I would counter that this is a borderline impossible task, but likely the wrong question, as if you create a system that includes people who see the trees, people who see the forests, people who see both, and people who see neither (or, alternatively, people who see the whole equation fundamentally differently; the aforementioned neurodivergent category), then of course you’re going to include all of humanity. It’s like saying “there are twelve kinds of people: those born in January, those born in February, those born in March…”; true by definition, debatably useful due to the broadness of the categorization.

I’m still not entirely certain I understand the point you were making in the original post, so I can’t really comment on the validity of the point itself, but I am certainly familiar with the Type A/Type B categorizations, and I’ve never found it to be that useful, simply because a person is not static across the board. Someone can be biased by their own personal experience to view the world in contradictory ways on a per-issue basis. In my experience, very few people are truly “type A” or “type B” all the time, as the viewpoints are inherently subjective and humans are seldom perfectly logically consistent. Indeed, the people I find to be the most often internally consistent are those who are outside of the classification (neurodivergent). Speaking from a personal perspective, I’d guess it’s likely because there is often a lot of manual reasoning involved in adapting new information to worldview/behavior.