[AStellersSeaCow]

You seem to be mixing and matching hardworking vs. curious, incremental improvement vs. innovation, and results-oriented vs. process-oriented, all of which are completely different topics.

Saying hard work is ego driven while curiosity has some more noble, ineffable motivation is the exact same sort of BS I was decrying before. Hard work can just as well be driven by a sense of responsibility, a desire for more predictable outcomes, or faith, while curiosity/playfulness can be an ego-saving measure to offset mediocrity that the person can't or won't work past. Neither is more morally right, imo.

But to meander back to the core of the discussion, I don't think it's possible to become notably good at anything without at least some motivation towards self-improvement and foundational skills. People who ride playfulness and curiosity into lasting renown are able to do so because they have some degree of mastery of the fundamentals. Some people manage to earn lasting renown without much curiosity or playfulness, just a single-minded drive towards mastering known techniques.

Few to no people have ever earned lasting renown by noodling around in a field they had zero grounding in until they randomly struck gold. Some have earned infamy with that approach, but that's a different topic.

[balabaster]

> Some have earned infamy with that approach, but that's a different topic.

Anyone notable? I'd be interested to read about those... and if the striking of gold was truly random or if it was something else.

[AStellersSeaCow]

Mostly thinking the "so noxiously but unusually bad it's briefly popular" type of creative output by people clearly lacking in much grounding or practice in their fields. 'Singers' like William Hung, 'writers' like Gene Ray, 'filmmakers' like Tommy Wiseau, or 'actors' like Robert Coates.