There is a science on talent development, famously popularized in part by Malcolm Gladwell in his over-simplification of the "10,000 hour rule," which he presented as "do something for 10K hours and you'll have mastered it." In fact K. Anders Ericsson maintained that the difference between the highest achieving musicians and the next tiers of achievement were associated with higher volume of _deliberate practice_. The differences were significant around 10,000 hrs. A later meta-analysis looked at the literature and found that practice accounted for far less of the measurable factors that explained the difference in outcomes - maybe just 12% or so.
I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume.
If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors.
The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.
I think the take-away from these discrepant studies of talent development is that it's a complex phenomenon likely involving genetic predisposition, other factors that influence neural "wiring", availability of opportunities to learn and develop (socioeconomic factors), and practice quality and volume.
If alignment is involved, it's alignment of these factors.
The caveat behind all of this is that the research is heavily focused on the factors that propel one into the high reaches of achievement. For example, Ericsson studied students in acclaimed conservatories. How these factors play out in how talent develops in "good-enough" practitioners is perhaps a different question.