And this is one of the reasons I tend to distrust some psychological techniques.
Certainly there can be defining characteristics to someone, but shoehorning people into compartments to try to define them is, by its very nature, dangerous. You've shown this by describing how Type A and Type B categories don't do a good job of describing a particular person, but the article seems to suggest this is a mistake in the bounds of the compartment rather than the process of pigeonholing overall.
A bit of trivia for you; it wasn't until the 19th Century that there was such a thing as a homosexual. Before that time, homosexual acts certainly existed, but it was only at this point that society decided to start defining people according to their sexual preferences. A person (who, to a greater or lesser extent indulged in homosexual acts) suddenly became a homosexual. Now look at how polarised society has become as a result.
Semper in excretia, sumus solum profundum variat