1. Is the ContactGPS like an opinion poll ?
Yes. The purpose is similar, as it attempts to understand the «world of speech» you live in. But there is significant difference. In a «world of speech», opinion can be very much present, even central, but it can also be almost inexistant or mostly secondary. In any case, opinion isn't the only criterium. Why? Because a «world of speech» takes into account not only the content of the discourse and its context, but also the media by which it is transmitted (format, culture, language, symbols, references).
2. Is the ContactGPS similar to a psychological test ?
No, that isn't its purpose. But, depending on the theme of the GPS, it can ressemble one. The map and the questions aren't intended to analyse the workings of the human psyche, but rather to test our ways of communicating, another form of reference. Also, these worlds are not hermetically closed. If specialists in the matter (psychologists...) were to validate the content and methodology of the GPS, it could become interesting on a psychological level.
3. Why does the ContactGPS give questions that have only two answers ? Is that not too binary ?
In fact, the constituent logic is four-fold and not two-fold. The axiom at the basis of the ContactGPS is that communication inevitably involves making choices based on priority, according to a given context. These choices are situated on two axes: an axis of time (priority to chronological time or narrative time) and an axis of space (reaching a maximum of receptors - quantitative space, or a maximum of transmitted information - qualitative space). Each question of the ContactGPS corresponds to one of the two axes or a combination of the axes, but the user doesn't realise this, hence the perception of binary logic. As to the impression of having to make difficult or impossible choices, this is what is called the "principle of reality", present in any situation of communication. In other words, it is impossible to say everything and reach every audience, we need to make choices and prioritise.
4. Is the ContactGPS scientific ?
The question hasn't really been posed as such. In order to answer, we need to distinguish the three following aspects that each require a different analysis.
4.1 The first aspect is the basic axiom of the ContactGPS. "Each form of human communication must have at least two priorities: one on the axis of time, the other on the axis of space". This axiom needs to be analysed, or even challenged or rewritten. The discussion remains open.
4.2 The second is the act of creating the map and the discriminating axes. This is clearly a scientific process. In their thinking, the "specialists in their field" put forward a hypothesis, the most plausible one in regards to their knowledge of reality. Once the GPS is actively being used, this hypothesis is put up against the reality, and if necessary, amended.
4.3 The third aspect is that of the validation of the questionnaires and use of the results. For the results of a GPS to be utilised scientifically, the questionnaire needs to be validated in quality and be knowledgeable about the users responding (criteria). Some of the GPS have both criteria. Also, the more tests are carried out, more the results are conclusive. The number depends on the GPS.
