I agree with this. However if you accept that the circumstances of a society's existence are highly variable too, that each of the many different genetic outcom

I agree with this. However if you accept that the circumstances of a society's existence are highly variable too, that each of the many different genetic outcomes you speak of is relevant only under very specific circumstances, then we could have a situation where a "talent" is viable at some times, and not viable at others. In that case, we have an evolutionary interest in maintaining many different talents, many of which will remain latent/unused, in our multi-individual society, until circumstances wish? Furthermore, and unrelated, it is also my personal opinion that highly "talented" people in the definition that society places on the word, often have deficiencies in terms of other prerequisites for success. It's a bit of a zero-sum game in some ways. I happen to be an excellent mathematician, but I massively envy the (far less inspired) discipline that one of my colleagues has allowing him to be much more effective in the day to day grind of business. Basically, I'm highly talented by most definitions, more than him (again by the societal definition) but I'm not very effective at making money in a world where that seems to be the scoreboard. Try as I might, I just do not have his work ethic. I just cannot do it. So who has the talent? Him or me?