FWIW, I always present Piaget's ideas as an illustration of a successful scientific theory. He presented his ideas/observations in a way that others could clearly tell what he did and the ideas he derived from them. They were clear, and clearly testable, and his stage conceptions promoted the challenge and revisions we expect from scientific theory. His theory has been found empirically limited and flawed (in some respects), but theoretical thinking has been supported by his humble beginning. This is the fate of most good theoretical efforts. His thinking provided for empirical tests, revision, and refutation, a path Freud did not take. I mention to students that should they come back to class in ten years,and find the theories and ideas the same, then no advancement is likely to have occurred. They should expect to see revision, maybe new theories, new measures. They typically willl see pop-psych changes or new fads in the field,new hot topics, but real advances? Developmental psych has advanced in no small way thanks to the testable ideas of Piaget. They are unlikely to see any changes in the so-called "personality theories" class for example.
Gary Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/20/07 10:28 AM >>> On 19 Mar 2007 at 16:07, Joan Warmbold wrote: > I'm still baffled that Piaget still carries such influence <snip> > When younger children are provided problems with only one segment, they > reveal amazingly advanced thought processes. Think of the studies that > revealed that toddlers show astonishment when they first see two mickey > mouse dolls which are then hidden from view by a shield. Despite Peter Harzem's admirable call for data on the question of Piaget's influence on scientific psychology I'm afraid we're not going to get any, so we're stuck with opinion. And a good part of that opinion depends on what we mean by "influence" (as well as on what we mean by "scientific"). Unlike Joan, I don't think that successful attempts to prove Piaget wrong indicate a lack of influence. On the contrary, such studies as the Mickey Mouse ones of the cognitive and perceptual abilities of children are often classified as "neo-Piagetian" to indicate that they were inspired by Piaget. Even if Piaget was wrong (and on the details at least, he seems to have been), I count all of this, even including the recent interest in Vgotsky as an alternative, as Piaget's legacy. My conclusion, BTW, about where Piaget went wrong is that he tended to underestimate the abilities of the young child and overestimate the abilities of the adolescent. Heck, he even seems to think that adults are smarter than they are. How many of us have really mastered formal operations (speak for yourself, eh?)? For what it's worth, Google gives less than half a million hits for "Piaget", but 19 million for "Freud". But all that proves is that Freud would win on American Idol. Perhaps science citation counts would be more revealing. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
