I’m happy to see CT is evolving in something that is aiming at getting even more scientific than it was before and trying to get rid of everything that is not supported by clear evidence. I’m glad it went further away from the constraining jungian heritage. It feels a lot cleaner and that’s great. I have still a lot of articles to catch up with, but i can already say i like that computational metaphor (well, the part. 2 – haven’t gone through part. 1 yet). It’s helpful to get the two processes as you understand them.

I don’t know where to put that, but I also think the impact of the context’s different parameters on typing’s interviews should be measured at some point. More precisely, i think CT would probably benefit to CT to verify if specific sets of questions (asked during interviews) are stimulating specific functions.

It would clarify :

1) If some questions/contents are indeed stimulating some functions more than others.

2) If 1) happens to be true, then we could verify if, when some particular functions are stimulated by specific questions/contents, the typings and dev. levels remain consistent across contexts.