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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're different but OP isn't asking the first question.
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.
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.
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.
You can also practice with purpose and get to a peak of your ability.
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.
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.
There is a fundamental shift of perspective that I think is necessary for people to find work that will fulfill them. More important is to look at what things you enjoy, and then figuring out what exactly appeals to you, really understanding yourself and how you tick, and how that can be applied elsewhere.
I spent much of my childhood gaming (CS, Battlefield, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Deus Ex, C&C RA2, Dune 2, etc.). It was fun, sure, and going by "look for something you enjoy", maybe I should've become a pro-gamer. But if I look at how I actually spent my time, there are much different conclusions to be drawn about what I like. I liked being in a team with a collective goal. I liked the communication (and arguing). I liked solving situational challenges. I liked being challenged. I liked researching strategies, techniques, and everything around metagaming (countless hours "wasted" on TeamLiquid). I liked learning new things and incrementally improving my skills. I liked documenting and explaining things. It's 100% clear how that translated in a career context, but at first glance, shooting people in CS was just "fun".
Most people don't find their "fun" activities enjoyable all the time. Running can be fun, but it also is tiring and sucks sometimes. Practicing a musical instrument isn't the most enjoyable, but playing in a band and nailing songs is. Lifting isn't "fun," but excelling at a sport is.
Point being that not liking the boring parts of an activity, but still finding the activity as a whole satisfying, is something that most people would consider to be an activity you enjoy.
Where I disagree is the claim that you don't enjoy programming. If you enjoy most of the component parts of an activity, my claim is that you actually do enjoy that activity.
Let's take hiking as an example. I can claim that I don't actually like hiking, I just like being outside, being in the forest, and walking. Hiking is therefore just one of a multitude of activities that could meet those desires. However, because my "likes" comprise the vast majority of the appeal of hiking, it is fair to say that I actually do enjoy hiking.
Ultimately, this is a semantic distinction. My claim is that by the commonly used definition of an "enjoyable activity," I would classify programming as an activity that you at least moderately enjoy.
What made it click for me is not pushing myself too hard. I used to run at an intensity I realize in retrospect I could just barely sustain. This worked, in that my fitness increased and I got faster, but it always felt horrible. This was the case when I ran alone, or with my partner - when we run together, we tend to subconsciously push each other to go a little faster.
Then, we started running with a much more extroverted friend who likes to talk a fair bit. This put a natural limit on the intensity, and apart from enjoying the socializing, I also felt physically better. It also worked fine for fitness, and I got a PR on a 10K race while training this way.
Now I find that even when I run on my own, I'm much better at finding a pace I can sustain comfortably, and I enjoy it!
As a casual runner, I'm very happy I've come to this realization, but I'm sure the experience is very different for someone who is either very unfit and finds any speed uncomfortable, or for someone who's training seriously and needs to push hard to attain their goals.