This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
The graph used in the article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U-Shaped_development_graph.png ) is not representative of the ideas in the text. According to the text, after one "dip" in the development, a higher level is often achieved. The name "u-shaped development" (Whichever scientist came up with that) is rather misleading, which probably lead to that graph. "J-Shaped development" would be more appropriate, because as of now, it seems that there is no development at all, just that sometimes you're good at something, and then you are not, and then you are good again. That is not progress, that would more appropriately be described as stagnation or flipflopping. I am no graphic wizzard, so have at it if you are capable. Just thought I should mention that. Cheers 194.94.18.144 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]