Piaget was clearly a blank-slatist, and thought children had to learn object permanence, because they have to learn everything.*
*(Except, in contradiction, learning itself, which is of course unlearnable. Blank slatists aggressively exploit the taking-for-grantedness of learning per se, lest you notice the hilariously sinful nature of their so-called [[theory]].)
This one in particular is a truly absurd superstition. Nobody thinks animals are blank slates, and no animal can get away with not knowing object permanence. It will be deeply engrained into the genes of every species with anything resembling a brain. How do you suppose a blank slatist would explain that humans lost this capacity? Divine intervention, lol?
Piaget has been roundly refuted on this point by experiment. 3 month olds strongly exhibit object permanence, and the significance of 3 months is that babies younger than that are normally functionally blind. They can't exhibit object permanence because they can't perceive objects in the first place.
Peekaboo is not a [test] of object permanence. It's either a memory or stimulation thing. Even if babies can remember things, they typically won't bother to consult their memories - that's, like, work. True goldfish. If you cover your face, they forget what your face looks like. When it comes back: "Oh right!" It's that or babies find faces intrinsically rewarding (hardly a stretch). They're not relieved you (your face) has [[reappeared]] they're relieved the sweet reward is back.
Empathy. How do they work? Is it tasty? Communists cannot even empathy.
If you read the wikipedia page, it doesn't evoke blank slatism even once. The counter-experiments probably appeared due a pure contrarian urge. "I'ma beat up bigman Piaget, lel." Nobody Officially has any idea it's evidence against blank-slatism, because piaget, nonverbally, never came out and said he thought infants needed to learn everything, he simply took it for granted.
Consequently we have entire articles which never mention what the subject is in fact about.
They're also doubtless they're coming up with all sorts of Profound intricacies reconciling the slate's blankness with innate infant knowledge. Making an enormous amount of work for themselves, to uphold a delusion. Which they will never mention for the same reason piaget never said anything.
Blank-slatism is by inspection conceited christian anthropocentrism. Humans special. Human lurn, animool no lurn. Bonus: flattering low-resolution binary thinking. All innate vs. nothing innate.
It is arguable that the whole bible is designed to create a Prideful christian. E.g. piaget piglet unquestionably thought he was superior to god.
No comments:
Post a Comment