Perhaps you should consider the main idea in the article: pseudo-psychology operates stating the obvious with different words, to make it sound important. The tests that you took are tautologically true, because they ask questions about you and then give one or more names to that set of responses (blue, sanguineous, etc). Moreover, you rarely get a clear answer, and the creators of these test know that is very difficult, so they disclose that as a known "feature". It gets even worse when they start to pontificate about the meaning of these tests, because there is no scientific or social basis for what they propose.