I think there is no debate that nature plays a role whether you have a talent for math, piano or running.
So in the end, how can you judge who is more talented, the giftie who didn't want to do the work or the less gifted who did the work and achieved greater results?
I think that these ideas are exploited people like Malcolm Gladwell and educators who claim that everyone evens out by third grade. They twist your first statement and end up confusing people. The result is bogus arguments. No one is claiming that practice doesn't matter. The OP's paper (and many others) found that practice is important but that giftedness is an entry requirement.
People like Gladwell would have us believe that 10,000 hours of practice is what matters. These ideas sell because (IMO), they make people feel good.
I could be a great artist/athlete/musician/physicist if only I had practiced for 10,000 hours. But I didn't and that was my choice. Tiger parents would presumably love this argument because it gives them permission to force their hapless offspring to keep practicing piano at midnight. Gladwell lets everyone ignore the elephant in the room, which is that talent matters.
