I am currently self-learning quantum mechanics with A Textbook of Quantum Mechanics Second Edition by P. M. Matthews and K. Venkatesan.
In Example 3.15 on p. 105, the author proved $\left<T\right>=\frac12\left<\textbf x\cdot\nabla V\right>$ in any stationary state, where $T$ is the kinetic energy operator, $\textbf x$ is the position vector, $V(\textbf x)$ is the potential and $\left<\cdot\right>$ is the expectation value. The proof goes like this:
For any operator $A$ not explicitly dependent on $t$, $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left<A\right>=0$ in a stationary state.
Combining Schrodinger's equation $i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\psi=H\psi$ and the definition of $\frac{d}{dt} \left<A\right>$, one gets $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left<A\right>=\left<\frac1{i\hbar}[A,H]\right>$$ where $[A,H]$ is the commutator $AH-HA$.
Hence one concludes that $\left<[A,H]\right>=0$.
Then the author considered a strange operator $$A=\textbf x\cdot\textbf p=-i\hbar\sum_{i}x_i\partial_{x_i}.$$
After going through some algebra one arrives at $[A,H]=i\hbar(2T-\mathbf x\cdot\nabla V)$ and thus the desired conclusion follows.
What I am particularly uncomfortable with is step 4: how could one come up with such a choice of operator, given that it has no obvious connections to the statement that we are proving? So, how could one give a more natural proof, ideally starting with $$\left<T\right>=\int \psi^*\left(-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\nabla^2\right)\psi \,d^3x~?$$
Aside of this, how could I understand $\left<T\right>=\frac12\left<\textbf x\cdot\nabla V\right>$ intuitively?