A big notion I do not like in socionics is that certain personality types are inherently better at certain subjects than others - including the sciences. My big realization today came from understanding why I am not 'perfect' at mathematics. Socionics would tell you that logical types and logical-intuitive types are more rational and therefore belong in scientific pursuits. My discovery by just sitting and doing a bunch of calculations is that I do not have enough visual working memory (i.e., 'visual-spatial scratchpad') to carry on much of these calculations efficiently. My second thought is that much scientific work involves working memory in some form. My third thought is that working memory is applicable to almost any academic pursuit - depending on the kind that you have. Therefore, I am much better at philosophy than math because I have more verbal working memory than 'visuo-spatial scratchpad' nonverbal working memory. That is why I am more proficient at reading and writing than mathematical abilities - because, as I said, these academic skills are dependent on nothing but working memory. Now, test my vocabulary or factual knowledge, and I'm not particularly good. But this doesn't matter, because I find verbal academic tasks to not be dependent on factual knowledge at all. Now, consider the notion that working memory is not just important for academics, but can play a roll in tasks like playing the piano or drawing, which have nothing to do with personality type, and you see that pure skill in a scientific area does not just revolve around personality. Where personality comes into play is how passionate you are about a given subject. If you are drawn to mathematics because you are highly rational and you find the pursuit to highly rational as well, you might spend hours studying it to develop such a skill. That notion is dependent upon one's personality. On the other hand, whether you have enough working memory to draw, play chess, or do higher mathematics or physics is not, and can therefore limit your success in any of these subjects.
That is my opinion. What do you think?
Also, I can just hear what people are saying: "Why is he so insecure about the sciences? Why also is he so insecure about Ti?" In 2001, I went for a computer science degree at my local university. I got straight A's. I also went for a math minor, with some difficult coursework - A's again. In fact, everything I touched in those years scholastically turned into an "A." Five years after my computer science degree, I went back to take economics - at the same university - and I got absolutely crushed. With the math minor, I went for a math degree as well and got crushed again. Three (or four) different science programs at the same university, three completely different results, and it has therefore made me question myself like mad. In the first degree I took in the sciences, my grades were very good and very consistent. Then, after socionics, I went back, and the grades were terrible and inconsistent. This was after the computer science degree, after scoring 1350 on the GREs, after getting straight A's in all high school courses, including scientific coursework. After socionics, all of this went out the window because of what went on at my university. It even makes me wonder if it has something to do with socionics, because it is all started after socionics. I mean it. If it is someone from socionics that 'cursed me,' the only thing I can say to them is "Auf Wiedersehen" - a way of saying "good-bye" from what is the inside of a German concentration camp for me.