Michael Pierce recently shared some thoughts about CT, just posting in case some wouldn't have seen it and would be interested to watch
27:25 "What do you think about Vultology, CognitiveType, and their approach to Fe?" [34:30 I talk more about Vultology in general, vs. my own approach] [43:30 My "philosophical" approach, and Fe/Ti vs. Te/Fi] 47:17 "What do you think about DaveSuperPowers?" (...) 1:26:50 "CognitiveType vs. IDRLabs?"
Long story short: He's noticed the similarities when looking for them, but is still a skeptic. He neither wants to discount the CT/Vultological method or accept it wholly at present because he simply isn't yet certain. He then explains how he looks at type for philosophical reasons (literally, to improve his understanding of philosophical works and the philosophers who authored them).
Personally, I believe CT is on to something, but ye olde problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc glares over my shoulder, filling my head with doubts about whether CT is correlative or causal.
True, he's not convinced about CT's ideas, but he's very supportive and impressed with CT's work:
34:40 "It's not something that I am doing, but all power to them. I think they are being very smart about it. I'm most familiar with Juan Sandoval (…) he's a sharp guy (…). I haven't studied or learned his system well enough to be able to give any kind of fair critique of the methods or of his work at this point (…) I think he's hit on something (...)"
1:29:00 (About IDRlabs vs Cognitive Types) "So which do I think offers the most accurate typing of people? I am kind of evading the question, but that is partly because I'm not sure (…) I prefer IDRlabs because they type a lot of dead people, who you can't look at their facial expressions, and I'm more interested in philosophy and the philosophical aspects, so I tend to favor them simply because that's what they tend to focus on. But once again, it is difficult (…) I don't want to choose one over the other (…) 1:30:26 I'll be honest, I am rather skeptical of CT's list of celebrities but that may be simply because I have not learned the techniques they are using. And it really does come down to a question of methods. I am focused on just what is the guy saying, how is he saying it. For instance, they type Sam Harris as ISTP with a subtype of Ni, and that does still fit him into the quadra - IDRlabs type him as INFJ. So in a sense they are very similar on Sam Harris (…). I guess I'd have to say I don't know. Obviously I'd favor IDRlabls, partly through familiarity, partly because I care more about their typing of philosophers. I am trying to be honest here, but I have nothing but respect for Juan Sandoval and what he is doing. 1:32:11 Do you the theories regarding visual signals on typing people are plausible? I do! I think that is a plausible notion, I think it needs more time and study (…)"
Michael Pierce also promoted the book around 2 years ago: