Or "Type A" or "Type B". Sometimes I think a large part of HN readers think everything about human nature and personality can be classified, as if ready to be replaced with software in the future. Our understanding of the human mind is nowhere near that place now, and may never be.
It's important to keep in mind that all of these things, not just personality traits, but even concepts such as "human" are artifacts of our modelling of the world.
The things in themselves do not know of these distinctions, and you can draw them fairly arbitrarily in ways that may or may not be helpful in making sense of the world.
Saying that there are some things that are alive, an others that are inert; and that some alive things are animalia, and others are not, and that some animalia are humans and others are not, and that some humans are Type A, and others are not.
Really, none of those distinctions are more justified than the other. It's even hard to motivate that there are things as separate. We have matter constantly moving through us, the air we breathe and the water we drink and the food we eat. We aren't strictly speaking entirely made of the same stuff we were yesterday.
It's like a wave across the water, the wave persists but the pieces of water it's made of changes over time. A bit in the same way our hands are features of our bodies, we are features on the universe. You can make the delineation to say we are separate, but only as a mental model.
