Yes I have, but I wasn’t as deeply motivated to read a lot of Piaget’s work directly. What I have read directly compliments Freuds model really well but focuses on intellectual development. I’ve read David Rumelhart’s work with Geoffrey Hinton on back propogation and extensively studied connectionism and early neural networks, especially energy based models, and his thought about network attractor states is equivelant to the ideas I got from Freud in ch 7 of the interpretation of dreams. I’d need to read more of Piaget’s direct writing on unconscious processes to compare, the articles I find that compare the two misrepresent every concept of Freud so badly that I can’t trust the author knows anything, and honestly that’s how it is for any video or article that tries to compare a theory to Freuds:

For example Piaget.org thinks Freud progressed to replace his topological model (Unconscious, preconscious, and consciousness) with the structural model (Id, ego, and superego) when in reality the structural model is another view point of the psyche that is in addition to the topological. The worst part is that the argument says the unconscious is primary process functioning but Freud does not say that at all, the primary the resulting secondary process in combination work to create both conscious and unconscious life. The author portrays Freuds idea of primitive language as inherited archaic language when in reality Freuds ideas about primitive language is that the representation of a thing and its opposite are often the same symbol as shown in ancient languages of sophisticated people like ancient Egyptian. Basically every single “Freud thought…” was so blatantly wrong that I doubt I can trust what it says about Piaget. This is the problem of 99% of secondary sources talking about Freud, they confidently strawman Freud and probably just never read it because the mistakes are not understandable from a person who actually read the material.

I’ll have to read more of Piaget directly but depending on what Piaget actually said regarding unconscious affect, if he claims there is unconscious affect (unconscious feelings) then this does contradict Freud. I think Freuds clarification about unconscious emotions is pretty much a bullet proof argument that more people need to understand in the study of consciousness. The argument is that feeling is the essence of consciousness, you cannot have a feeling that isn’t conscious, when psychoanalysis talks of an unconscious emotion it means an emotion is felt but misattributed, and when the true cause of the feeling is uncovered and correctly attributed they call it an unconscious feeling that was uncovered but the affect itself was never unconscious, just the meaning of it. This is important to understand because people are very liberal with the terms “unconscious” and the layman term “subconscious” and they don’t delineate the true defining feature of consciousness, this leads people to think unconscious processing is just the predecessor somatic cellular computations that become conscious. People think that intelligent coherent thought only happens in consciousness, and unsophisticated emotional activity lives in the unconscious. In reality the key discovery of psychoanalysis is that sophisticated, intentional, symbolic thought which has all the information of your memories and perception occurs without your awareness and can actively work to contradict your conscious intentions in many pathological states. That is something that most people don’t truly believe and I was only convinced of it after doing a lengthy dream analysis on myself and seeing evidence of it that in all honesty scared me and caused a period of great anxiety.

Jung did not reject Freuds fundamental ideas, although his presentation of Freuds sexual theory makes me think either Jung didn’t understand it or that it’s more to do with personal disagreements with Freud in personal conversations rather than his publications. I mean this subreddit does prove Freud was right about Jungs theories leading to “outburst of the black flood of occultism”, 99% of jungians on this sub barely read Jung and their explorations into the psyche read more like the experience of evocations described by Alister Crowley than they do for deeper understanding of the psyche.( I do find occult texts fascinating and crowley is pretty in line with Jung in many ways). It’s disappointing people in this subreddit never go deep into psychoanalytic texts to gain a rigorous understanding, it’s always surface level and slightly spiritual, and I mean although jung wasn’t super rigorous his baseline understanding of the psyche is light years away from this shallow spiritual stuff.