I have a question about this. Just because Dan H and Mike Sigman have a common language doesn't mean that they are using the terms to refer to the same things.
Would you say they share a common underlying model and methodology, despite their disagreements? If so, and if they both are at a high level (as some people claim), it seems odd to me that they don't recognize each other's abilities and understanding.
What do you think?
The answer to your question is a bit complicated... Even the Chinese themselves argue about the details. Yes, Dan and Mike argue a lot about these things. But their arguments come from a place of mutual understanding of the basic concepts. Like two trained engineers arguing about a design. They at least have the same basic underpinnings about how they talk about.
Then there is the fact that this is never cut and dry. This is an area in which there is simply no limit to how good you can get or the level to which you might aspire. So, the heated debates of the top level folks might seem nit picky to those of us who are more at an entry level to the skills but of critical importance to them since a mistaken idea about how things really work can stop ones progress.
There are a lot of higher level folks around but I think that certain folks stand out both as parctitioners and as teachers. That's my take on it.