Stein on Fischer's model

Continuing the last post, Zak Stein is also trained in Fischer's model. In this interview he notes a key difference between it and the model of hierarchical complexity. It seems Nora's aversion is more to the MHC version as a modernist "uni-dimensional invariant property," which I also criticized in "The root of the power law religion." It's also why I favor the much more 'fleshed out,' (embodied, embedded, enactive and extended) Fischer developmental model.

"And specifically in the work of Kurt Fischer’s dynamic skill theory, you see what is a very abstract, almost mathematical construct as articulated by Michael Commons, put in the context of a richly dynamical embodied and embrained person. And so I think the important thing to get that the model of hierarchical complexity is like a thermometer or a ruler. It’s not a rich, descriptive psychology, it is a uni-dimensional invariant property of psychological life that’s been distilled and is measurable, but you have to put on that very abstract skeleton, a whole bunch of psychological and even biological theorizing to have that construct makes sense of human behavior in medius res, right in the middle of things."