Cast Off Your Double Standards, and Accept That People Are Different
The Double Standard
But how about not physical talents?
Any good GM would ask the player to be more specific about how he is actually planning to do this and if he can provide a reasonable plan of action, he would allow him to roll on his mechanical skills.
I sense a double standard here, and challenge the notion that there's something innate that makes one group of skills easily roleplayable and the other not.
Consider such an action as jumping over a chasm. That's 'just' a physical, easily describable action, right? You just get maximum speed and push off when you reach the edge, right? Wrong. As a former pole vaulter, I can tell you that a myriad of specifics goes into each jump or vault, specifics as esoteric as the correct gradual acceleration curve, or the change in the length of each step depending on overall number of steps available for the run-up.
But often, non-physically-oriented players and GM not only skip over such details, but don't even realise they're a thing. Even physically oriented people often don't have the words to describe the actions that they can physically perform in real life! (That's because being skilled at doing a thing and being skilled at describing it are not the same thing.) And yet somehow games don't grind to a halt when it comes to describing an axe swing in an RPG due to the player not providing enough details, and everyone still has fun playing out combats. The last part is the most important one.
Your Bias May Vary
The above is the stereotypical bias in RPG circles, but it's not the only possible one. I have seen circles who go so far as to have no social stats and resolve it purely based on player skill, but at the same time reduce, say, a medical drama scene to 'I roll Physician and he gets better' and a physics-and-engineering puzzle to 'roll Engineer to reverse the polarity and move on'. Now, I would find such glossing over the science in a science fiction game to be defeat the purpose of playing in a sci-fi game in the first place. But did that ruin the fun for the players and GM? Nope, not for that group!
Things do get complicated when a groups consists of people with conflicting biases, and they're not willing to accommodate each other. There's been a case of a group which put great detail into the description of martial arts (the members being practitioners in real life). A non-physically oriented player joined their campaign. When a combat started, said player went for broad-strokes descriptions of his actions, while others went for their usual highly-detailed and specific descriptions. The majority got various benefits from being specific, such as bonuses for naming a particularly appropriate counter to an NPC's attack. The newcomer didn't. And that caused a very unfun experience for him, both because much of the game's content was above his head, and because his character constantly looked incompetent compared to his party-mates.
A Strategic View is Not Inherently Bad
Obviously, not all players and GMs are compatible. Still, it's possible to reduce the problems like the one above by accepting that people are different, and try to zoom in more or less depending on whether the person is interested in and/or knowledgeable about the area of expertise. When necessary, let people make strategic, broad-strokes, bird's eye view descriptions and decisions. When necessary, zoom in.
It may seem that some things cannot be abstracted like that, but that is more a matter of habit, assumption and personal preconceptions, than of some inherent property of the action. Some months ago I had my character roll Investigate to gather rumours and clues throughout the city. That's a high-level abstraction of an activity. In another party or another campaign, the GM would demand going into details, describing the procedures involved, the districts walked through in search of witnesses and otherwise insist that the activity can be neither abstracted nor condensed nor summarised. It's a matter of subjective preferences, and willingness to try. Likewise, 'shoot an orc', 'repair a spaceship', 'open a door', or 'become the Sultan's trusted evil vizier' also can be abstracted, or they can be detailed.
If someone isn't good at zoomed-in gaming in a given topic, but wants to try anyway, offer a partial zoom-in, and offer some advice, and/or break big scary confusing choices into bite-sized, easier-to-comprehend ones. Explain the broad consequences of favouring one decision over another, and don't ask 'gotcha' questions. If a character should know that a given approach is non-viable and the player doesn't, the GM should say so to the player. If a player asks for a hint because the character should know, the GM should give the hint. That's actually a great way for a player to become acquainted with a topic in real life; I'm not a rocket scientist, and 99% of my knowledge about ∆v, orbital mechanics, and effects of planetary gravity on atmospheric composition come from RPGs.
A big part of RPGs is trying what it would be like to be someone else - someone with radically different skills and abilities. Deaf people may want to play hearing ones. Monolinguists may want to play diglossics or even polyglots. Humans may want to play multimillennial elves. If a player can only play a PC who has a similar skillset, then the overwhelming majority of roles becomes unavailable, and so does this whole huge part of RPGs. And that would be a sad loss. So let roleplayers roleplay.