Doing What You Are Good At

There is the the advice to do what you’re good at. I’ve heard it more than once. I might’ve taken it to heart at some point, but here are some questionable thoughts on it.

It’s so satisfying to realize you’re good at something, whether it’s playing a game, fixing stuff, drawing pictures, or playing an instrument. The hope is that by doing what you’re good at, you’ll enjoy developing a skill. That skill might bring you happiness directly, through friends, money, etc. The process itself will show you how to learn, perhaps. Why is this not enough?

The particular skill or activity is a consequence of your surroundings. How you can develop and learn is also contingent on your environment. This was a lot more so before computers, the internet, and college, but those three things nevertheless impose themselves on the psyche. What would it be like if you’re not interested in anything within reach?

What would it be like if you’re interested in everything within reach? With computers, the internet, and college, that means virtually anything you can think of and a lot of things you haven’t thought of. The edge cases of this spectrum seem to lead to be an unproductive person, someone who isn’t contributing to society in a “good” way.

How would you go about picking something you’re good at and developing it? How interesting does it have to be? Should it match any of your “natural” abilities? These questions are fraught with caveats. Maybe I’ll explore them at a later time.