4 ms·

You don't "find what you are good at" - that is backwards. Instead, you do what you are interested in, and initially you are not good at it, and with enough t

You don't "find what you are good at" - that is backwards. Instead, you do what you are interested in, and initially you are not good at it, and with enough time, effort, working at learning and practicing, you will become good at it.

jstx1 4y ago
It boils down to the same thing though - OP is struggling to focus on a thing for a long period of time because they don't find stuff interesting enough. You can rephrase it to "how do I find something interesting enough to put a lot of time and effort in".
- kleiba 4y ago
  I would argue that these two perspectives are quite different though. "How do I become good at something" is not the same as "How do I find something that interests me".
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > "How do I become good at something" is not the same as "How do I find something that interests me". They're different but OP isn't asking the first question.
- Arisaka1 4y ago
  >it boils down to the same thing though OP is not asking "how do I find something that grabs my attention", but rather "how do I find something I'm naturally really good at". The implication is that what grabs my attention and holds it tight is out of necessity what I am naturally talented. Sorry for questioning such a status quo assumption but I don't see how my day 1 or week 1 experience doing anything is an indicator that I'll be enjoying it in year 1 and many years later, or that it's even worth investing time to improve it. It's a nice place to start the exploration, so I'll give it that.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > The implication is that what grabs my attention and holds it tight is out of necessity what I am naturally talented. No, it's follow up from the grandparent comment: 1. OP: how do I find something that I'm good at? 2. GP comment: find something that interests you and put in a lot of time, effort and practice. The natural follow up question is to ask "how do I find something that interests me enough so I can put in effort and practice over a prolonged period of time?". And this is something that OP is struggling with: > Changed several jobs, and in my hobbies, I am jumping from one project to another. How do you stay focused? This is what I meant when I wrote that it boils down to the same thing - if you assume that the GP comment is giving good advice, you take that advice one step further and you end up back at a question that OP is already asking.
- boppo1 4y ago
  And what is the answer?
- sethammons 4y ago
  I've always linked "intelligence/knowledge" with "interest" as interest being the foundation of building the former. My buddy, literally, couldn't spell "girl" in high school ("does it end in an 'e'?") and calculating percentages? Naw. But he could rebuild an engine and transmission and could identify a plane in the sky by the engine sound and then give a mini-history lesson on the plane, especially if it was involved in war. Then he discovered geology and hydrology. Now he had a reason to spell (pride in his reports) and aced chemistry (equations and all) and regularly does calculations in his head. I posit the difference was "interest." Once something is interesting, it is much easier to learn about it. Similarly, his dad couldn't get calculus to stick until he saw applications in finance, then the door swung open. For me, I find most things interesting and people think I'm smarter than I am because of it. However, when it comes to medical/bio stuff, I can't keep it in my head. I superficially like knowing about how sugars are processed by the body but I never remember the pathways and differences between glucose, sucrose, and fructose. It is not of enough interest to stick. I think the real super power is to convince yourself to actually be interested in a thing.
kleiba 4y ago
Seconded. "Practice makes perfect" is an aphorism as old as the ages. I would like to add though that "being good at something" is not the path to enlightenment. Try "something you enjoy" instead, and you may be happier in the end. Given an initial epsilon of talent, the above adage posits that you will get better at it, and in my experience, motivation to do a task is central predictor of how good you will become at it.
- globular-toast 4y ago
  I disagree with "practice makes perfect". You can keep practising something badly and you'll only get better at doing it badly. This can be seen everywhere. Second language speakers who have no interest in studying the language will continue to sound very non-native after decades of daily use. Musicians build bad habits that hold them back and take a long time to "unlearn". Programmers continue using the same old tools and techniques they learnt when they were students. You don't just get better by practising.
  - tempxyz 4y ago
    This is where you stop doing mindlessly and analyze.
  - going_ham 4y ago
    Yes! That is why deliberate practice requires some mentors or guiding factor. It's really hard to invest in deliberate pratice and most of us overlook it! When practicing quality > quantity. I gave up a lot of hobbies because I didn't have mentor or guidance factor to help me get past the wall. You can only learn upto a certain point on your own. After that, it requires quite a lot of attention and focus to not suck.
  - hnfong 4y ago
    Indeed "practice makes perfect" isn't enough. But the context being "something you enjoy", being passionate about something usually comes with self-motivation to improve and become better at something, and usually one finds a way to get better. The stagnation you mentioned is usually with people who aren't that passionate about the things they are practicing, or just using it as a means to some other ends.
globular-toast 4y ago
You won't necessarily become good at something just because you spend time and effort on it. You can certainly enjoy it, but you won't be as good as others who are naturally good at it. You want to find something that: 1. You enjoy, are interested in, makes you happy etc., 2. You are naturally good at it, ie. you are talented, will be competitive, 3. Is appreciated by others, ie. they will pay you to do it. The luckiest people get all three in abundance. Others have to find a balance and compromise on one or the other. 3 can be a deal breaker but you can do without much of either 1 or 2, but not both. However, you will always be at a disadvantage to those who have both 1 and 2.
- sun_har 4y ago
  I agree with this take, but I’d say that #1 matters the most by far, and the importance of #2 is correlated with how competitive the field is. For example, there is (currently) so much demand for programmers that IMO you really don’t need to be naturally gifted in order to have a very strong career. However, want to be a professional violinist? That’s a different story.
jasode 4y ago
>You don't "find what you are good at" - that is backwards. [...] , working at learning and practicing, you will become good at it. Because of the imprecise way the op phrased his question, I think you've misinterpreted it. I agree with sibling comment (jstx1) that op is not asking about "good" as a skill-level change from beginner to expert. Instead, the op is asking something like... "How do I find the one activity that really activates the dopamine reward feedback loop in my brain which in turn makes it effortless to stay focused on it because I'm magically in that flow state?" And because most people who ask the above question are not clinical psychologists using precise scientific language... they end up expressing it in the lower-resolution form of, "How do find the thing I'm good at?" But then language lawyers laser focus on the word "good" and think op is asking about skill... which leads to "well you can't get good at a skill unless you practice that skill" ... which isn't really what the op was asking. >Instead, you do what you are interested in, Yes, and that's the step the op is having difficulty with. Lots of people are trying to find that thing that really interests them to trigger more success in their professional careers.
- pr07ecH70r 4y ago
  Thanks for the clarification! :) You are absolutely right, and kudos for explaining it even better than I had it in my head! :D
- sun_har 4y ago
  I like and agree with the take that OP should look for opportunities that put them in a flow state. I'll give an example from my own experience. I'm not a naturally great programmer. I mean, I'm not bad - I get the job done. But I know that there are plenty of folks out there for which it comes much more easily. However - programming very consistently puts me into a flow state. My workdays pass quickly (in a good way), and for the most part I enjoy what I do. As a result I've found myself learning and growing at a consistent rate over the years. Am I going to be the best programmer in the world? Absolutely not. But I found a career that I enjoy on a day to day basis, and I can well provide for my family. I think a lot of people, including myself, waste way too much time trying to find the magic spot in the ven diagram between their genetic ability and a career in which they will end up a virtuoso rockstar. For most people, I think this is a waste of time. The key thing is: I don't think you have to be great at something in order for it to be a good conduit for focus. Try things, if you stumble on something that engages your focus and passes the time, do that thing more. Especially if it pays.
RHSman2 4y ago
No such thing as a naturally sharp knife. It’s constructed and sharpened by work and effort.
sicp-enjoyer 4y ago
This is just a nature/nuture debate. Even if it's entirely nurture (which I doubt), you can't undo your childhood and cultural influences. There are meta-skills and interests you have which are effectively immutable.

jstx1 4y ago

It boils down to the same thing though - OP is struggling to focus on a thing for a long period of time because they don't find stuff interesting enough. You can rephrase it to "how do I find something interesting enough to put a lot of time and effort in".

kleiba 4y ago
I would argue that these two perspectives are quite different though. "How do I become good at something" is not the same as "How do I find something that interests me".
- jstx1 4y ago
  > "How do I become good at something" is not the same as "How do I find something that interests me". They're different but OP isn't asking the first question.
Arisaka1 4y ago
>it boils down to the same thing though OP is not asking "how do I find something that grabs my attention", but rather "how do I find something I'm naturally really good at". The implication is that what grabs my attention and holds it tight is out of necessity what I am naturally talented. Sorry for questioning such a status quo assumption but I don't see how my day 1 or week 1 experience doing anything is an indicator that I'll be enjoying it in year 1 and many years later, or that it's even worth investing time to improve it. It's a nice place to start the exploration, so I'll give it that.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > The implication is that what grabs my attention and holds it tight is out of necessity what I am naturally talented. No, it's follow up from the grandparent comment: 1. OP: how do I find something that I'm good at? 2. GP comment: find something that interests you and put in a lot of time, effort and practice. The natural follow up question is to ask "how do I find something that interests me enough so I can put in effort and practice over a prolonged period of time?". And this is something that OP is struggling with: > Changed several jobs, and in my hobbies, I am jumping from one project to another. How do you stay focused? This is what I meant when I wrote that it boils down to the same thing - if you assume that the GP comment is giving good advice, you take that advice one step further and you end up back at a question that OP is already asking.
boppo1 4y ago
And what is the answer?
sethammons 4y ago
I've always linked "intelligence/knowledge" with "interest" as interest being the foundation of building the former. My buddy, literally, couldn't spell "girl" in high school ("does it end in an 'e'?") and calculating percentages? Naw. But he could rebuild an engine and transmission and could identify a plane in the sky by the engine sound and then give a mini-history lesson on the plane, especially if it was involved in war. Then he discovered geology and hydrology. Now he had a reason to spell (pride in his reports) and aced chemistry (equations and all) and regularly does calculations in his head. I posit the difference was "interest." Once something is interesting, it is much easier to learn about it. Similarly, his dad couldn't get calculus to stick until he saw applications in finance, then the door swung open. For me, I find most things interesting and people think I'm smarter than I am because of it. However, when it comes to medical/bio stuff, I can't keep it in my head. I superficially like knowing about how sugars are processed by the body but I never remember the pathways and differences between glucose, sucrose, and fructose. It is not of enough interest to stick. I think the real super power is to convince yourself to actually be interested in a thing.

kleiba 4y ago

Seconded. "Practice makes perfect" is an aphorism as old as the ages. I would like to add though that "being good at something" is not the path to enlightenment. Try "something you enjoy" instead, and you may be happier in the end. Given an initial epsilon of talent, the above adage posits that you will get better at it, and in my experience, motivation to do a task is central predictor of how good you will become at it.

globular-toast 4y ago
I disagree with "practice makes perfect". You can keep practising something badly and you'll only get better at doing it badly. This can be seen everywhere. Second language speakers who have no interest in studying the language will continue to sound very non-native after decades of daily use. Musicians build bad habits that hold them back and take a long time to "unlearn". Programmers continue using the same old tools and techniques they learnt when they were students. You don't just get better by practising.
- tempxyz 4y ago
  This is where you stop doing mindlessly and analyze.
- going_ham 4y ago
  Yes! That is why deliberate practice requires some mentors or guiding factor. It's really hard to invest in deliberate pratice and most of us overlook it! When practicing quality > quantity. I gave up a lot of hobbies because I didn't have mentor or guidance factor to help me get past the wall. You can only learn upto a certain point on your own. After that, it requires quite a lot of attention and focus to not suck.
- hnfong 4y ago
  Indeed "practice makes perfect" isn't enough. But the context being "something you enjoy", being passionate about something usually comes with self-motivation to improve and become better at something, and usually one finds a way to get better. The stagnation you mentioned is usually with people who aren't that passionate about the things they are practicing, or just using it as a means to some other ends.

globular-toast 4y ago

You won't necessarily become good at something just because you spend time and effort on it. You can certainly enjoy it, but you won't be as good as others who are naturally good at it. You want to find something that: 1. You enjoy, are interested in, makes you happy etc., 2. You are naturally good at it, ie. you are talented, will be competitive, 3. Is appreciated by others, ie. they will pay you to do it. The luckiest people get all three in abundance. Others have to find a balance and compromise on one or the other. 3 can be a deal breaker but you can do without much of either 1 or 2, but not both. However, you will always be at a disadvantage to those who have both 1 and 2.

sun_har 4y ago
I agree with this take, but I’d say that #1 matters the most by far, and the importance of #2 is correlated with how competitive the field is. For example, there is (currently) so much demand for programmers that IMO you really don’t need to be naturally gifted in order to have a very strong career. However, want to be a professional violinist? That’s a different story.

jasode 4y ago

>You don't "find what you are good at" - that is backwards. [...] , working at learning and practicing, you will become good at it. Because of the imprecise way the op phrased his question, I think you've misinterpreted it. I agree with sibling comment (jstx1) that op is not asking about "good" as a skill-level change from beginner to expert. Instead, the op is asking something like... "How do I find the one activity that really activates the dopamine reward feedback loop in my brain which in turn makes it effortless to stay focused on it because I'm magically in that flow state?" And because most people who ask the above question are not clinical psychologists using precise scientific language... they end up expressing it in the lower-resolution form of, "How do find the thing I'm good at?" But then language lawyers laser focus on the word "good" and think op is asking about skill... which leads to "well you can't get good at a skill unless you practice that skill" ... which isn't really what the op was asking. >Instead, you do what you are interested in, Yes, and that's the step the op is having difficulty with. Lots of people are trying to find that thing that really interests them to trigger more success in their professional careers.

pr07ecH70r 4y ago
Thanks for the clarification! :) You are absolutely right, and kudos for explaining it even better than I had it in my head! :D
sun_har 4y ago
I like and agree with the take that OP should look for opportunities that put them in a flow state. I'll give an example from my own experience. I'm not a naturally great programmer. I mean, I'm not bad - I get the job done. But I know that there are plenty of folks out there for which it comes much more easily. However - programming very consistently puts me into a flow state. My workdays pass quickly (in a good way), and for the most part I enjoy what I do. As a result I've found myself learning and growing at a consistent rate over the years. Am I going to be the best programmer in the world? Absolutely not. But I found a career that I enjoy on a day to day basis, and I can well provide for my family. I think a lot of people, including myself, waste way too much time trying to find the magic spot in the ven diagram between their genetic ability and a career in which they will end up a virtuoso rockstar. For most people, I think this is a waste of time. The key thing is: I don't think you have to be great at something in order for it to be a good conduit for focus. Try things, if you stumble on something that engages your focus and passes the time, do that thing more. Especially if it pays.

RHSman2 4y ago

No such thing as a naturally sharp knife. It’s constructed and sharpened by work and effort.

sicp-enjoyer 4y ago

This is just a nature/nuture debate. Even if it's entirely nurture (which I doubt), you can't undo your childhood and cultural influences. There are meta-skills and interests you have which are effectively immutable.