[skipants]

I feel like you're building a strawman of people who would take this study as proof that nature being more effective than nurture. No one commented on such an argument here or within the article. The only allusion the article makes to either is maybe the quote, "Thereby, different procedures may have established in their brains while playing the piano which makes switching between the styles more difficult...", which -- in my opinion -- alludes more to nurture than nature. But it's only her hypothesis and hasn't been accounted for in this study.

I feel like you're spurring some sort of argument that is a non-sequitur to this study.

And to address your argument (yeah, I know, I see the irony here) do you not feel that it's dishonest to not take nature into account? What if a study does say, "99% of lumberjacking is nature compared to nurture." Should we discount it just because it goes against our preconceived notion that we can do anything if we try really hard to achieve it?