> Or a profession that so strongly assumes ability is innate and cannot be trained.
Like most things, it's a spectrum.
But if you have a knack, you'll enjoy it more.
Enjoy it more, you'll do it more.
Do it more, you'll get better at it.
This feedback loop has been suggested as one root of the (contentious) "xy,000 hours equals mastery" findings.
But it's only true up to a point.
We know that in fields subject to large-grained biological differences -- sport, in particular -- genetics swamps training effects. Most of what matters is throwing people at a sport until you find the person who is freakishly good at that sport. Which is why Australia is the best at Australian Rules Football, why the USA is the best at Gridiron, why China has come to dominate the lighter weight classes in Weightlifting and so on.
Actually, the established science in weightlifting and other sports is that only the top 1% have to play based on their genetics. For most people it's more a matter of having a decent training program and sticking to it come hell or high water.
I think if you look at software work you'll find the same kind of dependency on training rather than some innate gift.
Like most things, it's a spectrum.
But if you have a knack, you'll enjoy it more.
Enjoy it more, you'll do it more.
Do it more, you'll get better at it.
This feedback loop has been suggested as one root of the (contentious) "xy,000 hours equals mastery" findings.
But it's only true up to a point.
We know that in fields subject to large-grained biological differences -- sport, in particular -- genetics swamps training effects. Most of what matters is throwing people at a sport until you find the person who is freakishly good at that sport. Which is why Australia is the best at Australian Rules Football, why the USA is the best at Gridiron, why China has come to dominate the lighter weight classes in Weightlifting and so on.