What is your primary communication style?
For me the classification system described is inadequate. I guess that in that system I would be an analyser, yet giving that answer conceals more than it reveals.
As many others have noted, we all have multiple responses to different contexts.
To me it seems clear that it is context that is the greatest determinant of our response to the world. To the degree that we generate that context internally, independent of external circumstance is, to a good first order approximation, the degree to which we have choice in being.
For me, understanding, asking how, what, where, when, who and why questions to the greatest depth I am able, delivers a depth of influence to the model of the world that my brain makes that I get to experience as reality, that is most satisfying to me.
And I acknowledge that even with all the modelling and systems understanding that I have, I am, and must always be, profoundly more ignorant than I am knowledgeable, and for me that is no excuse for intentional ignorance at any level.
So I tend to use a mix of stream of consciousness and logic and experience and integrity as to my personal experience to deliver as much depth and breadth of communication as I can, in the full knowledge that I am unlikely to succeed to the depth I desire. And I am persistent!
For me it makes a lot of sense to investigate to the greatest depth I am able, what classes of things are predictable, and what are not, and in any specific situation to use that information to make the best guess I can as to the probabilities involved around all of the very many levels of uncertainty present. Sometimes things are quite predictable, like computer circuits, and sometimes things are almost completely unpredictable, like the weather at any particular place and time.
Having some reasonable idea of what one is capable of influencing, and what one needs simply to accept whatever happens, seems to be a big part of wisdom and responsibility. It seems to me that many of the heuristics that our cultural systems supply us with by default to determine such things have been sculpted by a select few in the interests of that few, and to the detriment of the majority.
It seems clear to me that any human being capable of speech has roughly the same mental capacity as everyone else, it is just that our cultural systems tend to direct most of that capacity into particular ways of thinking that are more in the interests of a small group than in the interests of the individual doing the thinking or humanity more generally.
So I am all for knowing oneself to the greatest degree possible, and for me that means going far beyond simplistic classifications, and accepting that every human being is complex beyond the ability of any human being to recognise, yet most are trapped by habit and unexamined assumptions into accepting a reality that offers far less than their potential.