It boils down to the same thing though - OP is struggling to focus on a thing for a long period of time because they don't find stuff interesting enough. You can rephrase it to "how do I find something interesting enough to put a lot of time and effort in".
I've always linked "intelligence/knowledge" with "interest" as interest being the foundation of building the former.
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.
> The implication is that what grabs my attention and holds it tight is out of necessity what I am naturally talented.
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.
I would argue that these two perspectives are quite different though. "How do I become good at something" is not the same as "How do I find something that interests me".
