This looks like a good question for Puzzling.SE to me, as it is essentially about puzzling as an act, not about puzzling.SE itself. Is it too broad or opinion based? Perhaps. There are already some good answers in the comments though. Building upon those and sharing my own experience, here's my answer to:
How can I develop the required aptitude for solving puzzles?
It's a big question but I think it a good one that can have a fairly standard, broadly applicable but succinctly put answer.
Summarizing some comments from @TimCouwelier and @Aprough:
Familiarity with puzzle types is important. Honing in on the types of puzzles you are attracted to most, and practicing solving them as well as trying your hand at creating them, will develop familiarity and in-turn aptitude for (that kind of) puzzling.
See what you are drawn to based on your life experiences, prior knowledge, style of learning, personal interests and passions - what are your strengths, and what intrigues you? Let this guide you to practice solving & creating certain types of puzzles, which you can navigate via Puzzling.SE Tags.
Also recognize your weaknesses and what you're disinterested in. In the beginning you probably want to steer clear of these types of puzzles so you can gain momentum developing your overall puzzling aptitude. Eventually you may want to focus on these specifically to become a more well-rounded puzzler.
Lastly, I don't think this question can be answered without at least mention of...
some key features universal to puzzling:
- Inductive reasoning (bottom-up reasoning, like pattern recognition)
The ability to take in observations of high quality and use them to derive overarching patterns in order to reach conclusions.
- Deductive reasoning (top-down reasoning, like pattern/premise application)
The ability to use known patterns with facts at hand in order to reach conclusions.
Both of these have to do with reasoning, or making sense of things in one way or another (for better or worse...) I think both of these can be learned and improved. Below is a link and its concise explanation of these two processes:
Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from known facts to
conclusions. When you reason deductively, you can say “therefore” with
certainty. If your facts were firm to begin with, then your
conclusions will also be firm.
Known Fact: The cut-off date for swim camp registration is June 15. After that date, kids go on a wait list - no exceptions allowed.
Known Fact: You have missed the cut-off to date to register your child by two days.
Conclusion: Your child won’t be registered and her name will go on the wait list.
Inductive reasoning is the process of going from observations to
conclusions. This type of conclusion is sometimes called an inference.
Successful inductive reasoning depends on the quality of your
observations, or evidence.
Observation: Tonya is seen walking from her car to her home with a set of golf clubs.
Observation: Tonya’s husband Jeff loves golf and tomorrow is his birthday.
Conclusion (inference): Tonya has bought the set of golf clubs for
Can you see the difference? Deductive reasoning drives you to a
conclusion based on known facts. Inductive reasoning depends on human
observation.Tonya, after all, may be borrowing the golf clubs. Or she
may have taken up golf herself! You wouldn’t know unless you observed
carefully, and even then, you would have to describe your conclusion
as “probable” but not firm.
This risk of uncertainty in inductive reasoning is why crime scene
investigators must ensure that they have gathered many observations
(evidence) before drawing a conclusion.
However, here’s something interesting. Once CSI’s have biological
evidence of a person at the scene, they can switch back to deductive
reasoning. If it is a known fact that someone’s fingerprints or DNA
identify him or her, then it can be deduced that fingerprint or DNA
evidence at the scene proves the person was there.
So that’s it. Deductive and inductive. It takes both types of
reasoning help us move around this world.