Talk:Jean Piaget

Sentence in article
The last comment on this page is correct. Piaget never considered himself to be a developmental psychologist, but did indeed refer to himself as a "genetic epistemologist." I believe that this is an important fact about Piaget. Furthermore, I fail to see any mention of Piaget's theory, besides a brief introduction to his stages of cognitive development. It states nothing about the mechanisms responsible for this development, e.g. assimilation and accomodation. I also think that it is important to note that Piaget formulated his theory based upon the qualitative analysis of his own three children. The article also notes nothing about Piaget's critics. John

I do not understand this sentence:

"For example children may not be able to conserve five checkers spread out and report that there are more checkers." --80.58.9.44 20:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I also don't understand this - can someone who does please alter it, or at least explain on this discussion page what it means Bgh251f2 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Conservation is the ability to appreciate that something remains the same despite a superficial change. For example, children who fail to conserve will often claim that by moving a row of counters further apart from one another, you have made 'more' counters. Exactly what the children mean by 'more' is a subject of some debate. Some claim that they are simply alluding to the increased spatial dimensions, and not numerosity. If that is indeed the case then this phenomena is not very interesting. For a more intriguing argument, see conservation of liquid.

I didn't understand that paragraph either, and I don't think it is relevant in this article. Therefore, I have removed it. Graham talk 13:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that "For example children may not be able to conserve five checkers spread out and report that there are more checkers. This is extremely oddly worded and difficult for readers to understand without prior knowledge in child development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LolaPurpleRabbit (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Late life
This article only mentions Piaget's early life, not his late life. Someone should elaborate on it.

________________________

Perhaps someone could comment on the fact the Piaget was not actually a developmental psychologist, but rather called himself a 'genetic epistemologist'. He was interested in the basis and formation of knowledge structures and was interested in children only insofar as they illuminated this. In fact the University of Geneva turned him down for a doctorate in Psychology in 1976 as he could not be fit into any one topic. See Burman's 1996 book Decontructing Developmental Psychology for more details (chapter 11 in particular).

I was just going to comment on the paragraph about children's "ability to appreciate that something remains the same despite a superficial change". This paragraph seems to make it a bit more complex than it was explained to me. Rather than using the example of "counters", think of two glasses containing the same amount of liquid. One, a tall thin glass, the other a squat fat glass. A child who hasnt yet grasped concepts of conservation, will usually say that the taller glass contains more liquid. The child has yet to grasp the concept of an object retaining it's original properties, despite a change in spatial dimensions or surroundings.

Piaget's influence on therapeutic methods
On the other hand, Piaget does not seem to have influenced therapeutic methods or models to any significant degree.

This is untrue. It seems to be a large factor in, if not the the basis of the cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (which references Piaget), which has a close relation to the scientifically-tested cognitive therapy. Cognitive therapy is relatively commonplace.

It is also easy to see the relationship (or so I speculate); cognitive therapy accomplishes successful changes in unhealthy thinking by re-treading Piaget's learning processes in an environment encouraging of healthier and more realistic thought patterns.

A bit shy to edit this myself -- if someone could verify enough to be confident of the edit, please go ahead.

I came here to note the same "omission". I wouls ad that this "discussion page" refers to the article being part of a phsychology collaboration here in Wikipedia, yet this Piaget article doesn't mention his bearing on the founding of "modern cognitive psychology" whereas the entry here on Cognitive Psychology does. Bearing in mind the "supremacy" of Congitive psychology today surely the collaboration on these two articles should be addressed? LookingGlass 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Epistemology, Biology, Logic all missing
This article is not about the man, but the myth: it is decidedly skewed toward how he is understood within psychology, such that it does not accurately reflect his true endeavours. This is an article about Piaget as the neo-Piagetian sees him. Writing only from the perspective of psychology, perhaps it does deserve a B+ (as indicated above). But, as history, it's not very good at all. If you're a student reading this article, do yourself a favour and get Bringuier's (very short) "Conversations with Jean Piaget" instead. -JTBurman 15:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. The article does not even include his work "Insights and Illusions of Philosophy", which is a major contribution to restore philosophy to a respectable discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFDF:4260:6D70:4C69:7D58:24DF (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

EN3 certificate
Beth, E.W., and Piaget, J. (1966). Mathematical Epistemology and Psychology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. and E.W. is known to have EN2. pom 15:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment from subpage
Having recently earned my teaching certification, I must strongly disagree with the current article on Piaget. His theories and constructavist theories of education dominated my certification classes. The article states that Piaget's influence in education was short living.

If anyone can document Piaget's and constructavist educational theories, an edit of the Piaget article is in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rstimac (talk • contribs).

Picture
I think it's inappropriate to only have an artistic representation of Piaget. This article should have at least one photograph of him, and either remove the artistic representation, or keep it along with a photo. Kevin 03:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A hundred years ago, we might have been able to have a good, artistic representation of a person. But with today's standards of art, you know that you'll get a crude drawing on a very low level. Better to have a photograph.72.73.218.67 00:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)ViktorFrankensteen


 * Yes but if you go back to the Sumerians or Celtic pre-Roman Europe, it is modern art all over again. Enlil Ninlil 07:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Under the heading "The developmental process", There is a paragraph that reads "One of Piaget’s most famous studies focused purely on the blow job abilities of children between the ages of two and a half years old, and four and a half years old." Is this correct or should someone change that back to something a little less obscene.


 * No it's not correct and I have reverted to the version before the vandalism. Graham 87 10:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol, one can never know, with all this psychanalitical anal phalic mambo jumbo...

In the Latest revision Under the heading "First Piaget: The Sociological Model of Development" it is stated that he was a "known pedephile". Not being able to find any evidence of this anywhere I assume this is vandalism. Attempting to revert :-) Sina

under the biagraphy section, there are two sentences which read "In 1921, Piaget returned to Switzerland as director of the NCIS.

In 1923, he married Valentine Châtenay; together, the couple had three children, whom Piaget studied from infancy. In 1929, Jean Piaget accepted the post of Director of the FBI and remained the head of this international organization until 1968."

I have no knowledge of Piaget's life, but I suspect that his carrer led him neither to The Naval Criminal Investigation Service, nor to the FBI (nor is the american FBI an "international organisation," per se).

In addiditon, there is a also an out-of-context phrase under the header "history" which reads "loved bacon" This does not apper to be relevant, has no cited source, and appears to be vandalism. I have taken the liberty of removing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.248.88 (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Piaget and Montessori
Some mention should be made of Piaget's links to Montessori, such as his being the first president of the International Montessori Society. Many of his theories show marked relationship to Montessori concepts (e.g. compare Stages of Development with Montessori Sensitive Periods). John Darrow 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)John Darrow

I've added information concerning the Cognitivists' learning theory to help clarify language used in academia concerning the theorists. Montessori's contributions align more with the Humanists and Constructivists than with the Cognitivists. The term Constructivist is misused in several locations in Wikipedia so, for the sake of clarity, when I say Constructivist I am referring to Dewey, Montessori, and Kolb. Another frequent error is the misuse of the term Constructionism from Seymour Papert interchangeably with Constructivist. Stmullin (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)19 March 2012, Shirley Mullinax Lombardi, EdD

Copied
Please sign you posts as directed, the following comments were attributed to stmullin I did not post them.Stmullin (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hate to say this but this article may have been copied from th bibliography on the first like or http://www.piaget.org/aboutPiaget.html.

Also any more information on his scientific no psychology litriture? Enlil Ninlil 07:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Genetic epistemology
Hi, This article was only focusing and the psychological part of J Piaget's work, forgeting his important contribution to epistemology (Piaget directed during 25 years the International Centre for Genetic Epistemology in Geneva !). I've tried to insert a few words on it, but it's not enough : the chapter "influence" for instance doesn't give a word on genetic epistemology. Chrisdel 12:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still new to these edit pages so forgive me if this is the wrong area. The four "Stages" (Sensorimotor, etc.) should instead be referred to as "Periods". Also, instead of 'substages' (example: Substage Reflex Schema) it should be referred to as a Stage (in particular, The First Stage). Piaget, himself, stated them this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibby81 (talk • contribs) 00:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Prune Bibliography
The bibliography is full of things I wouldn't assign to a student looking for historical overviews. At the same time, however, I am reluctant to cut it back out of concern for offending someone. Would anyone object if I were to attempt to focus things somewhat? JTBurman (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * After waiting more than two years for comments, I finally made an executive decision and fixed the first part of the bibliography: the list of Piaget's major works. I also included an explanation (List of Major works and achievements, repeated below), which includes guidance for further edits on the section.  I recognize that everyone has favourite books and articles (I do too), but the list here can't become all-encompassing.  There are good bibliographies available elsewhere. Instead, I chose to follow a reasonably-objective method.  This has flaws, of course, but it's the best I could come up with. Specific bibliographic details will need to be added, including the original French publication dates, but the order should stay the way it is now. JTBurman (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The next step will be to start pruning back the bloating in the other bibliographic details. Where possible, this article should link to other related pages (e.g., Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development) instead of trying to be complete. Otherwise, again, it will get unwieldy. JTBurman (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Major works and achievements
How was the determination made as to what counts as a "major" work? Citation analysis? Scholarly comment? -JTBurman (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I created the following rubric in order to impose some order. The method is objective, using Google Scholar. It won't change much, though: the individual counts may go up, but the order will likely remain much the same. JTBurman (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * List of Major works and achievements
 * This list has been completely rewritten to avoid the inclusion of personal favourites. In the list below, the following definitions have been used:
 * Exemplars: More than 5,000 citations in Google Scholar
 * Super-Classics: More than 2,500 citations in Google Scholar
 * Classics: More than 1,000 citations in Google Scholar
 * Major Works: More than 500 citations in Google Scholar
 * Works of Significance: More than 250 citations in Google Scholar
 * If others are to be included, a new section should be created and the additions should be accompanied by a brief explanation regarding their significance. (Self-evident sections, such as "new translations," do not require further explanation.)


 * Major Commentaries and Critiques
 * This list represents the most significant and influential post-Piagetian writings, objectively assessed using the citation-based method (as above). I would like to use this as the basis for replacing the Piagetian and post-Piagetian stage theories section, since that includes things I don't recognize.
 * Any objections? JTBurman (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You looked a bit lonely all alone on the talk page! From what I've seen your edits are bold but in the best way.  This article has so many problems; when I was trying to improve the prose in the first few sections, it took ages just to put things in their proper places.  Any expertise you can lend would improve the article greatly, and I doubt anybody would be offended.  Jhfortier (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been frustrated with this page for years. But I've got a free day, so here I am.  Further to the original goal, I noticed that the "references" section is full of documents that aren't actually cited in the body.  Although some of these are excellent, others I've never heard of.  I think, therefore, that I'm going to check each one against the body text and then kill those that are link-farmed. JTBurman (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't fully re-do this, but I think the rubrics "major," "classics," "notable," etc., etc., just based on pure numbers of citations that Google Scholar counted (so not necessarily accurate), are extremely confusing, and also conflict with the Bibliography (given below at the bottom of the article). I like the general idea of going according to citations, but Google Scholar gives a much too mechanical result here. Would it be possible instead to use another bibliographical source (especially since most of these are just English translations of original French publications), and to divide simply by DATE PUBLISHED (in French)? And maybe call out a few very frequently cited works to call "most frequently cited works"? Meerkat77 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I had never looked at this list before. I agree with that the current organization is not ideal. I would suggest a purely chronological list, without subsections by citation frequency, and instead with the citation classics noted with the note template, something like at the end of this sentence. In this example I used 5,000 citations as the threshold quantity for example, but I have no opinion about what quantity should mark a citation classic, as I am not an expert on citation impact. Also, it is necessary to note the date of the citation count, since the quantity changes over time. Biogeographist (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This work is a citation classic: over 5,000 citations in Google Scholar in August 2023.

Grange Aux Belles in Biography section
Just to mention that in the Biography section, "Grange Aux Belles" in the sentence "He then moved from Switzerland to Grange-aux-Belles, France" refers not to a town but to a Parisian street.

The correct sentence would be something like "He then moved from Switzerland to Paris, France, where he taught at the Grange-Aux-Belles street school run by Alfred Binet"

Since English is not my mother tongue (as I'm sure you've noticed), I'm not sure my correction is appropriately built. So if someone else would propose it, I'd be happy.

Clementine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementineapperty (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Binet died long before Piaget moved to Paris. Therefore, the suggested change ought to be reworded to say "...school founded by Alfred Binet." JTBurman (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Piaget's stages
I thought there could be some more information about Piaget's 4 stages. I recently took a child development class and I think I could add more. For example, there is no mention of the six substages in the sensorimotor stage. Also, there is nothing about preoperational thought. I thought I could also descirbe more about object permanence. Any thoughts?--Fifi06 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

''I just stepped into that section and cleaned up the formatting and spelling. I didn't change anything on content. However, I do agree with you that the stages could stand some expansion. ~Morphenius (19:31, 19 June 2008)'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.247.71 (talk)

Death of Piaget
I logged in to check this article about how Piaget died and noticed it says nothing about it. Can anyone just add a small thing if you know? MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how he died. And I've never seen that discussed. But I did recently publish a photo of his unmarked grave, in Geneva, and someone erased the little blurb and link I added. Some details just don't survive. JTBurman (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Undo unexplained blanking by an IP
I have undone some unexplained blanking by an IP address.

If you remove significant content, please explain what you do it in the talk page. It is all right to be be bold, but than explain what and why so that you provide the oportunity of others to react. Thanks.

--Nabeth (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The physical microstructure of “schemes”
I am not convinced that this section belongs in the main Piaget entry. I am familiar with the book cited, but the topic discussed plays almost no role in its larger narrative. It is also presented out of context, here, since "schemes" do not have their own section. I would suggest, therefore, that this section be moved to a new sub-page about "Piagetian schemes." This would allow the material to be understood on its own terms, in its proper context. JTBurman (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Genetic epistemology
This seems to provide a gloss of Harry Beilin's 1992 article, "Piaget's enduring contribution to developmental psychology," published in 1992 in Developmental Psychology. It is therefore misleading, in the context of the quote provided at the start of the section, because its contents reflect the historical development of his research program and not the theory of that name. It is also misleading to refer to these four periods as "stages," although that is a minor quibble.

In short, the section provides a fairly good description of the history of Piaget's developing thought, but the theory itself -- "genetic epistemology" (see esp. Piaget, 1950) -- still needs to be introduced and explained. JTBurman (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Challenges" section
A sentence in this section of the article read "A main figure in the ratification of Piaget's ideas was the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky." The word "ratification" means the opposite of what the paragraph was talking about, so I changed it to "who's ideas contradicted". (Lexandalf (talk) 04:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Remarks addressed to other editors
Remarks addressed to other editors do not belong in the body of the article. The article should be arranged to serve the general reader, and not address itself to editors. Ekwos (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Biology
JTBurman (above) has a point concerning biology. Piaget was a biologist. His dissertation was on mollusks. For sure, his life work is much more closely associated with psychology, but why is this basic fact not even mentioned? The first sentence is misleading. Without knowing that he was a biologist, seeking a biological understanding of the origins of knowledge, his work cannot be properly understood. --seberle (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Piaget
The section on the "Fourth Piaget" is not accurate. I do not have time to fix it now, nor do I have my books with me, but the key source for this section is Beilin's 1992 chapter in the book he edited with Peter Pufall. JTBurman (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

1764
As of this writing, the introduction says:
 * Piaget created the International Center for Genetic Epistemology in Geneva in 1955 and directed it until 1764.

Obviously 1764 is wrong, it's probably 1964, but I know nothing about Piaget, so I can't verify the end year. --67.164.20.33 (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand the section called "The study of figurative thought"
What is describe there as ALWAYS reversible and what is describe there as NEVER reversible? Eddau (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you that this text is confusing. However, as far as I understand, logical concepts are completely reversible, whereas perception and memory is not completely reversible. I see nothing in this section that is described as never reversible.  Lova Falk     talk   11:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lova, thank you for the respond. Can you, please, rephrase that section? Eddau (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I have looked at it and I cannot. I don't have access to the sources used and the risk is that I would rephrase it into something that is not correct. I have now tagged the section.  Lova Falk     talk   07:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wubbena, Portugese biography
Lova Falk provided reasons for her deletions:
 * Wubbena : "just a single study, not at all a work of significance. Only 1 (one) citation is google scholar...."
 * Comment by JJ: PhD-student at Texas State University; this publication is from february 2013. Zero citations. Not being referenced in the article.

Please respond to this, before removing. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Portugese biography : "with so many references and links, a portuguese biography doesn't really contribute much..."

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Major works redux
I appreciate the intent to introduce "objectivity" into the choice of major works and commentaries for listing in the article, but I don't believe separating them into arbitrarily named sections ("Exemplars"?) does anything to aid the reader. On the contrary, I think it only serves to introduce unnecessary confusion and, even when understood, suggests a kind of "meta" original research that should probably be discouraged. To clarify: I'm fine with using Google Scholar to limit the number of works listed in those sections, but the works themselves should be listed by year and/or author, as is customary in these sorts of articles. The most cited works can be pointed out separately in regular prose, if desired. (And, of course, if a reputable source identifies some of his works as the most significant, that can be the basis of a separate listing.) - dcljr (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

New Piaget on education section
Although there is currently a section that is titled "Education: Teaching and Learning," I have been asked to add an additional section. For the purpose of my course and to follow instructions as outlined by my professor, the section will be called "Piaget on education." I will be adding to this section over the next few weeks. All of my additions will not be added in one sitting as I will be editing in the weeks to come. Please ask me about the content if something appears amiss as this will be a work in progress for some time.M02000297 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Once I have completed my expansion of this topic, it will merge with the previous section in order to dispel confusion and any inkling of redundancy. A working outline will be posted here withing a few days. I want to clearly identify how his theory influences education and provide needed details.M02000297 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The following sources are a part of a working bibliography for this section:

Aldridge, J., Eddowes, E. A., Ewing, J., & Kuby, P. (1994). Analytical psychology, constructivism, and education. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 21(4), 359.

Aldridge, J., Sexton, D., Goldman, R., Booker, B., & Werner, M. (1997). Examining contributions of child development theories to early childhood education. College Student Journal, 31 (4), 453.

Brief, J. (1983). Beyond Piaget: A Philosophical Psychology. New York: Teachers College Press.

Crain, W. (2007). Homework and the Freedom to Think: A Piagetian Perspecitive. Encounter, 20(4), 14-19.

Egan, K. (1983). Education and Psychology: Plato, Piaget and Scientific Psychology. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ediger, M. (2012). Recent leaders in American education. College Student Journal, 46(1), 174-177.

Gates, L. (1982). Ego development as the goal of education. Education, 103(1), 90.

Hawkes, M. (1982). Facilitating educational restructuring: Apply lessons learned from the past. Education, 113(1), 96.

Jurczak, P. M. (1997). The language and metaphor of Jean Piaget. Educational Psychology Review, 9(3), 311-318. doi:10.1023/A:1024795410368

Kim, Y., & Baylor, A. (2006). A Social-Cognitive Framework for Pedagogical Agents as Learning Companions. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(6), 569-596. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-0637-3

Mayer, S. J. (2005). The early evolution of Jean Piaget's clinical method. History Of Psychology, 8(4), 362-382. doi:10.1037/1093-4510.8.4.362

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review Of Psychology, 49(1), 345.

Poplin, M. S. (1988). Holistic/constructivist principles of the teaching/learning process: Implications for the field of learning disabilities. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 21(7), 401-416. doi:10.1177/002221948802100703

Powell, K. C., & Kalina, C. J. (2009). Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Pramling, N. (2006). 'The clouds are alive because they fly in the air as if they were birds': A re-analysis of what children say and mean in clinical interviews in the work of Jean Piaget. European Journal Of Psychology Of Education - EJPE (Instituto Superior De Psicologia Aplicada), 21(4), 453-466.

Seifert, K. & Sutton, R. Educational Psychology 2nd ed. Florida: Orange Grove.

Shayer, M. (2008). Intelligence for education: As described by Piaget and measured by psychometrics. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 1-29.

M02000297 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

psychoanalysis
why is there no mention of Piaget's early involvement with the psychoanalytic movement? according to the following article, he seems to have clearly drawn from it's theoretical framework in developing his own early ideas: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757918/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.147.92 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Piaget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150215220621/http://boletimef.org/biblioteca/2996 to http://boletimef.org/biblioteca/2996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Piaget and Semiotics
Semiotic functions are described in preoperational sub stage (WP—article) Is it connected to semiotics?M K Mani muttappillil (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

If you understand what these sentences mean (I don't) will you please edit this for clarification or delete it?
His theory of child development is studied in pre-service education programs. Educators continue to incorporate constructivist-based strategies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.1.239 (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Two reverts
An Editor has now deleted the information about the intersection between these two notable people twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean_Piaget&diff=1063348312&oldid=1063303449 His second deletion, in lieu of taking it to the TOG page, didn’t even proper irrational, even the inappropriate one that was first offered. No Wikipedia rules based rationale has been given. Just the editors subjective view that he doesn’t feel it is necessary, although obviously nothing on Wikipedia is necessary, including an article on Piaget or Westheimer. One shouldn’t be engaging in deletions that are lacking in Wikipedia-based rationale, are used to deletions foreign to that category. --2600:1017:B80D:8C9B:FC0D:6FCF:9734:FE27 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify with facts, two editors reverted the edit. So it is you who is required to take it to this talk page, per WP:BRD. You need WP:CONSENSUS to restore the edit. Piaget and Westheimer are each notable, but they are not notable in each other's lives. Piaget had a lot of notable students; we don't include each of them in the article. Every notable academic has other notable students. They could number into the hundreds for some of them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unrelated or minimally related information.. It's meaningless to say that there is no rule against this (although there is; click the blue links I have provided for three of them). It is even more absurd to base an edit on "nothing on Wikipedia is necessary". Much on Wikipedia is necessary; otherwise it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. Pinging, who also reverted the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with . There was no professional relationship between Piaget and Westheimer. They were in completely different fields. Iss246 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Category dispute
Based on what you said in your edit summary reverting a category removal, I think you misunderstood my edit summary when I removed Category:Stage theories from this article. There is a newer subcategory of Category:Stage theories called Category:Developmental stage theories that is specifically for psychological theories. There is an article called Piaget's theory of cognitive development that is specifically devoted to his theory of cognitive development, and that article is already in Category:Developmental stage theories. The rationale for removal of Category:Stage theories is that Jean Piaget is about a, and Piaget's theory of cognitive development is about Piaget's , so it is the latter article that should be categorized as a developmental stage (as it already is), and not the former. Is that clear? Biogeographist (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Biogeographist, I understand what you wrote. And I respect your view. But I think you are splitting hairs. This article may be the only article that many readers access. It would be helpful for readers to know that the theory Piaget developed and that is closely associated with him, among other things, is a stage theory. I've also added to this entry that late in his life, with the development of his psychology of functions and correspondences, Piaget became slightly less stage-bound. Iss246 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article Piaget's theory of cognitive development did not exist, I could see a reason for putting Jean Piaget in Category:Developmental stage theories since there is at least a section of this article about the theory. But given the existence of Piaget's theory of cognitive development, it's a redundant and an unnecessary category error. I wouldn't call this categorical question "splitting hairs"—it's more significant than a hair, more like splitting logs—but I'll let this log lie. Biogeographist (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Biogeographist, including "Category:Developmental stage theories" was a good to proceed. Iss246 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)