full cookies, but is apparently more interested in developing her number sense than obsessing about problems of scale. It's not about Piaget's data, but his conclusions from it.
I love how you can see him change his reference frame with every prompt. First he sees two rows of 4 coins, and a column of 2, then he thinks he's being asked if he can count, so he replies that he can count much higher than 4, then he thinks he's being asked how many coins are left in the space previously occupied by the top row after it's been expanded (the correct answer, which he gives, being 2) but then realizes he's being asked which row is longer, which he again nails! It's beautiful.
If you watch his hand gesture at 11 seconds, it seems as though he may be counting two groups of four coins (in squares instead of rows) and one column of two coins- (: :) (: :) (:). This would help make more sense of his later response (after the coins are spread out) when he says the bottom row has four and top row has two.
@misterplaxco I think you're right about the bit at 11s, but later he is definitely talking about rows, so it still stands that he's established an imaginary boundary cutting off the two pennies that moved out of the previously occupied space in the top row. This sort of imaginary boundary is frequently tremendously important, IME, in driving the logic of children's responses to these sorts of problems.
@minzhide It may be the case that he established this boundary with the pennies, but his final response in each of three tasks clearly exhibits preoperational thinking, especially in the third. He is able to explain that the row is spread out and why the liquid in the second tube is taller, but clearly still believes that there is more liquid in the second tube and less play-doh in the squashed pile.
@minzhide The interviewer makes at least two mistakes: asking leading questions and changing the task to fit his response, saying, "We'll just do four okay." This also affects the results. In any case, it is hard to claim that Piaget is bogus from Scott's reaction on one poorly executed task. It seems you are using one aspect of an example of a child exhibiting Piagetian stages (preoperational answers with some reasoning- showing emerging logic) to reject an entire theoretical framework.
Gracie has evidently entered a stage dominated by focus on quantity rather than quality. She wanted 2 cookies, but I would only allow her one, so I broke it in half to satisfy her. When I handed her the first half she complained that it wasn't a whole cookie, but when I gave her the second half she was satisfied that there were two. Yet, she was still quite aware that they were half cookies, as she kept talking about how, 'all the cookies breaked in half!'
@minzhide Gracie asked for a cookie just a few moments ago, and I asked if she wanted two instead. She replied, 'Yeah', then a few seconds later, 'but don't break it in half'. As far as I know this was only the first time she's been faced with this situation since my last post about her. If that doesn't demonstrate a concept of conservation then I don't know what would.
"a clear example of why Piaget's analysis is bogus"? your child could not conserve, apart from on the volume task. This supports his theory as it shows how he is beginning to conserve. Also your experiment did not follow Piaget's standard 2 question condition. You repeated asked him how many coins there were and even had to take away 2 when he kept saying there were 4. Don't criticise Piaget when you can not a) produce findings that goes against his theory and b) produce a reliable experiment.
hello542 9 months ago 5
The child doesn't understand the meaning of more that the adult is taking it in.
He explained during the coin thing that there wasn't MORE coins but it was wider. The teacher kept saying more and obviously the child complied. The experiment is flawed.
atheistium 10 months ago
@atheistium yes, thank you.
PowerQuebecois 6 months ago
I do not see how the anecdotal proof of one child who has surpassed his usual age gradient (although age is a terrible educational model) is in any way evidence against a long term idea within the education psychology movement. The Child still operates within Piaget although he is officially wise enough to understand various flaws within his old ideas and 'adopting' new ones into his schema. Which is still a large part of Piaget's theories.
JustATheist 11 months ago
@JustATheist : I don't think he's surpassed his age gradient at all. Please elaborate on what you mean by that. AFAICT, this is a clear illustration of highly typical thought processes I have observed in children his age and much younger, rendering age worse than terrible and speaking of stages similarly awful.
minzhide 10 months ago
@minzhide If you problem is with the stage being separated into ages? People argue this? In the postmodernist era many scientist and artist agree that age does not qualify as much as previous conjectured. I would have to say that Piaget still has accommodation and assimilation, as well as some uniquely agreeable ideas such as the growth of permanence. Still his theory of conservation has fallen out of favor recently, I just think your being a bit obtuse.
JustATheist 10 months ago
@JustATheist : My problem is that he appears to be in about 3 stages all at once. If you think that's okay then I doubt you will ever understand the problem, but to me it seems to be a paradox. Forgive me, but I don't tend to take criticisms of my rationality seriously from people who have chronic problems with producing comprehensible sentences (I have no clue what you're talking about in the first two sentences).
minzhide 10 months ago
@minzhide I think your taking me to critically and I've found that it is difficult to produce comprehensible sentences within Youtube's format. In most cases I would end up defending your stance and I often see a paradox between his theory and my personal observations. I just wouldn't agree that a 3 minute video deserves such a controversial title, it is a rather uninformative video in regards to an old but large debate.
JustATheist 10 months ago
@JustATheist YouTube's format? You mean written language?
minzhide 10 months ago
@JustATheist : Also, how is it 'anecdotal'? Just b/c I'm not buying in to the classical theoretical framework? I'm analyzing his reactions and behaviours just as scientifically as anyone can, and within a theoretical framework that both reaffirms Piaget's data, some of his assertions about child development and further provides more predictive power than Piaget's theory based on my own study of far more than this individual child. I oppose Piaget's conclusions, not his data, and build on both.
minzhide 10 months ago
@minzhide I do not agree with many of Piaget's theories. However one individuals observations and one video does not discredit an entire cognitive theory. This child is merely accommodating his previous theories and adopting a higher stage, his answers with the glass and the coins still follow what Piaget would expect. Top row has more 1:17 and the glass has more 2:06, I've never seen the playdoh. It is quite likely he has an above average IQ and shouldn't be used alone against Piaget.
JustATheist 10 months ago
@JustATheist : He ultimately performs as Piaget predicts, yes, but it's a long process getting there, and it's only b/c he's being pressured to do so. As I understand it, Piaget predicts that he should respond that way more or less immediately, not hesitate and try repeatedly to find a work around. Also, I've already noted that my ideas are not based solely on this one child, and they're also rooted in neuroscience, linguistics, language development and more modern theories of child development.
minzhide 10 months ago
@JustATheist : I'm not using him alone. You seem to have a problem with paying attention. All throughout the comments I talk about my daughter and I've specifically addressed this concern of yours already. My ideas are rooted in observation of nearly every child I've been around for more than a few minutes, neuroscience, linguistics and language acquisition and development. There's also the important point that I'm not proposing a theory, I'm arguing against one, so a case study IS relevant.
minzhide 10 months ago
@minzhide You never told me to address comments, nor did you discuss your daughter in the description. I also never suggested that I case study would be irrelevant, in fact I'm suggesting that it would be necessary. I realize that Piaget is extremely old and massively wrong, that is what I was getting across in those "incomprehensible" sentences. However, I'm just saying the scope of your claim is larger then your evidence; within this video. Thereby the title and your words seem arrogant.
JustATheist 10 months ago
@JustATheist Then why not ignore them and get on with your life in a format that allows you communicate comprehensibly?
minzhide 10 months ago
I think he was trained. : o
lbredikhin5 11 months ago
@lbredikhin5 Aren't all children?
minzhide 11 months ago
The other day I asked Gracie if she wanted two cookies. She said, 'Yes, but don't break it in half.' She was subsequently fully satisfied with one whole cookie.
minzhide 1 year ago
While word definition and "bending" word meaning is a potentially problem with Piaget's theory (effectively a language barrier, of sorts), couldn't this child simply be "emerging" from the pre-operational stage, according to Piaget? Piaget does not claim that there is a moment of revelation during which a child switches from one stage to another.
CBJammin103 1 year ago
@CBJammin103 If you pay close attention to any random child who appears to be within the pre-operational stage they exhibit behaviours that are indicative of the thought processes that Scott's illustrating so beautifully here. There's also the problem that Scott is ultimately always behaving as Piaget predicted, it's just that in the process you can clearly see that his thought processes don't correspond at all with those posited by Piaget.
minzhide 1 year ago
@CBJammin103 Also note the comment about my 3 year old daughter, Gracie, below. She's definitely within Piaget's pre-operative stage and she's behaving as Piaget predicts, but just like Scott, she's also demonstrating that she's not thinking the way Piaget wants. She is fully aware that a broken cookie is less than 2 full cookies, but is apparently more interested in developing her number sense than obsessing about problems of scale. It's not about Piaget's data, but his conclusions from it.
minzhide 1 year ago
Comment removed
CBJammin103 1 year ago
I love how you can see him change his reference frame with every prompt. First he sees two rows of 4 coins, and a column of 2, then he thinks he's being asked if he can count, so he replies that he can count much higher than 4, then he thinks he's being asked how many coins are left in the space previously occupied by the top row after it's been expanded (the correct answer, which he gives, being 2) but then realizes he's being asked which row is longer, which he again nails! It's beautiful.
minzhide 1 year ago
@minzhide
If you watch his hand gesture at 11 seconds, it seems as though he may be counting two groups of four coins (in squares instead of rows) and one column of two coins- (: :) (: :) (:). This would help make more sense of his later response (after the coins are spread out) when he says the bottom row has four and top row has two.
misterplaxco 10 months ago
@misterplaxco I think you're right about the bit at 11s, but later he is definitely talking about rows, so it still stands that he's established an imaginary boundary cutting off the two pennies that moved out of the previously occupied space in the top row. This sort of imaginary boundary is frequently tremendously important, IME, in driving the logic of children's responses to these sorts of problems.
minzhide 10 months ago
@minzhide It may be the case that he established this boundary with the pennies, but his final response in each of three tasks clearly exhibits preoperational thinking, especially in the third. He is able to explain that the row is spread out and why the liquid in the second tube is taller, but clearly still believes that there is more liquid in the second tube and less play-doh in the squashed pile.
misterplaxco 10 months ago
@minzhide The interviewer makes at least two mistakes: asking leading questions and changing the task to fit his response, saying, "We'll just do four okay." This also affects the results. In any case, it is hard to claim that Piaget is bogus from Scott's reaction on one poorly executed task. It seems you are using one aspect of an example of a child exhibiting Piagetian stages (preoperational answers with some reasoning- showing emerging logic) to reject an entire theoretical framework.
misterplaxco 10 months ago 6
Gracie has evidently entered a stage dominated by focus on quantity rather than quality. She wanted 2 cookies, but I would only allow her one, so I broke it in half to satisfy her. When I handed her the first half she complained that it wasn't a whole cookie, but when I gave her the second half she was satisfied that there were two. Yet, she was still quite aware that they were half cookies, as she kept talking about how, 'all the cookies breaked in half!'
minzhide 1 year ago
@minzhide Gracie asked for a cookie just a few moments ago, and I asked if she wanted two instead. She replied, 'Yeah', then a few seconds later, 'but don't break it in half'. As far as I know this was only the first time she's been faced with this situation since my last post about her. If that doesn't demonstrate a concept of conservation then I don't know what would.
minzhide 1 year ago