Loosing popularity can be sign of moving forward.

Doors need to be closed in the back for opening the door in front of us.

Methodologies have been used long enough to change to different approaches.

New technologies and facilitators have provided ample opportunities to tap into the other areas.

Good reason for celebrating.

Dear Mehri Takhvar

I absolutely and completely disagree with you with regard to this broad major subject area (actually a foundational area for General Psychology -- thus Piaget's theory is still one of the major ones described for Psychology in textbooks) . Your attitude is of a biased exclusionary (e.g. Skinnerian) nature in this regard (but it is interesting people can come to this nowadays, though perhaps not surprising). This is well beyond accepting any decline in Piaget's popularity.

[ "Doors need to be closed " AND "Methodologies have been used long enough to change to different approaches" -- I wonder where such categorical and extreme reasoning comes from. ] One would certainly have to state more for any such reasoning (people like Skinner are not found so acceptable nowadays -- i.e. those delimiting the field for no clearly real, good reasons). In fact:

EEK ! I fear from the motivations one would have for having such a response (i.e. wanting to "close the door" on any major long-standing theoretical perspective and related approaches -- which is well beyond just having reasons for accepting any decline in popularity). [ I dare not state what such an attitude also brings to mind (especially given where you now reside.) ]

I am sorry; I am soliciting responses, but maybe expect SOME I can "see" (understand or consider). But, yours is not one of them. Sorry. Yet sincerely: Thanks for responding anyway, for perhaps it at least shows some significant attitudes that are "out there".

Dear Brad Jesness,

Your question is GOOD CAUSE for celebration.

A longitudinal, observational study on Children's play revealed: Overt Behaviour do not Correspond Covert Behaviour; The results related to: understanding the definitions of play and Method of Observation; Since 1985 Methods were assessed; Alternatively, MT-pyramid Wholistic Geometric Quester: mtpyramid.weebl.com can be visited and your valued opinion to be taken forward.

Popularity can emerge in different ways. One of which can be relating to needs for improvement in such QUESTIONS as What are the variables causing particular piece of Behaviour/s; How does it make sense to the OBSERVER?;

Follows with more related questions and interpretations

Dear Mehri Takhvar

I would like to visit the site you cite, but that web site requires I install some app on Firefox and I am never willing to do that.

Anyway, I would say: types of observations that could very well be very important ARE NOT YET DONE today, even some likely just requiring the modern eye-tracking technology (and related computer assisted analysis). Thus, I think this might add to what you have heard about and considered regarding observation. Studies related to such new sorts of investigation could find the concrete bases of the overt-covert link (and the integral relationship of the two).

Dear Brad Jesness,

I very much appreciate your stimulating such deep discussions; and allowing me to access your much valued personal resources. I tend to grasp the opportunity for furthering my knowledge.

My research on methods and Internal V External world has been intensively in progress since 1979; Accumulating experimental evidence brought together; personal experience added; available for any public interest; Networking on the model from any angle of interest or curiosity; MT-pyramid Model is not profit making Business. It is "Fact Finding" process.

Dear Mehri Takhvar

I very much appreciate your latest kind response. I had no idea that you have been dealing with issues in Psychology approximately as long as I have. Congratulations to you.

My writings are certainly pertinent to ideas about Internal V External world; in fact, my theory and the related testable hypotheses have to do with the concrete bases of abstraction (abstract thought) at their inceptions (also indicated as having happened by soon-coming qualitative shifts in thinking likely with also-observable effects on behavior patterns, though these may be yet more subtle): these concrete (overt directly observable) inceptions of what makes for abstract thought are potentially observable with new eye technology (even in the lab, if you know what you are looking for and are looking at the right times (correct points in ontogeny), in the right way); in any case they occur quickly because these inceptions involve perceptual shifts, which soon become perceptual/attentional shifts -- phenomenon, which occur quickly and may develop at least at first quickly (this making for why they indeed can be literally: seen). [ Certainly all this is related to "angle of interest or curiosity", which is your perspective. ]

Maybe if you like some cognitive dissonance (after all, my perspective/approach is neo-Piagetian) you might very much like my work. I would not rule out anyone becoming a convert (but at this point major interest has been from general artificial intelligence people (aka AGI people)) *; I surely do need some Psychology converts (sometimes the most surprising people take on a new view/approach). No pressures or expectations from me, though.

* FOOTNOTE : AGI people being people who need somethings to properly impel qualitative shifts in behavior of their "robots", some (in particular) coming from, or instigated by, the "agent" itself. (Having a basis for this eliminates at least 3 of 5 major lingering problems in AGI -- and that is SOMETHING. As our understandings have followed information-processing theories in the past, so this may occur again -- if the AI people are the first to try to apply such things as I outline.)

Quick P.S.

What I added to this content (above, in response to Mehri Takhvar ) in another thread, may be helpful if I add it here: (quoting myself from that other thread):

"[I should] mention that the "perceptual shifts" I speak of (in the human) involve conditions of "memory" (the Memories), this allowing for an "opening" for new input (processing of information) from other/new aspects of the environment (these NOT necessarily present in every instance of the circumstances -- BECAUSE of "memory"). [ This [(together with what I wrote, above)] completes about the shortest overview [of my "system" (view/approach)] I can provide. ] " (end quote of myself)

Dear Brad Jesness,

DEEPEST Gratitude,

Our exchanges get exciting and interesting through your references to "other thread".

It is in fact, Adding to the evidence.

Overt V Covert Behaviour and attached problems; yet demonstrating, how Exponential to be awakening to multidimensional thinking: Wholistic Geometric Quester.

Upon the significant development tonight, perhaps Geometric & Spatial Thinking can be reviewed jointly to highlight Tonight's Development.

I shall take Special Interest on what you gifted me tonight.

Many Thanks,

Mehri

Dear Mehri Takhvar

You are most welcome. I like your strong spirit and dedication and your finding of apparently a host of related topics. Something I find most useful is to be more phenomenologically-oriented than topically-oriented, even to answer the questions related to one's topic(s) -- at least for the ultimate empirical bases or foundations (to this full extent, I am an empiricist). The ultimate goal is to see at least some things "as they actually ARE", as the Buddha would say. I hope you will forgive my frequent attempts at advice-giving (maybe at times to people who do not need it).