I coach people in these circumstances. In most cases they simply lack a model for what constitutes a hobby-type skill vs. what constitutes a full-time+-type skill. They don't know how to tell the difference without diving in and trying it. And I sympathize, having done that myself.
IMO a really basic helpful model is: 1) thing I could do in my sleep and still amaze people with OR make money with == means of making a living and 2) thing that excites me and yet always seems just out of reach == hobby.
However the devil is in the details and you cannot by easily diminish the excitement of #2 (above) because you risk becoming the enemy just by suggesting that it not be prized above all other work. So there are other models which must be skillfully employed to help tease out this comprehension. It's kind of a minefield, actually.
Regarding 1) thing I could do in my sleep and still amaze people.
It is a bit dangerous to be unconsciously good (ie in my sleep) at something and think that you can make money with it.
Let's take something like chess. Unless you are a TOP 10 player, you are not going to be making a good living from chess unless you go into secondary sources of income: teaching,writing, coaching. Source: as a master I know many poor grandmasters.
So there has to be a market demand for the skill that you have deliberately practiced to be unconsciously good at.
Yes, this is a good example of what I consider the fundamental work to be done in the area of #1. A lot of career books and tools aim at this kind of approach as well. I also use a Role/Group/Reward model that makes it clear that even if you have an offer on the table where you'd be playing chess for great money, you still have inquiries to make.
Maybe it would help if the term "hobby" managed to lose its stigma of "uptight, unproductive nonsense". A substantial part of today's (open source) software landscape has begun as work from hobbyists. There are hobbies (like cosplay or - yes game development) which take enormous dedication, manage to amaze a lot of people and, in rare cases, can make the hobbyist famous.
Nevertheless, those are usually not the things you spontaneously think of when you hear the term. So maybe untangling the different motivations and giving more value to things that are not immediately meant to make a living could help to make a change.
IMO a really basic helpful model is: 1) thing I could do in my sleep and still amaze people with OR make money with == means of making a living and 2) thing that excites me and yet always seems just out of reach == hobby.
However the devil is in the details and you cannot by easily diminish the excitement of #2 (above) because you risk becoming the enemy just by suggesting that it not be prized above all other work. So there are other models which must be skillfully employed to help tease out this comprehension. It's kind of a minefield, actually.