I feel like some people are made to go deep in their work, perfectionists, researchers. They will build something bugless, beautiful, go deep into something until it's perfect. But they will struggle raising their head and looking around, wondering about the purpose of what they're doing, and potentially questioning it. These are great technical team members, crucial to solve very hard technical questions. I would correlate this group with high quantitative intelligence. It's also more common in technical roles.
Then there are other people who really struggle to stay focused on a single challenge for a long time. People who need faster feedback loops and faster tasks, who cannot go as deep. People who are able to see the big picture, wonder about the purpose of what is being done, and question it. These people thrive in scenarios where speed matters more than perfection, and where, instead of keeping the direction for a long time, continuous adjustments are needed. They are crucial to drive projects in the correct direction toward the final goal. I would correlate this group with high emotional intelligence. It's also more common in managerial roles.
Clearly I am strongly over-simplifying by only categorizing people in two groups, but I feel it's extremely important for everyone to learn about themselves and their approximate position in the spectrum. One can force oneself to be in either group, but my intuition is that we are naturally drawn to one of the two. Is it nature or nurture? Who am I to say. But at 23, my guess is that you are already much better suited for one of the two types of work. So if it's nurture, you are shaped when you're young.
Doing the type of work in line with your nature feels like magic. It is often (not always) effortless, and you get bursts of excitement and energy that drive you forward. The likelihood of exceeding expectations is much higher, you start to feel the drive to exceed them, not merely to meet them.
Forcing yourself to do the opposite type of work is frustrating. You will likely underperform and enter a vicious cycle. If you're smart, you can still do ok, but if you're smart, you know you could do much better with another type of task.
There are environments where the majority of people need to be of the first type, and others where the majority need to be of the second. In a research team, either in a company or in academia, where the primary goal is to solve hard scientific problems, you need many of the first kind. People who will spend day and night for months on the same problem to figure out a solution.
In a non-deep-tech startup, you need people who easily and quickly understand what needs to be done and execute it. People who are very fast learners and able to quickly switch task, context, and environment and still perform.