This is my understanding of chess improvement

You improve with:

1) Passion or love of the game (this is not something a person can choose for themselves)
2) Systematic work

Systematic work is broken into the following areas:

1) Study
2) Playing long games (preferably over the board tournament games) and analyzing them
3) Drills

Study is broken into the following areas:

1) Tactics
2a) Endgames
2b) Strategy
3) annotated game collection (GM games)
4) Openings

(these are listed in the order you should do them. Tactics first. Endgame or strategy next)

Drills are broken into the following areas:

1) Solving tactic puzzles (this is part of tactic study)
2) Solving endgame puzzles (this is part of endgame study)
3) Reviewing your memorized opening repertoire (this is part of opening study)

Hmm, ok.

There's also a psychological filter that's hard to quantify. Nobody gets good at chess without first losing countless games. In order to persevere long enough to "get good", a player must have enough psychological resilience to bounce back from not just one defeat, but many.

I guess I think of that as part of the passion, but I agree.

When I was new it was back in the days of Yahoo! chess.

I played for 3 years before getting my win/loss record to 50%

So blitz doesn't really help does it?

Blitz can improve your tactical alertness, but slow games are better for broadening your tactical repertoire. 

I've been meaning to write a blog post about this for awhile now, but I believe chess improvement ultimately comes down to two things: understanding and, for lack of a better word, tactics.

If you watch a brand new player, they make moves randomly.  The moves have no flow, no rhyme or reason.  Such a player has zero understanding (obviously, because they are brand new!).  Over time, this starts to get get better.  You can see logic behind the moves, such as Rooks going to open files and pieces lining up against the opposing King.  In short, as this understanding increases, a player increasingly knows what to do in most situations.

The second stage is tactics.  If the above is knowing what to do, then this one means knowing how to do it.  This refers to basic tactics like forks and pins, but it's also something more: how to use your time effectively in the opening, for instance.  Take the following:

Perhaps the best term to use is 'accuracy.'  White is being more accurate above.  Accuracy involves not just calculating direct combinations, but also more subtle things, such as securing an outpost, claiming an open file, even prophylaxis.

This is why, in my opinion, you can study tactics after tactics and yet not improve after a certain level.  Specific tactics are only a part of what it means to be accurate, which is only part of what determines your chess ability.

Conversely, if you're really good at being accurate, but you don't know what to do in closed positions (say), then that can't properly use your skills.  You can't aim if you don't know where you are shooting.

Anyway, chess improvement comes down to improving our understanding and our accuracy. Understanding is gained by observing how skilled players handle certain positions, so chiefly reviewing master games with annotations (to explain what is going on).  Accuracy is improved through pattern recognition (can be done quickly) and deep study/calculation of key positions (must be done slowly).

This model leaves out concrete knowledge, so opening and endgame theory, but it focuses on the main problem a chess player faces: how do I find the best move in a given position?  By improving your understanding and honing your accuracy.  As such, the bulk of your training (80%+) should be spent here (master games, tactical pattern recognition, deep study of critical positions).

That's my take, at least.  I'll write it up in a more coherent and persuasive blog post at some point.

I guess I was trying to give an outline for the... types of things (god what awful phrasing) while trying to stay away from specific instances. I'm trying to give the broadest look at the categories. At the very top level, just two things: passion and work.

Further down, that's why I say something broad like "endgame" and I try not to say things like "read about rook endgames, solve rook endgame puzzles, play over Capa's rook endgames, etc"

Definitely, but as a totally new player it would have been nice to have an outline.

I guess this is more a message to my past self than anything.

The people with passion might see this... or might not. Either way they'll improve because as you said, they're the one who are doing stuff.