I'm not convinced anyone can just work at it and get to top 95%, or even top 75%, or even top 50% at any activity. There is a ton of selecting going on that keeps people who do not have some amount of talent from even attempting to get close. I've played a decent amount of first person shooters and RTS games and I am decent but I have friends who play less and are more talented than me. Given similar practice regimens and training/feedback, I'm pretty sure they would always get higher than me in the rankings. All that to say, I don't think that simply anyone who works at it can get to the top 95% in any random activity.

> Given similar practice regimens and training/feedback,

But that's the point, I think.

Sure, "natural talent" might lead to a reduction in necessary practice time, but what if you spent 1.5x or 2x or 3x the time, or used a different practice method that was more suited to your needs?

I believe I am one of those people who just needed more time, and I've seen success. It was definitely demotivating watching others improve faster or seemingly not need improvement at all, it just came to them naturally. But I have an obsession, which led to me being very methodical about practice, time, etc. And it worked out.

Not just anyone, only those with already existing natural talent.

If something comes very easy to you then you may believe that it's that easy for everyone. It's not. This is the fallacy of the author - he should try to get to 95th percentile doing something brand new that they don't have a natural talent for to understand how very wrong they are.

I found learning to programming extremely easy but my best friend just couldn't grasp it even though she tried much harder than I did and we were in exactly the same class. OTOH she bought a guitar and taught herself to play it without even trying whereas I couldn't play more than a couple notes even with years of music lessons.