Professional scientists studying hypnosis observe that specific training can alter the hypnotic responsiveness from low to high in as much as 50% of cases.

Indeed. What's particularly important if you're after results, rather than theories, is that just because those other 50% didn't go from low to high, doesn't mean that there wasn't some different form, approach, environment, or method of training that wouldn't have produced the same result!

IOW, if the training they tested was 100% identical for each person, then the odds that the other 50% were still trainable is extremely high.

(And since most generative (as opposed to therapeutic) self-help techniques implicitly rely on the same brain functions that are used in hypnosis (monoidealistic imagination and ideomotor or ideosensory responses), this means that the same things can be made to work for everyone, provided you can train the basic skill.)

I have become convinced over time that there is a far greater heritability component than I would have liked.

Robert Fritz once wrote something about how if you're 5'3" you're not going to be able to win the NBA dunking contest... and then somebody did just that. It ain't what you've got, it's what you do with what you have got.

(Disclaimer: I don't remember the winner's name or even if 5'3" was the actual height.)

It's also rare that any quality we're born with is all bad or all good; what gives with one hand takes away with the other, and vice versa. The catch is to find the way that works for you.

Some of my students work better with images, some with sounds, others still with feelings. Some have to write things down, I like to talk things out. These are all really superficial differences, because the steps in the processes are still basically the same. Also, even though my wife is more "auditory" than I am, and doesn't visualize as well consciously... that doesn't mean she can't. (Over the last few years, she's gradually gotten better at doing processes that involve more visual elements.)

(Also, we've actually tried swapping around our usual modes of cognition for a day or two, which was interesting. When she took on my processing stack, we got along better, but when I took on hers, I was really stressed and depressed... but I had a lot more sympathy for some of her moods after that!)

On the positive side, the importance of 'natural talent' in aquiring expert skills is one area where the genetic component tends to be overestimated most of the time. When it comes to aquiring specialised skills, consistent effortful practice makes all the difference and natural talent is almost irrelevant.

Absolutely! Dweck's fixed and growth mindsets are absolutely central to my work. I used to call them "naturally struggling" and "naturally successful" -- well, I still do for marketing reasons. But Dweck showed with brilliant clarity where the mindsets come from: struggle results from believing that your ability in any area is a fixed quantity, rather than a variable one under your personal control.

If somebody wants a scientifically validated reason to believe what I'm saying in this thread, they need look no further than Dweck's mindsets research. It offers compelling scientific verification of the idea that thinking your ability is fixed really IS "dumbass loser" thinking!