When I was studying educational psychology and they were proselytizing Piaget's "4 Stages of Cognitive Development" it quickly became apparent that "4 stages" is oversimplification, and in practice everything just means whatever you want it to.
I thought this was because maybe Piaget was a pioneer and later attempts/approaches would improve, but no, they're all exactly the same blend of "suspiciously specific chapter titles" with "meaninglessly vague content" forever. Con artists, the lot
As a result, the tools are useless except to people who REQUIRE an externally-defined framework to make sense of ANYTHING, and those people probably weren't in a good position to evaluate others in the beginning. Even when their assessment is helpful it's generally not because of any characteristics of the model in use, like ~the magic was inside them all along~
Meanwhile, impressionable people just read the model descriptions and start aping them and shit-talking people who don't, ugh
Every few years (ok every decade or so) I revisit this topic to see if anything useful is happening and it's just shitty models with new Ivy League names and a ton of psych grad students running around to conferences presenting science-poster equivalents of Instagram "tag yourself" memes
Piaget? No, Kohlberg! No, Perry! No, <insert old white man of the moment>
at least they're not evolutionary psychologists, I guess.
"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko