[tgv]

It's so obvious. Someone born without legs will not be able to run, no matter how much he or she imagines being a runner. When we can't see the thing that obviously explains such a discrepancy, we call it "talent." In many cases, a large part of that is cognitive, and it's not fashionable to think of cognitive abilities as innate, or worse, genetic. Hence the wishful thinking that you're born tabula rasa and can good at anything for which there's no obvious physical hindrance.

It's also not clear that what the "baseline" is for many accomplishments. Perhaps 80% of the population has some musical talent, perhaps 20%. I don't rate the improvisation on his blog highly. Noodling without development, a weak left hand, and questionable rhythm.

[card_zero]

It's so obvious, this invisible thing? Seems to me the wishful thinking could go either way here, and you could build a whole imaginary castle of hidden innate abilities, since they're hidden.

[tgv]

> could go either way

Why do innate differences stop at the brain-blood barrier? Isn't it quite reasonable to assume that physical, biological differences exist everywhere in the body, since birth? A priori there's no reason for assuming otherwise.

There's enough evidence that intelligence is partially heritedary. It's also obvious that there are differences between people who dedicate themselves to their hobbies and profession, well beyond the 10k hours.

If it could the other way, why isn't there an endless stream of Einsteins and Newtons? Are all physicists lazy?

That "castle of hidden abilities" exists, BTW, even though it's usually focussed on short-comings. Our genes are quite hidden, and determine a great deal of our capabilities and lack thereof.

[card_zero]

Well, maybe it's quite a small castle. You don't know.