I was in an argument with someone: I was able to graduate at the top of my class with a philosophy degree, but I couldn't finish my degree in math. Why? Assumedly, it is because the information metabolism of philosophy is right and the other one wrong.
I already had a degree in computer science, and I had a math minor with straight A's BUT over the years, the university assumedly changed how the degree is taught. Therefore, I could probably have finished before with the degree in math if they did not change the degree.
And, on that note, aren`t there degrees that are generally taught well and others taught poorly? Aren't some math degrees harder to attain at certain universities over others? Why? Doesn't this mean that socionics does not add up?
The problem is that in the real world, practical issues sometimes make a difference.
Maybe math generally has the pefect information metabolism for you, but the degree you entered into is too hard or not taught properly, and therefore you cannot finish.
And it is like this with anything. 'If you are LII why aren't you with an ESE?' Maybe again because of certain practical issues of availability, attractiveness, etc. The person who believes this has given no thought to issues of logistics, cost, availability, or use. These are not big concerns for me, but they are inherent in almost any practical endeavour. And they're relevant to anything socionics: a relation, career, etc. could 'work' because it's cheap, available, or easy. It could also 'not work' for the opposite reasons. Therefore, when you question one's information metabolism because 'they're in accounting instead of mathematics', please give this notion a second thought...