However, in that case I don’t really understand what you mean. But, in any case, the rest of my original comment stands.
I look forward to any such detailed commentary on the fact-based motivation for any sort of developmental theory, from anyone who feels up to the task of providing such.
Just in case it isn’t clear, constructive-developmental theory and “kegan’s levels of development” are two names for the same thing.
Ah, my mistake.
However, in that case I don’t really understand what you mean. But, in any case, the rest of my original comment stands.
I look forward to any such detailed commentary on the fact-based motivation for any sort of developmental theory, from anyone who feels up to the task of providing such.