You say the author must be wrong because of lack of compelling evidence, and then you propose the opposite without any evidence. Why does it have to be confirmed either way? Why can't you admit you just don't know?
It seems to me that by going into things with the idea that you know something that you don't is just limiting your own ability to discover new information about it. Reality is a complicated landscape. By simplifying every question into a predefined yes or no, you are providing a disservice to yourself, and by espousing it vehemently enough so that others believe you, you are also providing them with a disservice.
Part of the problem is that if you admit the idea talent plays a primary role in success, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Research by Carol Dweck has shown that people's own belief in their ability to improve strongly predicts their actual improvement.
Given things like talent hot zones and the Polgar sisters, which to me demonstrate talent isn't a big deal, the level of evidence needed to change my mind is going to be very high. Particularly since believing in talent is so maladaptive. The only benefit to a belief in talent is ego protection for those who live in mediocrity.
Then the idea that belief becomes a self fulfilling prophecy should be explored and understood.
That one poorly understood idea (nature vs nurture) affects another poorly understood idea (that belief of something may help cause it to be true) and may somehow harm you is no reason not to explore them both, since you'll just stagnate.
How exactly am I stagnating by not lending plausibility (and thus some tacit acceptance) to a demonstrably self-limiting belief absent absolutely iron-clad evidence in its favor? I'm not a research psychologist who makes a living or derives self-worth studying expertise.
Remember, I'm not completely discounting talent and fostering unrealistic expectations. In fact, I explicitly stated I believe talent is necessary to succeed at the highest level (i.e. medaling at the olympics). I just think even if you are un-talented, if you do everything right you can still be in the ~97-99th percentile in terms of ability (depending on the activity) which is objectively still pretty awesome.
It seems to me that by going into things with the idea that you know something that you don't is just limiting your own ability to discover new information about it. Reality is a complicated landscape. By simplifying every question into a predefined yes or no, you are providing a disservice to yourself, and by espousing it vehemently enough so that others believe you, you are also providing them with a disservice.
End of rant.