Part of the Vanfair worldview dictates that talent is more a result of nurture than nature. This is not to say that nature doesn't bestow on those fortunate individuals enviable talents, merely that nature seems to be play a submajor role in the talent equation. And that cultivation through deliberate practice is what truly brings the effective results.
The rapidly progressing state of neuroscience is confirming the Vanfair worldview. By way of example, the skill of drawing, often ascribed to be a result of God-given talent, can now be taught in an effective way that even the most artistically deficient individuals can learn and even excel.
I'm convinced that the talent-is-innate club is becoming more and more outdated and is a consequence of a childish mentality. Consider the following: when you were a youngster, didn't you believe that talent was more of a result of natural skill than deliberate cultivation? There is a reason why most of us believed that in our youth. The primary reason being that when you were younger, most of your colleagues were talent because of their genetics, given their very limited years of practice. But the older one gets the less relevant genetics become.
In my own experience, I always thought that ambidexterity was a matter of genetics. I am now convinced that anyone can use both hands proficiently. Being ambidextrous is one of my goals that I have amidst a framework of an ambitious Renascence Man program. So if I am able to fulfill that goal, then that will be another confirmation of the Vanfair worldview.