Okay, yeah, from what you and wolffyluna have said, I think I agree that "Getting to skip the initial first bit where you grind out terrible incompetent failures" is a big factor in spending time on a skill, esp as a small child or someone who has other stuff to do, but it's also not everything.
(I can sketch, not well, but tolerably. I can make the pencil make the shapes, if the shapes are geometrically comprehensible (I cannot make the pencil make the shapes, if they're meant to be humans.). But I do it once a year, so I'm never going to get better. I even actively consider myself to be a good writer (for some nebulous value of good that still doesn't ultimately measure up to "Produces written content" but I still don't do it often enough for it to matter)
I am reminded of someone asking the scott alexander when he finds time to write (with him being a medical student on residences at the time, so it is surprising that he's also a moderately prolific author), and he said that he finds time to write like a heroine addict finds money for heroine. The point he was making was that there's this sense that some things are just easy or automatic. You can find time and energy and resources to do them in a way that you can't for other stuff. And having that for a legibly productive skill (Like art or music or chess or whatever) rather than e.g. reading, which is the closest I have, seems to me to be a big factor as to who seems to be "talented". That's the thing that lets you become great at something. I can think of it as a very Gold/aspect thing in CMWGE terms, but that's probably not legible to you guys?
Ultimately, I don't have a good handle on this and I think there are probably a whole lot of factors that contribute but ultimately I think the core point here is "There are non-voluntary factors which determine which skills one can be really good at"
(Also wow your family sounds bad. This I assume is now well-known to you but I wanted to say that it was noticed and sympathy happened.)
no subject
(I can sketch, not well, but tolerably. I can make the pencil make the shapes, if the shapes are geometrically comprehensible (I cannot make the pencil make the shapes, if they're meant to be humans.). But I do it once a year, so I'm never going to get better. I even actively consider myself to be a good writer (for some nebulous value of good that still doesn't ultimately measure up to "Produces written content" but I still don't do it often enough for it to matter)
I am reminded of someone asking the scott alexander when he finds time to write (with him being a medical student on residences at the time, so it is surprising that he's also a moderately prolific author), and he said that he finds time to write like a heroine addict finds money for heroine. The point he was making was that there's this sense that some things are just easy or automatic. You can find time and energy and resources to do them in a way that you can't for other stuff. And having that for a legibly productive skill (Like art or music or chess or whatever) rather than e.g. reading, which is the closest I have, seems to me to be a big factor as to who seems to be "talented". That's the thing that lets you become great at something. I can think of it as a very Gold/aspect thing in CMWGE terms, but that's probably not legible to you guys?
Ultimately, I don't have a good handle on this and I think there are probably a whole lot of factors that contribute but ultimately I think the core point here is "There are non-voluntary factors which determine which skills one can be really good at"
(Also wow your family sounds bad. This I assume is now well-known to you but I wanted to say that it was noticed and sympathy happened.)