Having come from several months of focusing on Model 2, then returning again to building out Model 1, the journey into one better informs me of the nature of the other -- and the purpose and use of each is all the more strikingly clear. Model 1 has always operating on more or less implicit axioms, which need to be more explicitly stated. I want to use this thread to steelman an argument for Model 1, which I hope can act as a cornerstone of its permanent use going forward.
When it comes to the definition of type, these axioms are in place in Model 1:
In terms that are defined within CT itself, Model 1 is continuous (C), or intersectional (N). That is to say, the definition of a type is all that which comprises the net influence of the (biological) seed of type across the entire person. This means that the whole of personhood is affected by this seed, so that every thought and action the person performs is permeated and saturated by the reality of their type to varying degrees but never zero. Thus, every action an NeFi performs is either blatantly or imperceptively tinted through an NeFi way of carrying out that particular action. Thus, even though no action is unavailable to any person, in any absolute sense, every action a type performs is qualitatively 'flavored' through their typology - and this qualia can be read.
This means that Model 1 does not leave out emotionality, sexuality, spirituality, personal growth, or any such dimension from the influence of type, and the intersection of type with every other domain of human consciousness is part of the grander story of "being" that type.
Naturally this creates a unique situation when it comes to typing, since no single behavior or view can ever be pointed to as a definitive marker for one type and not another. However, different behaviors have a higher probability of being manifest by some types and not others. Yet, since Model 1 is not a behaviorist model at core, the behavioral information does not "define" the type, but informs on what types are more likely.
Likewise, vultology is also among those things that demonstrates higher likelihood of type, since the seed permeates the body, and this is why type is even measurable from the body to begin with. But the seed is not the body expressions either, at least not in any 1:1 sense. So even vultology cannot define type alone. What then, defines type? Well, a holistic synthesis - or net analysis - of the four layers of emergence comes the closest. From this perspective, looking at emotionality, spirituality, and other dimensions only seems to augment the possible accuracy, not diminish it. The more variables are considered, the stronger the chances of an accurate conclusion.
There is an essentialist principle at work in Model 1, where type is understood as a phenomenological essence. The essence of a type is taken as an axiom -- since it is not possible to further reduce what a type is, just as phenomenology cannot be reduced. Furthermore, the platonic reality of the type is never available in any absolute form, but only viewable through instantiated examples (as people). The totality of what an NeFi is, is therefore something which one might only faintly approach if one took a million NeFi's and synthesized together all the commonalities among them. But such an endeavor is infinitely complex and ultimately impossible. This view is again axiomatic, since another irreducible ontological category is essence.
Lastly, this principle states that every person in the world is either Te-Fi or Fe-Ti, and either Ne-Si or Ni-Se. Every person is either Je-lead, Ji-lead, Pi-lead or Pe-lead. There are no people without a type, and one of these is in everyone. This is similar to saying that everyone's either XX or XY in chromosomes.
The effects of these conclusions make Model 1 immediately actionable, since the model is theoretically 'complete.' In declaring that all people have a type, and that this is one of the 16, this makes it possible to provide a measurable set of insights and diagnoses to every person. All the available resources of the model are immediately available as applicable to their life, and circumstances. And although Model 1 may not be completely "true" in the absolute sense -- it is good enough to work most of the type.
Most models in the world "break down" after a certain point -- even our physics models break down in conditions that they cannot explain. However, this is no reason to discard the model, as it provides a useful way to engage with the world that is well approximated for almost all instances. Likewise, even if there technically are more types than these, just as not all humans are so strictly XX or XY, we can make due with this level of resolution for now.
Altogether, the three principles above summarize to say that every person is one out of 16 types, that these types are phenomenological essences that are impossible to know absolutely, but which can be evidenced through specific human examples, and that these human examples are identified through a holistic synthesis of how said essence permeates across every part of their life/being. This makes Model 1 capable and (almost) ready for implementation in therapeutic practices of certified psychologists. Because of its intimate tie to other dimensions of consciousness and personhood, it is able to address a multitude of questions related to personal growth, voluntary change, emotional difficulties and inner journeys. It is a Jungian and psychodynamic model that ties into archetypal encounters and explorations as well.
Model 2 takes on a somewhat different set of principles, which are designed to account for what Model 1 doesn't. Model 2 is designed to answer questions that Model 1 cannot -- about statistics, about information processing and more scientific endeavors. But between the two models, both sides of the coin are addressed. They're not exactly pivoted against each other, but are ultimately complementary. And it's possible to gradate from 1 to 2, or from 2 to 1 so that at some point, there is a baton pass:
When the language of Model 1 cannot answer questions at a technical enough level, Model 2 can do so. But whether a member wants to delve into Model 2 is dependent on whether they wish to get that technical with it. But there is plenty of room to explore both sides of this for a long time to come.