OTOH High performance, which the Arrow is not, makes a really big
difference with usually much faster, slipperier, and much less
forgiving aircraft that require not only thinking much farther ahead,

but learning the aircraft far better than say a 172 or Cherokee which

are far more forgiving of mistakes.

The first high performance plane I ever soloed (235 hp O-470 powered)
was none of these things. It wasn't even as fast as a 172 or Cherokee.
It was a taildragger, but it was the least demanding taildragger ever
- less demanding than a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ. Had it been built
with tricycle gear, it would have been less demanding than a C-172. It
was so undemanding that pilots with less than 500 hours were routinely
turned loose in it without a checkout - as I was. Still, why reach so
far? Neither the C-182 nor the Cherokee 235 have the features you
ascribe to high perfromance aircraft.

On the other hand, the later IO-360 powered Mooneys are not high
performance, but they have all the properties you ascribe to high
perfromance aircraft. The IO-360 powered Arrows do not.

Why not just admit the truth? The FAA definitions of high performance
and complex are meaningless.

Some airplanes are relatively fast, slippery, and unforgiving as
compared to others. Additional training for someone not used to these
properties makes all kinds of sense. Those properties are not
predictable simply by knowing whether the gear happens to move and
whether the engine can make more than 200 ponies.

Michael