I'd argue that if falling in either of the 3 camps was enough to make one a Bitcoiner, it'd be easier to make Bitcoiners.

Bitcoiners are rare I think because it takes a multi-disciplinary person, spanning the 3 (and maybe even 4th + 5th) categories, to really get it at a level they don't get shaken out over time.

Problem with someone purely technically minded is that they will inevitably chase shitcoins, there's always a technical "improvement" that can be made, and always a shitcoin to offer said improvement.

Purely technical people, lacking multi-disciplinary traits, are Bitcoin's greatest liability. They fail to recognize its value is from being a paragon of stability and relative simplicity, and so they're always seeking to change it... fortunately they fail more often than not due to a design meant to resist them, and end up shitcoiners.

Econ brains fall back to the no-intrinsic value trope, lack of MoE traction. Gold bugs can be great econ minds, but dismiss Bitcoin because they're not speculative or technical enough.

Another group trapped by shitcoins, nft's and other high-time-preference degeneracy, they need to be grounded in some technicals and economics to get Bitcoin.

Anthropology and Game/Adversarial theory are 4th and 5th columns I'd say are required, if not lumped into the others.

I think the silver lining is most people think through a consensus filter, they have no principles or understanding beyond their own survival, so run with the herd.

Bitcoiners being multi-disciplinary are an intransigent herd, they don't break off into other herds even if those other herds are bigger. Their numbers are therefore a one-way-ratchet, and the size of that herd compounds on itself... eventually attracting people on scale alone.