Nice to see the author here. Note that I still do appreciate the post. You're also right that establishing simple, potentially extreme profiles isn't the goal but does help with understanding. The nuance I wanted to convey was lost while describing the folks above; I don't think I have much more to add about it, though here are some related thoughts.
My personal answer to your question for me is "It depends. Lemme check what feature we're talking about here". My mentality isn't "nice, an occasion to exercise my principles", and judging from the talks two of the three aforementioned people gave, I'm positive they adopt a similar attitude: happen to take a stance, but don't actively seek it.
When I go over some codebases, I often find flavors of code that smell like someone tried too hard taking a stance. E.g. code that overly future-proofs, code that definitely needs less ad-hoc-ness, code that prematurity optimizes in an obviously naive way, code that tries too hard to use a functional/OO concept, etc. Note that these all belong to different categories in your post, but one thing they share is that they all feel like p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶n̶c̶i̶p̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶s̶l̶a̶p̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶l̶e̶c̶t̶u̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶c̶o̶d̶e̶ folks shoehorned principles back into the project rather than the other way around.
So an alternative way of categorizing things is whether you go from the principle to the project, or vice-versa (aka whether you go from abstract to concrete or vice-versa). A result of that is that Jon Blow and Rich Hickey end up in the same category while Bret Victor and Alan Kay ends up in another (without speaking too much for themselves, and thanks to the nice confluence that is HN, I’d say that this categorization has been empirically verified if you check these people’s discussions with each other).
Also, as computing domains grow, you'll probably need to create many more categories if we cross-cut the way you did in your blog post; on the other hand, this alternative way of cross-cutting, I believe, would stay constant. But hey, that doesn't mean your way of cutting it is wrong. The alternative one might be simpler but more abstract.
Maybe this explains why many people in this thread debate on whether the cross-cutting is fair. If you ask the alternative question "which direction do you work from/to", you might get some better partitioning.