My psychology lecturer got everyone in my course to watch this and identify which of Piagets cognitive development stages are being shown in the clip. So helpful! Especially when it comes to developing pychoanaylic skills! 🙂
@bulletinthewind All children go through the same stages of development, but some take longer and some go through the stages faster. Piaget's studies are accepted and taught at very prestigious schools throughout the world. So on behalf of the world, you should agree with Piaget :)
Am I missing something wrt his Chomsky reference at 6:07 ? Chomsky never said knowledge is pre-formed. Chomsky's conclusions about language acquisition implied humans are born with certain mental framework for knowledge acquisition and anything that doesn't fit the framework can't be grasped/sensed or even be understood. This is somewhat similar to what Immanuel Kant had also argued before him.
I know this comment is from 6 years ago but I cannot help but reply. Stating that children are born with an innate framework for which only certain types of knowledge can be acquired through is virtually synonymous with saying knowledge is pre-formed. The distinction between knowing now and knowing later in development is a frivolous distinction given that the knowledge that is to be learnt is already determined.
I notice that the teacher uses the words littleist and biggest when describing the sticks. Why not describe them to the child as "The Longest" and "The Shortest" This surely gives the child a more correct description of the objects.
She used the child's own words. What she did was appropriate to the experiment. If she changed the adjectives the child used then she could confuse the child and possibly take away from the experiment that is trying to be tested.
i believe the triangle experiment must be tried to other kids as well it does not make sense that piaget make that theory base on one kid experiment only??? I interacted with many toddlers and asked them to copy my simple drawing. most of them done it very well, the only hindrance is their fingers strength in holding the pencil which made their drawing still shaky. just like the way we try to use our left hand to draw!
I don't think the point of THAT particular experiment was to show that kids can't draw triangles. It was an objection to pure empiricism. An empiricist (in Piaget's caricature) would argue that the process should go as follows: 1* Child sees triangle and copies it into its mind 2* Child draws triangle from the copy it has in its mind Piaget's understanding of the process is a little different: 1* Child sees the triangle and *conceptualizes it using the notions it already has* 2* Child tries to represent *the content of the mental image it has formed* Even something as trivial as perception is shown to be affected by subjective dispositions. "When all you have is a square...".
The idea is to use a language that the child uses to describe the objects. A more accurate description of the object is only better if the child knows the difference between the terms. Does it make sense?
I disagree with Piaget on empiricism. In order to attach a function to an entity, the child must first recognise that the entity exists. If they recognise the entity exists without yet attaching a function to it, they are looking at the objective attributes of the entity; the entity for what it really is, which is empiricism. Once functions are attached to the entity, the child forms the idea that there are things a person can do with the entity, but not that the entity is determined by the function. It's very strange to say 'this exists because I can do something with it'.
The problem is Who is the teacher and Who is the learner. If we apply logic the adult must be the teacher who knows the logical answer. Therefore if we accept that the adult is the teacher and the child the learner. The teacher by posing and prompting the child should direct the child to the right answer which should be that of the teacher.
I don't agree with what I have seen so far. His approach and ideas seem very rigid and a little ignorant. Firstly, you're creating your own preferred outcome by using a kid who can't copy something as simple as a triangle as an example. She was away with the fairies this kid. I was drawing and reading at a higher level than this at her age, and I'm certainly no genius, but, a triangle? C'mon.
What a fantastic opportunity to hear the author himself of a great system of thought. I feel enriched by this.
My psychology lecturer got everyone in my course to watch this and identify which of Piagets cognitive development stages are being shown in the clip. So helpful! Especially when it comes to developing pychoanaylic skills! 🙂
it's a lot easier to learn this stuff seeing the actual man talk about it. I wish this was a part of in class learning.
My professor in a Childhood Development course I'm taking showed this video to us in class. Incredibly helpful.
The most astounding discoveries are usually done in the light of simplicity,and of course of truths.
The subtitles aren’t directly translating him, it’s more like a condensed version of what he says
So much cooler then a book ; )
@bulletinthewind All children go through the same stages of development, but some take longer and some go through the stages faster. Piaget's studies are accepted and taught at very prestigious schools throughout the world. So on behalf of the world, you should agree with Piaget :)
Am I missing something wrt his Chomsky reference at 6:07 ?
Chomsky never said knowledge is pre-formed. Chomsky's conclusions about language acquisition implied humans are born with certain mental framework for knowledge acquisition and anything that doesn't fit the framework can't be grasped/sensed or even be understood. This is somewhat similar to what Immanuel Kant had also argued before him.
I know this comment is from 6 years ago but I cannot help but reply. Stating that children are born with an innate framework for which only certain types of knowledge can be acquired through is virtually synonymous with saying knowledge is pre-formed. The distinction between knowing now and knowing later in development is a frivolous distinction given that the knowledge that is to be learnt is already determined.
I notice that the teacher uses the words littleist and biggest when describing the sticks. Why not describe them to the child as "The Longest" and "The Shortest" This surely gives the child a more correct description of the objects.
She used the child's own words. What she did was appropriate to the experiment. If she changed the adjectives the child used then she could confuse the child and possibly take away from the experiment that is trying to be tested.
I'm really confused, why can't that child draw a triangle
same lmao like just copy paste it
i believe the triangle experiment must be tried to other kids as well it does not make sense that piaget make that theory base on one kid experiment only??? I interacted with many toddlers and asked them to copy my simple drawing. most of them done it very well, the only hindrance is their fingers strength in holding the pencil which made their drawing still shaky. just like the way we try to use our left hand to draw!
I don't think the point of THAT particular experiment was to show that kids can't draw triangles. It was an objection to pure empiricism.
An empiricist (in Piaget's caricature) would argue that the process should go as follows:
1* Child sees triangle and copies it into its mind
2* Child draws triangle from the copy it has in its mind
Piaget's understanding of the process is a little different:
1* Child sees the triangle and *conceptualizes it using the notions it already has*
2* Child tries to represent *the content of the mental image it has formed*
Even something as trivial as perception is shown to be affected by subjective dispositions. "When all you have is a square...".
Are you kidding?? This was an example for the film of MANY experiments.
line samantha :) quantitive n qualitative research n statistik, suppose
line samantha neuro tic/psy at start b tlc... Imagine blanked out one of the names so... NO. Not that is therefor in question csuse. presentings
The idea is to use a language that the child uses to describe the objects. A more accurate description of the object is only better if the child knows the difference between the terms. Does it make sense?
English subtitles are not accurate, it's a shame.
I disagree with Piaget on empiricism. In order to attach a function to an entity, the child must first recognise that the entity exists. If they recognise the entity exists without yet attaching a function to it, they are looking at the objective attributes of the entity; the entity for what it really is, which is empiricism. Once functions are attached to the entity, the child forms the idea that there are things a person can do with the entity, but not that the entity is determined by the function. It's very strange to say 'this exists because I can do something with it'.
Could you help translate where it errors? I'd greatly appreciate it!
which year is the interview from?
1979
0:47 1977
Love jean piaget !
très enrichissant!
The problem is Who is the teacher and Who is the learner. If we apply logic the adult must be the teacher who knows the logical answer. Therefore if we accept that the adult is the teacher and the child the learner. The teacher by posing and prompting the child should direct the child to the right answer which should be that of the teacher.
Great video! Good way to question the basic assumption: are children really like sponges?
It's really obvious, too. You just need to know a teeny bit of French and you can tell.
Nice.
i'd love to, by now im very busy with some exams but i'll try to contact soon. best regards!
IACAPAP brought me here.
We cannot draw conclusion based on one kid. This experiment has to be repeated
kingIkeable It was. Several times.
I don't agree with what I have seen so far. His approach and ideas seem very rigid and a little ignorant. Firstly, you're creating your own preferred outcome by using a kid who can't copy something as simple as a triangle as an example. She was away with the fairies this kid. I was drawing and reading at a higher level than this at her age, and I'm certainly no genius, but, a triangle? C'mon.
Agreed, Emanuelle looks like a dopey kid; she needs more practice.
Gracias, Thanks, Merci
This kid is has a brain injury for sure.
Jordan peterson has destroyed constructionism..
The translation is appalling
i know right
vaya traducción más chafa! no se entiende ni m...