> Evidence has been mounting for decades that for most non-sport domains and for most people,“natural talent” is not an absolute requirement for reaching high levels of expertise.

> Other than the sports that depend on specific physical prerequisites, few domains have hard genetic limits for expertise.There is a way in which natural ability might contribute to high expertise in non-athletic domains, but it’s not domain-specific “natural” gifts... it’s a natural ability for focused practice.

…

> Even at the very top levels in most non-sport domains, there’s little evidence that “natural talent” is a hard requirement. But where it might exist, it’s most likely to show up at the beginning of the curve and the very very very top.

(Ask yourself how well the writer could explain monty hall, or regression to the mean, or what's wrong with p-values, to get an idea whether they can possibly have a handle on the material.)

This is probably true for programming too.

But just because something isn't necessary it doesn't imply there is a correlation.

It's the causation that's interesting, though: do gymnasts become coordinated through practice, or do the most coordinated people go into gymnastics? I think the OP is arguing the former, and I think I agree. In that case, programming is not unique re: intelligence.

That was never claimed but a different claim:

FACT: The groups of people that work in certain professions definitely have _average_ differences in IQ if we can accept that IQ exists.

That is NOT to say that any individual mathematician can say that he or she is more intelligent that the rest of the population.

Understand the difference.