But my scale is frequently 4 points shorter. I try to spend my time between 4-6. I don't like getting more than a little hungry or more than just-enough-full. Only if looking forward to a feast will I try to push my hunger farther, which is risky but rewarding if it works; and only with a splendid feast will I overeat. Looking at this scale, the reason is dramatically clear: my body often jumps from "first sign of hunger" to "nauseous/shaky" or from "slightly uncomfortable fullness" to "sickness." There are two steps between those jumps, at each end of the scale, for most people. My digestion has a lot less fault tolerance: other people have almost twice as much. I've experienced those other steps, but I can't rely on them being there, on having that much warning. 0_o
This is why I've made lifestyle choices for control of my own diet, why I eat small amounts often, and why I quickly become aggressive or if possible bail out of a situation where other people try to control what I eat. It's dangerous in ways they can't understand because their damn scale is wider. Then they blame me when I get sick.
On the bright side, I have honed my won't power on Indian cuisine. I have about a 50% chance of slightly overeating there. But anywhere else, I almost always quit at my preferred stage where I've had enough but I'm not stuffed.
Think about how many steps you have on your hunger scale, where you would prefer to stay on it, and how often you succeed in staying within your target area. Do you know anyone else with dietary issues? If so, consider their scale too. One of our most useful household codes, "Need Food Now," came from friends. (Meaning: drop everything else and obtain food within the next 5 minutes.)