Having read a fair bit of stuff by ecological psychologists, I still feel I'm just not getting it. I don't see what is driving the project; just a collection of (to me) weird beliefs.
But, here's what might work for me. Simplifying:
Skinner thought he could extrapolate from what happens with Skinner boxes to much of cognition.
Chomsky thought he could extrapolate from what happens with syntax acquisition to much of cognition.
PDP folks thought they could extrapolate from what happens with variants of three-layer back-prop nets to much of cognition.
Dynamical systems folks think they can extrapolate from finger-wagging to large parts of cognition.
But, with Gibson, I don't know what the base case is, or even if there is one. What, if anything, is the ur-case that is supposed to be the basis of the extrapolation? I don't see the "successful case" that inspires the approach. Instead, I see this huge mass of terminology and polemic. Maybe this is just a matter of expository style, but I don't get it. Maybe there is a story somewhere in the many pages of The Ecological Approach that I have not read.
If someone could tell me the Gibsonian ur-case, if there is one,that might help.