Yes, true. However, here I am trying to create broad categories. Most people won't want to apply any philosophical school too strictly, rather focusing on a few certain tenets. And those that do want to be more strict in their application based on a certain thinker or school, should do a lot more research than what a short article can provide for them.

Even Cicero differed in many ways from earlier proponents of Academic Skepticism like Carneades. With Shermer, he does apply Bayesian reasoning, which has overlaps with the probablilistic type of thinking that guys like Carneades and Cicero described. So that's why I put them in a broader "skeptic" category.

And also other schools such as Stoicism also have differences based on person and era. The Stoicism of Chrysippus was different from that of Epictetus, which was different from that of Marcus Aurelius. And all that differs a lot from what modern Stoics like Holiday practice.

Or Buddhism itself vastly differs, depending on whether you are practicing Theravada, Mahayana...etc. And when you break down Mahayana... even when you get to Japan, the Mahayana Buddhism they practice is divided between Nara, Tendai, Shingon, Amida, Nichiren and Zen, and others. Ashoka’s Buddhism differed greatly from what the Dalai Lama practices, too.

Plus, Thomas Jefferson, while in some of his writing he says “I am an Epicurean”, and some historians put that as the source of the “pursuit of happiness” which is in the foundational texts of the US, was not a pure Epicurean. Rather, he was more of an eclectic, with a basis in Epicureanism.

Anyways, thanks for the comment. I didn’t want to put too much text in the article itself, but the comments section often serves for me as a way to add more nuance to the argument.