1. The ContactGPS: is it a kind of opinion survey? 

Yes. Its purposes are personal as it aims to determine which "world of speech" you live in. But there is a significant nuance. In a "world of speech", opinion can be present, even central, but it can also be virtually inexistent or mainly secondary. In any case, opinion is not the only criterion. Why? Because a "world of speech" takes into account not only the content of words and their context, but also the ways in which they are transmitted (media, cultures, languages, symbols, references). 


2. The ContactGPS: is it a kind of psychological test?

No, that isn't its purpose. But according to the subject of the GPS, it could be. The map and questions are not intended to analyse the workings of the human psyche, but to test choices of communication, a whole other reference base. So long as the worlds are not hermetically sealed. If "specialists in the matter" (psychiatrists...) were to validate the content and method of the GPS, it could be of psychological interest. 


3. Why does the ContactGPS propose questions with only two answers? Is it not binary?

The logic of the software is four-way and not binary. The basic axiom of the ContactGPS is that communication requires us to make choices out of necessity and priority, depending on the context. These choices follow two axes. An axis of time (with priority to chronological time or narrative time) and an axis of space (aiming for a maximum of receptors - quantitative space - or a maximum of transmitted information - qualitative space). Each question of the ContactGPS corresponds to one of these two axes or to a combination of the axes, but the user doesn't know this, hence the impression of a binary logic. As to the sentiment of having to make difficult or impossible choices, that's simply a reproduction of the "principle of reality" that prevails in any situation of communication. In other words, it is not possible to say everything and reach everybody, we need to make choices and allow ourselves priorities.  


4. The ContactGPS: is it scientific? 

This question hasn't been raised as such. In order to respond, we need to distinguish between the three following aspects that each require a different analysis. 

    3.1 The first aspect is the basic axiom of contact for the ContactGPS. "Every act of human communication needs to choose at least two priorities, one on the axis of time, the other on the axis of space". The axiom will be analysed and if necessary, dismissed or reformulated. The discussion remains open. 

     3.2  The second is the work of establishing the map and discriminatory axes. The method is clearly scientific. In their thinking, "specialists in the matter" form a hypothesis, the most plausible in the eyes of their knowledge of reality. If the GPS is used efficiently and openly, their hypothesis will be confronted with reality, if not amended. 

    3.3 The third aspect is that of the validation of the questionnaires and the use of the results. In order to exploit the results of a GPS scientifically, we need a qualitative validation of the questionnaire and a knowledge of the audience responding (criteria). Some GPS have both. Also, the greater the number of tests, the more the results will be representative. The number varies according to the GPS. 

Un service