I apologise in advance for being long-winded. I'm interested in one aspect of this debate: type descriptions. I don't want to argue about "ethereality" or which side has it rougher, N's or S's. But on the topic of type descriptions, I think Orangey is almost entirely on track here, and I would argue that the occasionally vehement level of disagreement proves the point to some extent.
That said, the ESTP/ENTP comparison from typelogic is not fair. Those descriptions were written by two different authors, which is fully sufficient to explain the differences. However, there are any number of other sites whose descriptions would illustrate a similar point.
How can you even argue that Keirsey isn't biased against S's? And why do so many more people mistype as N than S? It's because N sounds better, the descriptions are more flattering. N's are rare (unique! special!), creative, gifted, misunderstood. S's are the masses, important to keep the world going, but you wouldn't want to be one yourself. The world needs janitors, right? That's what the S's are for!!!
I will concede that this is more prevalent in online tests and type descriptions than in PUM. Opened to a random page, and here's what Keirsey (and Marilyn Bates) had to say about ESTPs:
That is a positive description. Note the explicitly positive adjectives, the praise: outstanding, resourceful, sophisticated, suave, uncanny, witty, clever, fun, unusual. That's what is missing from most S descriptions.ESTPs are men and women of action. When someone of this personality is present, things begin to happen. The lights come on, the music plays, the game begins. And a game it is for the ESTP, the outstanding entrepreneur, the international diplomat, the conciliator, the negotiator par excellence ... if only one adjective could be used to describe ESTPs resourceful would be an apt choice.
Life is never dull around ESTPs. Their attractive, friendly style has a theatrical flourish which makes even the most routine, mundane event seem exciting ... ESTPs are socially sophisticated, suave, and urbane...
ESTPs are uncanny at observing people's motivations, sometimes hypersensitive to minimal nonverbal cues which other types might miss ... Witty, clever, and fun, ESTPs seem to possess an unusual amount of empathy...
For better or for worse, David Keirsey is the most influential writer in this field. More than Isabel Myers, more than Lenore, more than Beebe, probably more than Jung. Most of us on this forum discovered Keirsey first, even those who often criticise him. Keirsey writes about N's with undisguised admiration, and that has filtered down to many people who study this topic.
The positive traits attributed to Sensors are things like steadiness and predictability, maybe a little Hufflepuff loyalty. Intuitives get terms like creative, imaginative, ingenious -- words that are loaded with an association to intelligence and exceptionalism. That's the crux of the issue, as I see it:
S is described as normal, and N as exceptional.
Maybe that's right: Sensors are a majority, and from a strictly literal standpoint, N's are exceptional. But are they better? Smarter? Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Exempt from the necessity of providing proof for their arguments? I'm not interested (at least not right now) in debating whether N's really are smarter, etc. But I don't find it at all plausible to argue that the descriptions of types and temperaments are far more flattering to N's than S's.
Maybe I have iNtuitive guilt. Is this like being Jewish without supporting Israeli military policy? Am I a traitor? Or ... maybe I'm not an N at all. The nature of my arguments reveals the truth! I'm really an... ISFJ, with my awesome Fe? ISTP, with Se and Ni? Something S.
And while it would indeed be gratifying to see smart people write up balanced type descriptions, it's unfair, a canard, to say that anyone who doesn't is unjustified in complaining about what is out there. Identifying an injustice or inconsistency does not imply a burden to single-handedly right the wrong, nor that failure to assume such a burden negates the wrong and/or precludes continuing to point out that it's wrong.
Proof is good. Proof is necessary. Proof keeps us honest, to others and to ourselves. Proof is why I can't just say "Jennifer's a witch!" and get you burned at a stake or drowned or whatever**.
If your case is sound, you should be able to provide some level of evidence that supports or at least suggests your point's validity, and you should be able to disprove or otherwise repudiate evidence to the contrary. Intuition may guide us to appropriate arguments or interesting evidence, but it is not a substitute for those things.
** First I have to prove you weigh the same as a duck. Do you?