I thought the latter part of the article did a good job of getting out of standard incentive-thinking. Why is someone good at doing something? Maybe they've r

I thought the latter part of the article did a good job of getting out of standard incentive-thinking. Why is someone good at doing something? Maybe they've responded to incentives to develop themselves to satisfy market desires. But it seems more likely that the person has themselves been part of some positive feedback cycle of self-development. You can call that feedback cycle "passion" or "a love of the craft" or "flow" or "talent" or a bunch of things – and there probably are many distinct reasons to enter into that cycle, they aren't just words for the same thing – but in the end there was self-motivation and a personal desire for improvement. Why would that stop? If you got to be good through that motivation, wouldn't you want to keep satisfying it?