I liked the original article, it was a useful idea for someone with aspirations to be great. The core takeaway for me was simply this: thinking about talent is counterproductive. If you think you have no talent then you are prone to give up, if you think you have lots of talent you are prone to coast. The only way to be your best is through deliberate and focused hard work.

This article undermines that idea by thinking too much about talent. Look, if you work really hard at something for a long time, and discover that you don't enjoy it or you just aren't any good at it, it's okay to conclude you have no talent for it and to move on. But if you are trying to be better at something, philosophizing or even reading science about talent is pointless wanking that will certainly prevent you from actually doing the work to become great.

He starts out saying he wasn't making a scientific essay, just an emotional one. And then he goes on to try to make it scientific.

He talks about international chess players, and how long the average person takes to get there, versus those with 'talent'. He then compares some famous players (without proving they have 'talent') to the average. They got there 10% quicker than the average (which includes 'talented' people, but that's not significant in his mind. That's not science. That's just picking some stats and pretending they mean what you say they mean.

I'm sure I could pick stats that 'prove' the opposite if I spent some time looking. I've got a friend who recently started painting and is mind-blowingly good compared to other students who have studied about as long, for example.

I wasn't comparing some average people with talented people. I was simply showing that it takes time to reach a certain level of expertise. This implies that even if you have a talent, you'll still have to invest a lot of time.

"A friend" is not stats. This is stats:

Long periods of necessary preparation can also be inferred for writers and scientists, although the starting point of their careers is more difficult to determine. Scientists have reported that they made a career decision during their middle or late teens, whereas they most often published a truly major contribution one or two decades later (Lehmann, 1953). Raskin (1936), who analyzed the 120 most important scientists and 123 most famous poets and authors in the 19th century, found that the average age at which scientists published their first work was 25.2; poets and authors published their first work at the average age of 24.2. Moreover, many years of preparation preceded first publication. The average ages at which the same individuals produced their greatest work were 35.4 for scientists and 34.3 for poets and authors. That is, on average, more than 10 years elapsed between these scientists' and authors' first work and their best work. In many other domains, the highest level of expert performance is displayed by individuals with more than 10 years of experience: evaluation of livestock (Phelps & Shanteau, 1978), diagnosis of X-rays (Lesgold, 1984), and medical diagnosis (Patel & Groen, 1991). This evidence is consistent with Gallon's (1869/1979) claim that motivation and perseverance are necessary for attainment of eminent performance.

The title is misleading; even he admits there is talent. Sure, it's overplayed how much it matters, but that doesn't mean it needs to be exaggerated from the other end of the spectrum.