Equal distribution assumption

[Phaedrus]

Even putting the fact that those are MBTT statistics aside, there's no way to know how accurate the information used in those statistics is (in other words, no way to know if those people had been accurately typed).

That you are unable to understand simple statistics is a remarkable phenomenon. Hardly what one would expect from an ENTj. But if you can't comprehend statistical facts, you can't comprehend statistica facts.

Of course men are going to generally appear (and test) less "feelery" than not. That doesn't make them logical types.

Men not only appear less "feelery" than women, they are also measured to be less "feelery". We know that a typical man's brain is different from a typical woman's brain, and one tested and indisputably existing difference is the difference that is captured in the T/F dichotomy, which is the same in both Socionics, MBTT, and the Five Factor Theory. It is totally impossible that men are not more logical (T) in general than women. It is an empirical fact that you just have to accept.

As far as whether there are more sensory types than intuitive types, it's quite possible.

It is not only possible, it is a proven fact. This is not an issue that is open for debate. You just have to accept the facts.

So anyways, based on what I've observed, the overall distribution of clubs is as follows: ST/SF > NF > NT.

People's personal observations about the distribution of the types are totally irrelevant and totally unreliable. We should pay no attention at all to people's experiences here. The only relevant thing is observations on a larger scale, and to do those we need test results. And we already have such test results.

Does it seem like there are more irrational types than rational types? There seem to be fewer EJ's and IJ's than EP's and IP's among the people I know. That could just be a perception based on my noting irrationality more than rationality though, similar to what I said about quadra values.

That's nothing but a totally irrelevant personal observation that has no value. Whatever you happen to observe in your own surroundings can be the result of pure chance.

Bleh. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to me how common types are. There's no way to KNOW, and even if there was it wouldn't really make a difference. (If there was a way to KNOW, I would be more curious though.)

You incompetent fool. Knowledge in these matters is very easily obtained -- at least for some people.