In contrast to the essay, my hypothesis is currently that interest is developed. I used to be in the 'born talented camp', but then after reading Peak, The Talent Code, and other books on the subject (and essentially reviewing the research) I developed a 'born interested' hypothesis. In other words, some are born with innate interests that drive them toward deep and intense practice, developing skills and abilities or knowledge, that make them 'outliers'. Peak touches on this subject, and while it is certainly true that some level of interest is inherent, the (preliminary?) evidence is that this is only an inclination.

My personal experience (speaking as someone who is somewhat of an expert in a rather obscure oceanographic sub-field) is that the development of talent and interest (can) go hand in hand. You dig in, develop some skills, this opens up some possibilities that encourage (and provide encouragement) for you to develop further interest and further abilities, etc. The most radical form of the hypothesis is that we can develop a deep interest in almost anything. The 20 yr old me had no interest in the things that I am deeply interested in now.

For parents and future parents I will note that in contrast to PG's suggestion, having children has been a significant motivator and my best work has resulted in part from the desire to provide for them. It was also produced during the last 10 yrs that I have been a parent. I am far from any kind of genius or outlier however, and it seems likely that the time required to be one would conflict with the time spent raising children.

Overall, the evidence is that the brain is extremely pliable, that elite performers in any field put in many intensive hours of practice, and that to some extent their deep interest in their field developed over time. Perhaps conclusive research about the innateness of interest is out there. In the mean time, I also experiment with encouraging the depths of my children's interests.