In this commentary, the author focuses on the claim summarized in the last sentence of the target article's abstract. To begin, the concept of talent does not require the existence of "innate constraints to the attainment of elite achievement". On the contrary, genetic endowment may merely influence the rate at which domain-specific expertise is acquired without imposing any upper or lower bounds on attainment. Thus, empirical research indicates that outstanding creative individuals require less time to master the requisite knowledge and skill than do less creative individuals (Simonton, 2000). In addition, talent may affect the magnitude of performance for individuals with the same acquired level of expertise. Talented persons may "get more bang for the buck" out of a given quantity of declarative and procedural knowledge. But, again, this enhancement effect does not amount to the imposition of any "innate constraints". An even more fundamental problem is that the authors completely ignore the strong evidence for genetic contributions to both creativity and leadership--two prominent types of distinguished accomplishment. This evidence emerges from a pair of well-established findings: (a) these attainments are associated with a distinctive profile of intellectual and dispositional traits; and (b) the latter traits almost invariably have sizable heritabilities. Given those facts, it logically follows that some portion of those achievements must have a genetic basis. The only issue is the magnitude of the genetic contribution.