In order of study - mathematics, chemistry, physics, electronics, and computer engineering. I have even had a touch of biology and psychology training along the way. The most interesting learning I pursued is neural networks - sort of a mix of biology and mathematics, which got really interesting in the '80s when it became possible for electronic circuits to emulate biological mechanisms with a speed and density good enough to be useful (not just theoretical mathematical curiosities any more) and then leading up to now when we have computers able to do biologic-like things faster and more dependably than real brains.
My introduction to neural networks was taking a class thought by Dr. Bart Kosko. It was a UCSD Extension course, so the format was 3 hours one night a week. The first week, we covered Dr. Kosko's recent paper on Bidirectional Associative Memories (after some appropriate leadup material), followed by a quiz on the material just presented. By the next week, about half the class had dropped out.
I don't buy into the personality type hogwash. I judge people as individuals.
BTW, I didn't mean that you were a _good_ poet.
Impressive. I take it from the above you (unlike dad or I) are not an "N", which would also explain our mutual antipathy and is probably another mirror.
No, I would not make a good poet. When I was 25 I tried to write the great American novel. Had always won praise from my teachers through college for fiction and I thought I could do it. I could not. The structure drove me insane even though the language was easy. If I were to be a writer, I would be out of time and would be more interested in writing a 19th century Russian horror of a novel than within the current strictures of writing.
I am a master of reading people. It has been said my father is a gift for judgement, and my mother is empathic on the verge of psychic. It would make me a wonder at the poker table except that I am incapable of lying convincingly myself. The personality types are extremely useful at dissecting people's motivations and for understanding where they are coming from. It is insufficient to analyze an argument purely on its text...you also have to analyze how it is made and how it is making it. The personality tests are extremely useful for this purpose. They, like other tools, are limited and only give out what the situation calls for.