Can this be defined scientifically?

I'm good at defining things to the simplest degree to discover their true core elements. The same process used to decrease phlogiston to a reaction between oxygen and carbon and to reduce the elements to combinations of protons and neutrons. The concept of "simple" could be defined as an approximation which can be induced from the facts and which deduces the facts it can be induced from. A definition of scientific method.

With this in mind can you help me define these 9 supposed personality types. I believe there is some structure to these personality types and that a better more logical understanding of personality types can be generated once the underlying structure is revealed.

These is my brief synopsis, I have only defined "1" perfectly, bear in mind not everyone is 100% logical and I believe this was the element that the personality grouping had observably the strongest motivation for.

1: Logic.
2: care about their image from the external perspective?
3: care about their image from the internal perspective?
4: improved associative-creativity, criticised-emotions?
5: fear-avoidance, detached, criticised logic?
6: fear-avoidance, an apparent mix of phobic and counter-phobic, critical of outside world?
7: fear-avoidance, looks to ignore wrongs, may or may not focus on opportunities?
8: Believes physical influence is best way to rectify wrongs?
9: Apparently gives quarter to reality and only exerts influence that does not pose a challenge?

http://home.kc.rr.com/nsturr1/basics.html

There are more patterns described in the link. Since this is heavily influenced by artsy fartsy hippy crap it should be considerred a good generalisation that deserves a run through by the scientific mind.

>>2
Wrong a subjective arbitrary classification would be like blaming disease on evil spirits or humours. This is merely an attempt to simplify a collection of observable personality traits in order to notice patterns. The only way you can prove facts wrong is by proving that thye are falsified. The site itself generates poor ideas based on the facts, however it has made some useful observations. Please admit whether you were just wrong (everyone makes mistakes, no big deal, it doesn't mean you are stupid) or that you were intentionally trying to blur the distinction between fact and hypothesis in order to invalidate certain facts by stating that hypothesis' are not always correct as you are a scientologist and see psychologists as a threat to your cash flow.