The model is not simply a "classification model" is my point... The examples you quoted are NOT the model. They are people's very simplified interpretations of the model or something. But not the model itself.
You can classify the entire population and cognition in various ways. That's not the problem. The problem is that the way it's done in the model is no good yeah. The only thing I am arguing with you about here is that it does have explanations and these can be checked in a scientific way (and yes I do think it would disprove the model pretty goddamn fast lol) while you think it's just categories...