This argument would be great if you actually had any substance to back up your claims, without it you're not really arguing against anything. Perhaps I linked to a book written by a journalist because it's more accessible, and thus more helpful/actionable than published scientific papers? If math is difficult to grasp for some people, why would journal articles be any better? Not to mention that maybe the book itself has professional/scientific citations in case you were really interested in learning more?

Neuroscience supports the ability to acquire skills. The combination of epigenetics, GMOs, neuroplasticity, and many other advances make it even more apparent that adjusting ourselves is possible; even without a 'free will'[1].

If people don't feel like trying to learn/improve, that's fine; but they shouldn't try going around loosely justifying their actions with 'science' just because it makes themselves feel better.

[1] I only bring this up because determinism seems to be the biggest argument against this for some reason, but it really doesn't counter anything. Hell, I actually agree with it, and have written on the matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6235628