For those familiar with the lumper vs splitter distinction, I'm definitely a splitter.

But those are generally the same thing. Guess which I am. ;)

Remember that, above all else here, psychographic profiles are a way of simplifying people, of making them legible.

I was happy to see you make this point. All models lie, some models are useful.

On to your survey.
I first read about Bartle's taxonomy while playing Kingdom of Loathing. They actually refer to the quadrants using playing card suits (for example, an explorer is a spade). I'm about 70% explorer, 15% socializer, 10% achiever, and 5% killer. I particularly enjoy what Will Wright refers to as exploring the 'failure modes' of a game - but in a noncompetitive way. The classic example is seeing how Sims react (the answer is invariably poorly) to sudden changes in their environment.

I haven't reflected as much on McCloud's taxonomy, but I think I definitely skew towards Classicist/Formalist. I know I definitely skew towards formalism when analyzing film.

The two definitely correspond - in both cases, I'm interested in systems, how they work, and fun ways to come up with emergent/unexpected behaviour. It's not a surprise that I'm in a STEM field.

I don't have any real disagreements save my earlier comment about all models being a lie.

Bonus stuff: I'm most fox, with a smidge of hedgehog, and I'm a pretty even split between Mort and Elvis while being very shy of being an Einstein, since in my younger days I wasted so much effort on that.