There's a thread title and then there's the real issue at hand. So, read. Please.
Suppose someone's comfortable T-F area spans a range from 90% to 99% of T. Let's call that person a he. He considers the ones like "him" at about 95% T, meaning in my system, that about 95% of people are less T, and 5% are more T.
How would this be expressed? The person might be rude, robotic, but he would have a passing interest some some of the things people call "emotion", feelings and such. He would have perhaps read about them and accepted, that the condition of having feelings is strong with the mammals of this planet.
This person would probably consider 80-90% of the population "feelers".
Now, when asked, this person would have a peculiar response to questions about his own thoughts and feelings. Now, a person who designed a TEST QUESTION to distinguish those more than 50% T to those less than 50% T, would have thought of something like "person a pays more attention to people's feeling at a party, whereas person b considers that the material conditions for a successful party are satisfied". Then, the test maker has prepared us a question. The test question goes like this: "at a party, I pay more attention to people's feelings than any of the material conditions around, like food or music."
Then, we have this 90% T person to answer it. The one who's F-T range spans from 90 to 99% T. He thinks: I chose this progressive techno for music, it isn't as hard core than the other options. I considered people's feelings with this. I'm a feeler man, much more than that 99% T who's grumpy at the corner of the room.
So, there's the problem with this system that relies on self-assessment. The scales aren't fixed enough. They're floating. They're too damn floating. All of them.
Some people might mistake "planning" for something that they wear long pants in the winter.
Some people might mistake "thinking" for a tendency to collect and spread T-like statements in order to appeal to their emotions.
We'd need a real center for this. The center would be the perfect xxxx. One who has exactly the decided preferences, who divides the population statistically exactly to those portions defined. For example, 50% e, 50% i. 25% N, 75% S (if that's what we want).
There's a damned good reason for this. I tell it now.
I've worked in statistical jobs for years. I have come accustomed that significant portions of the population only have a good understanding of the subgroups close to them, and a vague understanding of the others. They also seem to over-exaggerate the importance of their own groups. It's funny to talk to 5 of them during the same hour, each of them telling what the world is really like. For example, a poor person might have a great interest to means of distributing wealth. He might know much about the poor. But then, people with income above certain threshold are too "rich" - they seem like alien to him, something who might constitute just 5% of the population, when they are actually 40%.
Bottom line: self-evaluation requires knowledge of the parameters of the population. Without it, self-evaluation as compared to the population, will fail.