You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
[This is second in an expository series on how “Woke” works, see here for the foundational essay on what woke is]
1) The claim
“Woke” is not a single policy or a stable tribe. It is a portable political form: a way of converting friction into identity, and identity into a special way of knowing.
A practical diagnostic:
- Ontological grievance: the dispute becomes about who we are and what is being done to us.
- Positional knowing: standing determines what can be known; dissent becomes suspect.
- Self-sealing loop: objections are reinterpreted as proof of corruption.
When those stack, persuasion decays into control-seeking.
2) The Left, steelmanned (and where the machine bites)
Start with the best version. There are reasonable claims on the Left:
- Institutions can have blind spots that matter in real lives.
- Listening to marginal voices can correct systematic inattention.
- Some norms exclude people unnecessarily, and reform can reduce that.
That’s ordinary liberal reform.
Machine activation begins when “correction” turns into “jurisdiction.” Disagreement becomes “harm,” procedural neutrality becomes “violence in disguise,” and the argument becomes uncorrectable because argument itself is reclassified as aggression.
You can see the pattern in soft-power settings where programming becomes legitimacy warfare. The Adelaide Writers’ Week / Randa Abdel-Fattah controversy escalated into resignations, withdrawals, cancellation, institutional apology, and a promised reinvitation. The conflict stopped being “who should speak” and became “who has moral authority to decide who speaks.” (ABC)
Now the policy-adjacent version (harder, more consequential): Canada’s Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act). Steelman: protecting people’s access to religious/cultural spaces from intimidation and addressing hate-motivated conduct are serious public-order aims. (Canada)
But the same machine-shaped risk appears in the surrounding rhetoric: once “speech boundary” disputes are treated as a moral sorting test (good people vs haters), it becomes harder to argue about scope, definitions, and safeguards without being read as suspect. Civil-liberties groups explicitly warn about Charter impacts and overreach risks. (CCLA)
The point is not “hate laws are woke.” The point is: when moral urgency turns into epistemic privilege, the debate stops being corrigible.
3) The Right, steelmanned (and where the machine bites)
Start with the best version. There are reasonable claims on the Right:
- Borders, civic trust, and state capacity matter.
- Institutions sometimes overreach and launder ideology through “neutral” language.
- Recent years have trained people to doubt official narratives too easily.
That is not conspiracism. It’s ordinary suspicion in a messy age.
Bridge sentence (the crucial distinction): distrust becomes machine-shaped when it flips into a total explanatory key, where suppression itself is treated as evidence of truth (“they don’t want you to know”), and disagreement is recoded as complicity.
That’s the turn that makes replacement-style narratives so sticky: anxiety about cohesion gets converted into a unified dispossession story with hidden directors. Watchdogs and explainer sources describe “Great Replacement” ideology as a white nationalist conspiracy frame, often with antisemitic variants, and as a driver for radicalization. (Al Jazeera)
(One more steelman note: people can argue about immigration levels, integration, and public confidence without endorsing any of that. The machine is not “caring about borders.” The machine is the sealed metaphysics move.)
4) Shared outputs (what the form produces on either side)
Once the form locks in, the outputs converge:
Friend–enemy sorting
People are judged less by arguments than by whether they accept the frame. “Ally” becomes an obedience category.
Exception ethics
Rules become “context.” Double standards become “justice.” Coercion becomes “self-defense.”
Platform war
Institutions become terrain: universities, HR offices, granting bodies, publishers, professional colleges.
A Canadian micro-case: the York University Student Centre dispute around MP Garnett Genuis shows how a procedural venue decision can become a symbolic censorship war, with different accounts emphasizing policy requirements versus ideological suppression. The ambiguity itself becomes fuel. (CityNews Edmonton)
5) The discriminator (reform vs machine)
Reform politics says: we can be wrong; show what would change our mind.
Machine politics says: disagreement proves you are contaminated.
That shift is the warning. Not that every Left claim is woke, or every Right claim is woke, but that any movement becomes uncorrigible once it adopts the form.
When that happens, societies stop arguing and start purging. 🧯
Glossary
- Ontological grievance: a complaint treated as core to being, not a fixable dispute.
- Positional knowing / standpoint: the view that social position determines access to truth; some “lived experience” claims function as trump cards.
- Self-sealing loop: a reasoning loop where objections become confirmation.
- Friend–enemy sorting: political classification that treats opponents as existential threats.
- Exception ethics: moral rules are suspended because “we’re under siege.”
- Platform war: institutions become the main battleground for power.
- Corrigible: open to correction by evidence and argument.
Endnotes
- James Lindsay, “What Woke Really Means” (New Discourses podcast, Jan 21, 2026).
- Adelaide Writers’ Week controversy: ABC coverage and Adelaide Festival statement (apology + 2027 reinvitation), plus reporting on cancellation after withdrawals. (ABC)
- Bill C-9 (Combatting Hate Act): Government summary + bill text; civil-liberties critiques and legal-professional analysis. (Canada)
- York University Student Centre / Garnett Genuis dispute (policy vs free-speech framing). (CityNews Edmonton)
- “Great Replacement” explainer coverage describing it as a conspiracy frame and discussing radicalization risk. (Al Jazeera)
This week’s “book I want to read (but haven’t yet)” is Raymond Ibrahim’s Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West. The book is pitched as a long, battle-driven military history: landmark encounters, vivid narration, and a claim that these wars illuminate modern hostilities. It’s explicitly framed as “Islam vs. the West” as a historical through-line, and it advertises heavy use of primary sources (notably Arabic and Greek) to tell that story. (Barnes & Noble)
The thesis, as Ibrahim presents it in descriptions and interviews, is that the conflict is not merely politics or economics—it’s substantially religious and civilizational in motive and self-understanding across centuries. In short: jihad (as an animating concept) and sacred duty are treated as durable drivers; key episodes are used to argue continuity rather than accident. Even the “origin story” in some blurbs is framed in explicitly religious terms (conversion demand → refusal → centuries-long jihad on Christendom), which signals the interpretive lens: ideas and theology matter, and they matter a lot. (Better World Books)
Why I’m flagging it for the DWR Sunday Religious Disservice: it’s a strong claim, not a neutral survey—and it’s the kind of claim you should read with a second book open beside it. Supportive reviews praise it as a bracing corrective to “sanitized” histories; skeptical academic commentary warns that it can function as an intervention that frames Islam first and foremost through antagonism and “civilizational conflict,” which can flatten variation across time, place, and Muslim societies. So the honest pitch is: this is Ibrahim’s argument; it may sharpen your sight—or narrow it—depending on what you pair it with. (catholicworldreport.com)
Endnotes
- Publisher/retailer description (scope + primary sources framing): (Barnes & Noble)
- “Origin story” / jihad framing in overview copy: (Better World Books)
- Interview-style framing of “landmark battles” thesis: (Middle East Forum)
- Critical scholarly pushback (civilizational conflict lens): (Reddit)
Attribution: This essay is a paraphrase-and-critique prompted by James Lindsay’s New Discourses Podcast episode “What Woke Really Means.” Any errors of interpretation are mine. (New Discourses)
“Woke” is a word that now means everything and nothing: insult, badge, shibboleth, brand. That’s why it’s worth defining it narrowly before arguing about it. I’m not using “woke” to mean “progressive,” “civil-rights liberal,” “any activism,” or “anyone who thinks injustice exists.” I mean a specific machine: a moral–political pattern that turns social friction into group-based identity, and then turns group-based identity into a special way of knowing. When that pattern is present, the downstream politics are unusually predictable.
The first engine is entitlement turned into alienation. Start with a felt ought: people like me should be able to live, speak, belong, succeed, and be recognized in a certain way. That ought can be reasonable. Some groups really have been locked out of full participation. Institutions really do gatekeep. Norms really do punish outsiders. The pivot is what you do with the mismatch between “ought” and reality. The woke machine teaches that the mismatch is not mainly a mix of tradeoffs, chance, imperfect policy, individual bad actors, or local failures. It is alienation, a structural condition imposed by an illegitimate power arrangement. Your frustration is not merely about outcomes. It becomes about being denied your proper mode of existence. Once alienation is framed that way, it stops being a problem to solve and becomes an identity to inhabit.
That identity shift is the real move. The self is quietly demoted from “individual with rights and duties” to “representative of a class in conflict.” You begin to think in group nouns first: oppressed/oppressor, marginalized/privileged, normal/deviant, colonized/colonizer. This is why identity politics shows up so reliably. It is a downstream output of a prior decision to interpret the world through group-alienation. It can even masquerade as humility. “I’m just listening to marginalized voices.” But it performs a different operation. Moral standing relocates from argument to position. You don’t merely hold beliefs. You become a bearer of a collective grievance, and that grievance grants a kind of authority in advance.
The second engine is epistemic: knowledge becomes positional. Again, the starting observation can be true enough. Institutions reward certain ways of speaking. Credentialing filters who gets heard. Consensus is sometimes wrong. Lived experience can surface facts that statistics miss. The woke machine turns those observations into a total explanation. The established “knowing field” is not just fallible, but hegemonic. It is treated as a knowledge regime that functions to protect power.
There is an honest version of this impulse. Marginalized people can notice things insiders miss. Testimony can expose local abuses that institutions quietly normalize. Suspicion of official narratives is sometimes warranted. History is full of respectable consensus that later looks like rationalized cruelty. In that sense, privileging marginalized voices can function as a corrective. The problem begins when “corrective” hardens into a standing hierarchy of credibility, and when the moral value of hearing becomes a substitute for the epistemic work of checking. At that point, the method stops being a tool for truth and becomes a tool for power.
Once you accept the hegemonic frame as total, a standing preference follows. “Counter-hegemonic” claims, those said to come from the margins or said to be suppressed, are treated as inherently more trustworthy, or at least more morally protected. The point isn’t always truth. Often it’s leverage. If a claim destabilizes the legitimacy of the system, it gets treated as epistemically special.
You can see how this becomes self-sealing. Consider a common pattern: demographic observation, then a moralized system interpretation, then an appeal to lived experience, then immunity from counterargument. “I notice a space is mostly white.” Fine. “Therefore hiking is racist.” That is not observation but diagnosis. If challenged, the claim can retreat into experience: “I feel unsafe,” “my lived experience says otherwise.” Any dissent is then reclassified as proof of the system’s blindness. The disagreement is not processed as information. It becomes further evidence of hegemony. At that point, you’re no longer arguing about the world. You’re litigating the moral status of who gets to describe it.
Put these two engines together, alienation-as-identity and positional knowing, and the political outputs stop looking like random bad behavior. If your group’s situation is existential, ordinary ethics begin to look like luxuries written by your enemy. Double standards don’t feel like hypocrisy. They feel like “context.” Coercive tactics don’t feel like power-seeking. They feel like self-defense. “Allies” become morally sorted people who accept the frame. “Enemies” become those who refuse it. Because the machine treats knowledge as power, controlling speech and institutions can be rationalized as protecting truth rather than enforcing conformity.
So here’s a clean diagnostic that avoids cheap mind-reading. It’s not “woke” to notice injustice, organize, protest, or advocate. It becomes woke in this sense when three conditions appear together:
- Ontological grievance: your primary identity is a group-based injury story. Who you are is mainly who harmed “your people.”
- Positional epistemology: the status of a claim depends heavily on who says it, not what can be shown. Identity outranks argument.
- Self-sealing reasoning: disagreement is treated as proof of harm or hegemony, making correction impossible.
Any one of these can show up in ordinary politics. “Woke,” in this narrow sense, is when they lock together and become a stable identity system.
That triad is the machine. Once it’s operating, it tends to erode the conditions that let pluralistic societies function: shared standards of evidence, equal moral agency, and the ability to disagree without being treated as morally contaminated. In its best moments, the impulse can push institutions to see what they ignored and to repair what they excused. But a politics that begins as reform can slide into a politics that needs conflict as fuel. Once conflict becomes fuel, the temptation is obvious. Keep the wound open. Keep the epistemic gate locked. Keep the enemy permanent. If the machine ever stops, the identity it built starts to dissolve. 🔥
Glossary 📘
Alienation
A felt separation from what you believe you should rightfully be or have. In this framework: not mere disappointment, but a condition allegedly imposed by an illegitimate system.
Entitlement claim
A “felt ought”: a belief that people like me (or my group) are owed a certain kind of recognition, access, or outcome. Not automatically “spoiled,” just the moral premise that something is due.
Group-based identity
A primary self-concept built around membership in a social category (race/sex/class/nation, etc.), especially when that category is framed as locked in conflict with another.
Identity politics
Politics organized primarily around group membership and group conflict rather than individual rights, shared citizenship, or policy compromise.
Ontology / ontological grievance
Ontology is “what you are.” Ontological grievance is when grievance becomes core to being: the self is primarily defined as an injured member of an alienated group.
Epistemology / positional epistemology
Epistemology is “how we know.” Positional epistemology is when the credibility of claims depends heavily on the speaker’s identity position, rather than evidence and argument.
Hegemony / hegemonic knowledge
The idea that a society’s “common sense” and official knowledge are shaped to preserve existing power. “Hegemonic knowledge” is what the system allegedly allows as legitimate truth.
Counter-hegemonic / marginalized claims
Claims presented as outside the dominant “knowing field,” often treated as morally protected or more trustworthy because they challenge the status quo.
Lived experience
First-person testimony about what life is like. Valuable as evidence of experience; controversial when treated as unquestionable authority on broad causal explanations.
Self-sealing reasoning
A reasoning pattern where counterevidence is reinterpreted as evidence for the claim (for example, “your disagreement proves the system’s bias”), making the claim hard to correct.
Friend–enemy politics
A posture that sorts people into allies and enemies in a moralized way, where dissent feels like threat rather than disagreement.
Exception ethics
A moral logic where ordinary standards like fairness, consistency, and procedural restraint are suspended because the situation is framed as existential.
Endnotes
- James Lindsay, “What Woke Really Means,” New Discourses Podcast (New Discourses, January 21, 2026). (New Discourses)
- “What Woke Really Means,” New Discourses (audio hosting/episode metadata). (SoundCloud)
- Joe L. Kincheloe, Critical Constructivism Primer (Peter Lang, 2005). (Peter Lang)
- Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo, Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education, 2nd ed. (Teachers College Press, 2017). (tcpress.com)
- Helen Pluckrose and James A. Lindsay, Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody (Pitchstone Publishing, 2020). (ipgbook.com)
Story synopsis: For those unfamiliar with the language, this video helps tell the song’s funny story of a young woman, Marie Madeleine, who has a rather difficult relationship with her father’s mischievous little black cow. Dressed in a little checkered skirt and fitted petticoat, Marie tries to milk the cow but finds that it not only produces sour milk, but constantly tries to corner her. Though she manages to tie the cow up, it escapes and tosses her into a pile of manure. When she gets up, she is such a mess it takes her three days to clean herself up!
Modern psychology has a recurring weakness. It periodically falls in love with stories that feel morally urgent, then struggles to unwind them when the evidence turns out thin. That is not because psychologists are uniquely foolish. It is because the field studies messy human beings with noisy measures, ambiguous constructs, and strong social incentives. In that environment, a persuasive narrative can get promoted into “settled science” long before it is actually settled.
The replication crisis is the clearest public sign of this vulnerability. The Reproducibility Project’s large collaboration tried to replicate 100 psychology studies and found much weaker effects and far fewer statistically significant replications than the original literature suggested. (Science) Methodologists also showed how flexible analysis choices and reporting can inflate false positives unless stricter norms are enforced. (SAGE Journals) Meehl’s older critique still lands for the same reason: in “soft” areas of psychology, theories often fade away rather than being cleanly tested and retired. (Error Statistics Philosophy) The implication is not nihilism. It is epistemic humility, especially for claims that are politically charged and personally consequential.
Psychology’s history offers examples of ideas that persist on social momentum long after the evidence grows cloudy. The “memory wars” around repressed and recovered memories show how a compelling clinical narrative can endure in practice while mechanisms remain disputed, and how suggestion can complicate confident storytelling. (PMC) Lilienfeld and colleagues made the broader point in a different domain: weak measurement, loose constructs, and credulous clinical fashions predict confident claims that later demand painful correction. (Guilford Press) The pattern is simple: psychology is unusually prone to ideas becoming socially protected before they are empirically solid.
That is the right context for the strong activist version of “innate gender identity,” meaning the claim that very young children can reliably know and articulate a fixed inner gender that may mismatch their body, and that this knowledge should be treated as stable guidance for major decisions. Developmentally, this is exactly the kind of adult projection Piaget and Erikson warn against: treating children’s words as if they carry stable adult concepts while the child’s understanding and self-organization remain socially shaped and changeable. Even within clinical samples, trajectories are not uniform; intensity of childhood gender dysphoria is one known factor associated with persistence into adolescence, which is another way of saying early self-labels do not function like a universal diagnostic oracle. (PubMed) Clinically, the major classification systems are more cautious than the slogans: DSM-5-TR defines gender dysphoria around clinically significant distress or impairment, not the mere existence of an identity claim. (American Psychiatric Association) ICD-11 moved gender incongruence out of the mental disorders chapter and into “conditions related to sexual health,” partly to reduce stigma while preserving access to care. (World Health Organization)
The evidence environment around youth gender medicine shows why fad dynamics matter. The Cass Review argued the evidence base for medical interventions in minors is limited and often low certainty, urging caution and better research. (Utah Legislature) Substantial critiques dispute Cass’s methods and interpretation, which itself signals this is not a stable, high-consensus evidentiary domain. (PMC) The adult responsibility is therefore straightforward: treat childhood self-labels as developmentally real but conceptually limited; separate distress from metaphysics; demand the same evidentiary standards you would demand anywhere else in medicine; and resist turning a contested construct into a moral absolute. If psychology keeps rewarding certainty over rigor, the cost will not be merely bad theory. It will be policy and clinical practice that harden too early, then harm real people when the correction finally arrives.
Glossary
- Replication / reproducibility: Whether an independent team can rerun a study and obtain broadly similar results. (Science)
- Researcher degrees of freedom: The many choices researchers can make (when to stop collecting data, which outcomes to report, which analyses to run) that can unintentionally inflate “significant” findings. (SAGE Journals)
- P-hacking: Informal term for exploiting analytic flexibility to chase statistical significance. (SAGE Journals)
- Construct validity: Whether a measure actually captures the concept it claims to measure (not just something correlated with it). (General measurement concern emphasized in clinical-science critiques.) (Guilford Press)
- Gender dysphoria (DSM-5-TR): Clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence; not all gender-diverse people have dysphoria. (American Psychiatric Association)
- Gender incongruence (ICD-11): ICD-11 category placed under “conditions related to sexual health,” moved out of the mental disorders chapter. (World Health Organization)
- Persistence (in childhood GD research): Continued gender dysphoria into adolescence; research suggests persistence is not uniform, and intensity is one associated factor. (PubMed)
Short endnotes (audit-friendly)
- Replication crisis anchor: Open Science Collaboration (2015), Science; effects in replications notably smaller; fewer significant replications. (Science)
- Analytic flexibility / false positives: Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011), “False-Positive Psychology.” (SAGE Journals)
- Soft-psychology theory fade-out critique: Meehl (1978), “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology.” (Error Statistics Philosophy)
- Memory wars as an example of contested clinical narratives: Otgaar et al. (2019, PMC) on repression controversy; Loftus (2006) review on recovered/false memories; Loftus (2004) in The Lancet on the continuing dispute. (PMC)
- Clinical-science warning about fads/pseudoscience: Lilienfeld et al., Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology (Guilford excerpts / volume). (Guilford Press)
- DSM-5-TR framing: APA overview and DSM-related materials emphasize distress/impairment as the diagnostic core. (American Psychiatric Association)
- ICD-11 move and rationale: WHO FAQ; supporting scholarly rationale for moving gender incongruence out of mental disorders while preserving access to care. (World Health Organization)
- Persistence factor (intensity): Steensma et al. (2013) follow-up: intensity of childhood GD associated with persistence. (PubMed)
- Cass Review debate: Cass Review final report PDF (archived copies); published critiques and responses indicating contested interpretation and ongoing debate. (Utah Legislature)
Erik Erikson is still useful because he blocks a modern temptation: reading a child’s self-descriptions as evidence of a finished, stable identity. For Erikson, identity is not an inner essence that appears early and then merely announces itself. It is something built across time under social conditions. Relationships, cultural scripts, permissions, limits, and feedback all shape what a person can plausibly become and what they can sustain. If you want a single takeaway, it is this: adults regularly project mature coherence onto children whose sense of “who I am” is still under construction. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
Erikson’s framework is psychosocial. He describes eight broad stages across the lifespan, each organized around a tension between two outcomes. The point is not a one-time pass or fail. It is a developmental task that tends to recur in new forms as life changes. When conditions are supportive, people lean toward the positive resolution and develop an associated strength or “virtue.” When conditions are hostile or mismatched, the negative pole can dominate and leave a durable vulnerability. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
In early childhood, the tasks are basic but not trivial. In infancy, trust versus mistrust is shaped by whether care is reliable and responsive. In toddlerhood, autonomy versus shame and doubt turns on whether a child can attempt self-control without being humiliated for mistakes. In the preschool years, initiative versus guilt turns on whether exploration and planning are welcomed or punished. These are not destiny. They are early patterns. They set default expectations about safety, agency, and permission that can be reinforced later or revised by later experience. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
School age brings industry versus inferiority. Children now meet the world of tasks, standards, and comparison. Competence grows when effort produces mastery and feedback is fair. Inferiority grows when failure is repeated, demands are mismatched, or judgment is harsh. This matters because it supplies the raw materials for adolescence. Identity versus role confusion is not about picking a label. It is about synthesizing roles, values, loyalties, and a changing body into something that feels continuous and workable. Researchers made this more testable by focusing on processes like exploration and commitment (roughly, trying roles out and then making durable choices), yielding familiar identity-status patterns such as diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and achievement. Longitudinal work also supports the commonsense point that identity development extends beyond the teen years for many people. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
Erikson’s model deserves the criticisms it often receives. The stages function best as descriptive heuristics rather than strict schedules, and some concepts are hard to measure cleanly. The framework also reflects mid-20th-century Western assumptions, and feminist scholarship has pressed on its gendered blind spots. Still, the core insight survives: selfhood is social before it is philosophical. Children become “someone” through attachment, modeling, constraint, opportunity, and recognition. The practical reminder is blunt, feeding directly into today’s debates. Do not read adult-level identity stability into young children’s words or preferences. Much of what looks like certainty in a child is a snapshot of roles and reinforcement, not proof of a permanent inner core. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
Glossary
- Psychosocial stage/task: A recurring developmental challenge shaped by social context, not a biological timer. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
- Virtue (Erikson): A strength associated with a relatively positive resolution of a stage task (e.g., hope, will, competence, fidelity). (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
- Identity vs role confusion: The adolescent task of developing a workable sense of continuity across roles, values, and future direction. (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
- Identity statuses (Marcia tradition): A research approach using exploration and commitment to classify patterns like diffusion (low both), foreclosure (commitment without exploration), moratorium (exploration without commitment), and achievement (exploration leading to commitment). (Wikipedia)
Endnotes
- Erikson stages overview, virtues, and the “not pass/fail” framing: StatPearls (Orenstein, 2022). (The Psychology Notes Headquarters)
- Scholarly overview and modern framing of Erikson as a lifespan theory: Syed & McLean (2017, PsyArXiv).
- Identity-status trajectories and measurement of exploration/commitment over time: Meeus (2011, PMC). (Wikipedia)
- Marcia identity-status grounding in Eriksonian identity crisis: foundational identity-status paper (PDF record).
- Feminist critique and gender-bias discussion of Eriksonian identity: Sorell (2001).
Jean Piaget is still worth reading because he blocks a common adult mistake: treating children’s words as if they carry adult concepts. Children do not merely know fewer facts. They use different cognitive tools at different ages, and those tools change what their categories can mean. That matters whenever adults take a child’s self-label and translate it into a fixed inner essence. Piaget’s basic warning is simple: the same vocabulary can sit on top of a different kind of understanding, and adults are very good at smuggling their own meanings into what a child says. The rest of his theory is an attempt to explain why that translation error is so easy to make.
Piaget’s machinery for explaining the gap is spare and still useful. Children build schemas, mental frameworks for understanding objects, actions, and categories. They update those schemas through assimilation, which fits new experience into an existing framework, and accommodation, which changes the framework when the fit fails. The friction between “make it fit” and “change the model” is not a bug. It is the engine. Piaget calls the longer-term settling of that friction equilibration, the push toward a workable balance where the child’s model of the world holds together and predicts better.
Piaget is best known for his four-stage outline. In the sensorimotor stage (birth to about 2), infants learn through perception and action, and one classic milestone is object permanence, the idea that things still exist when out of sight. In the preoperational stage (about 2 to 7), children gain symbolic thought: language, pretend play, mental imagery. They also show characteristic limits on many tasks, including egocentrism in perspective-taking and failures of conservation (for example, thinking a taller glass has “more” of the same liquid).
Those limits are real, but they are not always as simple as “the child cannot do it.” Modern researchers have shown that the timing can shift when you change the method. Studies using “violation-of-expectation” designs often find signs of earlier object knowledge than Piaget’s original search tasks detected. The clean takeaway is not that Piaget collapses. It is that measurement matters. Some tasks load children with extra demands (motor planning, inhibition, working memory) that can hide understanding that is present in a simpler form. Task demands can mask competence.
In the concrete operational stage (about 7 to 11), children become capable of logical operations tied to tangible situations. Conservation stabilizes, classification becomes more systematic, and seriation appears more reliably, as when a child can order sticks from shortest to tallest without guesswork. In formal operational thought (roughly adolescence onward, and unevenly across people and domains), abstract and hypothetical reasoning becomes more consistent. Even here, performance can be uneven across closely related tasks, a pattern discussed under the label horizontal décalage. That unevenness is a warning against treating stages as rigid ceilings. Read them instead as a map of typical reorganizations in thinking: a useful guide to what changes, and when, without pretending every child hits every milestone on the same schedule. The practical payoff is blunt. When adults treat a child’s words as adult-level commitments, they risk importing meanings the child has not yet built.
Glossary
- Schema: A mental framework for organizing and interpreting experience.
- Assimilation: Fitting new experience into an existing schema.
- Accommodation: Modifying a schema when the old one does not fit.
- Equilibration: The balancing process that restores or maintains cognitive stability through assimilation and accommodation.
- Object permanence: Understanding that objects continue to exist when hidden.
- Conservation: Understanding that quantity stays the same despite changes in appearance if nothing is added or removed.
- Horizontal décalage: Uneven mastery across related tasks; competence does not arrive all at once.
Endnotes
- Encyclopedia Britannica — Piaget overview: stages, age ranges, and constructivist framing.
- APA Dictionary of Psychology — Piagetian terms: schema, assimilation, accommodation.
- APA Dictionary of Psychology — “Equilibration” definition.
- Baillargeon, Spelke & Wasserman (1985) — early object knowledge via violation-of-expectation methods (PubMed record and related materials).
- Lourenço (2016) — stages as conceptual tools/heuristics (ScienceDirect).
- Neo-Piagetian review discussing horizontal décalage and unevenness as a complication for strict stage-uniformity (UCL Press journals).
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…