[Jormundir]

I think your analysis is spot on. Improving is a slightly more complex cycle. Improvement looks something like this:

Do -> analyze strengths and weaknesses -> try to do better.

That middle part is way more successful with the help of a good coach. Really quick learners ("talent") can fill in that middle step on their own, but would ultimately benefit from a coach.

When your work cycle is:

do -> do again -> do again -> do again

you'll improve a bit, but pretty quickly plateau.

[6stringmerc]

Nicely laid out in the flow chart style. I agree that the middle part is essential in the conversation. Also on the point a good coach should show value!

Now and then I see 'self-help' or motivational type pieces encouraging a type of "Focus on your strengths, not your weaknesses" which can be applicable in a lot of arenas. However taking on that mentality fully strikes me as missing an important long-term perspective. I say this as a person who was really deficient in one digit's dexterity (pinkie) and instead of just kinda shrugging it off, I spent many years and sessions trying to bring it up to par. Now I'm happy to say I can really only remember it as a past weakness, due to the focus and attention to improvement!

[TheOtherHobbes]

Analysing your own strengths and weakness is a classic Dunning-Kruger problem - you don't know what you don't know, so you can't assess your work accurately.

You can either fix this by trying to copy what other people do in as many different ways as possible, or having a real expert around to say "No, try this instead."

Doing stuff over and over only helps if you're creatively blocked and are terrified of producing crap. It's a good first step towards building momentum, but it's just a beginning.