Sounds like skill, as opposed to talent.

Alignment is a good term, but it seems fairly simple: do we want to do something?

I had a wonderful English teacher, in 6th grade. He had us read The Hobbit, and other fantasy books, as opposed to the usual “classic” literature.

It made all the difference, and I’ve been a voracious reader, all my life. Other factors also came into play, but I credit Mr. Martin, for helping me to become interested in reading.

In seventh grade, I had Mrs. Broadbent, and she forced us to read “classic literature.” It was awful, after my sixth grade experience.

Wanting to do stuff has always been important to me. And encouraging people to want to do stuff is a vital aspect of training and managing.

> The first rule to become a gym beast is to believe you are a gym beast.

> That is: you need convince yourself that what you do is the best thing you ever do.

I think this is a dumb idea, a mix of wishful thinking and immature psychology. You become someone because of your competence, not of what you believe in.

We all want to do the best thing, but in practice in every project there are lots and lots of small, routine things that have to be done in order for the best things ever to even start functioning. I think its important to understand clearly what is the best, and what is necessary and see how each part contributes to the whole project.

> In fact, while I’m unable to remember sounds or hear them in my head, it seems I have a rather good understanding what “sounds nice” that allows me to ad-hoc compose music.

This is interesting. I can remember and hear sounds in my head, but can't visualize any images.

I wonder how common it is.

There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so.

I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume.

If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors.

The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.

I believe this less as of now. Sure you can put in the hours, but you can see the difference between ppl that are fast learners and not.

™Do what you are" is a much better ordination. Some people are better wired for sports, maths or arts etc. Far too many are shoehorned into careers not suitable for them intrinsically - but that's also how the economy works. Hey, maybe you're talking about hobbies though?

I think also that what you're getting inner motivation from is also the most hidden from you, therefore it becomes necessary to explore and try to align with as many things as you can. If you're lucky then you do it at an early age.

Nah, there is definitely a genetic basis that allows you to pick things up faster or slower than average. I have one kid who is very uncoordinated, and one who picks up movement effortlessly. The kid who is good at sport (but doesn't actually play any sports) knocked out 16 pullups a few days ago, with no prior training. My all time PR is 17 pullups, and I had to train for years to get that. Some people just are built different. (I've always found symbolic reasoning very easy, so I have my fair share of gifts.)

In other words, it's not nature vs nurture, it's nature and nurture. If you want to excel at a field you have to start with some genetic advantages but then you need to put in the work. (Yes, there is a undertone of frustrated parent in this post.)

For me it feels like talent = \int_{time} love.

Reminds me of the meme where a kid is dropping tears on the math assignment sheet, "when you do homework with your dad". Forcing kids to spend time on something is an effective way to spoil it for them.

Exploring [math] from a place of curiosity, openness, joy - so, love - is to act out of alignment.

This also means that you need to start from within to develop your talent. What are you curious about, what excites you? Doesn't matter if that's math, obscure bird species or screws.

There's a compounding effect here, once you're deep enough in a couple domains you're starting to see their commonalities and less explored nuances at the domain boundaries.