Pretty sure I don't belong to any type in particular but Fe must be my least developed function.
Typing confuses me, probably because I tend to mix different typing strategies or it doesn't really apply to me. For example, many people see the type in the main function that's being used but I prioritize one function in one situation and another in situations, which call for a different approach. As a result, quite often I find myself not performing great in areas I traditionally excel just because in this particular moment I am focused on another kind of task. Put me in the same situation twice and it's very likely to see two different personalities. It's odd. Neuroplasticisty might have something to do with it. Also, if a person excels in a particular area, they could very well excel in another, completely different activity.
Another approach is to conclude, for example, that just because someone demonstrates emotional irritability, they have well developed F, while it's supposed to be the opposite - their F must be so poorly developed that they're not able to control it, whether they use it or not. The opposite is also true, but then how would one be sure that someone's logic is flawed if they don't understand it? Who decides what's rational and what's irrational provided that there could be two opposing theories both equally logical?
Another aspect is that in some people one function could be extremely well developed compered to others, who use the same function as dominant. How does one approach this problem? What if a person is mediocre in their use of any function?
As I said, it's all very confusing, at least to me. I prefer to think in terms of functions rather than types because the former could somehow be related to the fact that different parts of the brain, or a combination of them, are responsible for different tasks. In this sense, the notion of types seems pretty constraining.