I doubt Victor meant this in MBTI terms, but this does remind me of an idea I was considering on holiday, albeit a not very original one.
Essentially if type statistics can be trusted there are more sensors than intuitives. However I think it is also fair to say that the more rare something is the more it can fall into the odd type of fringe values held by those who are on the fringe themselves. More so if someone is excluded, very often they find themselves an excluded group from which they can then exclude others.
The point is that within type theory, intuitiveness is considered intrinsically superior for certain aspects, (especially that of intelligence), partly because of it's status of exclusion. Ok so far so boring.
So what is my point? Well if we can reason that the lower population of intuitives are the same ones who have created the very abstract pursuits that they favour, in spite of their reduced numbers and popularity, then we can understand that those pursuits are touched in favour of the intuitives, much the same as commonly held sensory pursuits are attributed to sensing types.
However, what if this were reversed? What would happen if the sensing types were the minority? Suddenly an individual perhaps skilled in the arts of practical and manual skills would be revered on such forums as these with the same gusto as the abstract theorist. The evaluation of the value of something is what defines it's importance to us, even among thinking types, but abstraction is not inherently superior to concrete considerations, because we define the value, no outside force does.
So it comes down to a matter of which occurs most or least.
Also the suggested greater numbers of sensing types would contribute to an image of lower intelligence, after all it is more likely to occur on a percentage.
However while many sensing individuals are stupid, not all individual sensors are stupid. In fact, as said above, using a percentage, (assuming accurate typing and statistics), could it be fair to suggest that there could be an equal amount of stupid intuitives as sensing types, but the lower population obscures this facet?
Obviously intelligence and stupidity are subjective, even within a society's judgement which pretends to present such terms objectively, but usually only succeeds in providing a subjective group definition.
In the end though I would say people are best placed to try and understand the point of both sides of the N/S coin. Many unhealthy intuitive's look like stubborn sensing types and many unhealthy sensing types look like stubborn intuitive's.
But ive always valued those whose intelligence is evident, regardless of an abstract or concrete bent and as I get older and experience more and more of what is around me, respect and understanding is realised when concerning those elements which at first were dismissed in arrogance and misunderstanding.
Some intuitive's like to believe they understand a sensate point of view merely because a, (suspected), greater population grants them a larger influence on society, but no society reflects one point of view alone. It is created out of many different influences at once.
Introverted, extraverted, feeling, thinking, sensing and intuition all have a hand to play in a society. It is when a person loses sight of themselves that they strike out at an object for blame, which misses the subtlety of the people within it.
But of course, this is just an idea.