Ok, I have so many things to say that I don’t even know where to start. I’m not familiar which those personality class system stuff, but from what I managed to find with Google, all of these mumble jumble letters are actually referring to the same thing. The “ENFP” is the thing I’m most familiar with, and everything eventually lead to this. It’s a personality type developed by Myers-Briggs, and apparently there are 16 types of personality based on some criteria You can google “Myers-Briggs” for more information since I’m not familiar with it myself. All other things else in the list are just expansion of this idea. And it seems like they do nothing but unnecessarily complicate things for everyone. And notice that the first results for “Harold Grant functional stack” (the Dom Ne things on the list) are people talking about how unscientific the model is and how not even people believing in the Myers-Briggs system accept it (and that says a lot because Myers-Briggs itself is a controversial idea and not everyone accept it as a real science). The easiest to understand and most comprehensive explanation for all of this that I can find is from this website notice how ironic that the most comprehensive source about the topic is from a fandom website. But that’s not all. About your website… It’s hard to navigate, very mobile-unfriendly, take a long time to load, newbie-unfriendly (doesn’t explain what any of the symbols mean) and the personality types are rated based on people voting for it. See where the problem is? There is nothing to verify whether the classification is correct. We only have a bunch of people voting for things because they… feel it’s the right thing. From real people to fictional characters, everyone is classified by this strange method. I may get some mild pleasure in doing so with fictional characters, but it’s really problematic to do that with real people. Humans are too complex to be classified into attributes ike a video game character. There are things they did that could be interpreted in many ways, and classifying them based on these can be problematic and risks compromising the complexity of their being. And I don’t like it that they call an INFJ person “moon”. It further shows me how woo-woo the website can be. In short, I don’t take any of that seriously. Research as you will, but be aware that you are in a controversial territory.