there are some that cannot be combined, for example: aggressive and gentle, criminal and serious.
archetypal personality formats
started with jung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
now there is a pop science version which was turned into an attempted clinical version.
the observer wishes to define a label
the observers bias defines the range of possible outcomes that become the norms of that format.
most personality formats are defined for a specific purpose.
to fit inside a model that allows manipulation
to fit inside a model that allows known variable outcomes in micro-managed situations
cultural associative paradigms of projected norms of complicit behaviour models for group render.
paradigms that define conceptual diseases and illness also define formats of associative models.
there are 2 different sides of the coin
1 to help the patient
2 to manipulate the patient
3 false narrative of equative paradigms to illicit compliance to a bias established as a compulsory norm of culture doctrine.
you sound a little DSM jung-esque
are you stating your own opinion of a mix of conventional stereo types to find favour with corporate(business outcomes/compulsory absolutes for government associated conformity) personality compliance models ?